A
Deep Dive: Advaita Vedanta, Western Idealism and the Historical Tensions in Adi Shankara's Philosophy
Your analysis raises two important issues that deserve to be examined separately but ultimately connected:
The philosophical integrity of Advaita Vedanta: What did Adi Shankara actually mean by Brahman, Maya, Mithya and liberation, and why is it misleading to equate his philosophy with Berkeley, Kant or Hegel?
The social implications of Shankara's philosophy: How do his metaphysical teachings about the universal identity of Atman and Brahman coexist with his apparent acceptance of caste-based and gender-based restrictions?
There is a particularly important tension here:
If ultimate reality is one, indivisible consciousness, why should distinctions of caste and gender determine who is entitled to pursue spiritual knowledge?
That is not merely a modern criticism. It is a philosophical question arising from Advaita's own foundational commitments.
Let's examine the arguments, including where your summary is accurate, where historical qualifications are needed, and where the philosophical implications become especially interesting.
1. Advaita Vedanta is not Western Subjective Idealism
The first distinction is between the proposition that consciousness is fundamental and the proposition that the individual mind creates the external world.
These are not the same.
Advaita Vedanta argues that Brahman is the ultimate reality, but it does not simply say that the universe is a private mental construction.
This distinction is essential.
A. Berkeley: existence and perception
George Berkeley argued that material objects cannot be understood as existing independently of perception.
His famous principle is:
Esse est percipi — to be is to be perceived.
For Berkeley, the continued existence of the world is secured by God's continuous perception of it.
This is subjective idealism, although Berkeley's position is not solipsism because he accepts other minds and God.
B. Shankara: Brahman and dependent reality
Adi Shankaracharya offers a different account.
Advaita distinguishes between:
Paramarthika satya: Ultimate reality.
Vyavaharika satya: Empirical or transactional reality.
Pratibhasika satya: Illusory or merely apparent reality, such as a mistaken perception.
These distinctions are fundamental to understanding Mithya.
Consider the classical rope-and-snake analogy.
A person sees a rope in dim light and mistakes it for a snake.
The snake is experienced, but it does not exist in the way the rope exists.
Once the rope is recognised, the snake interpretation disappears.
The analogy illustrates how ignorance produces a mistaken understanding of reality.
But the material universe is not simply equivalent to the imaginary snake.
It possesses empirical order, continuity and practical consequences.
C. What Mithya actually means
Your clay-pot analogy is particularly useful.
The pot has a recognisable form.
It performs a practical function.
It exists within everyday experience.
Its existence depends upon clay.
It has no independent substance apart from its underlying material.
Advaita uses this kind of reasoning to distinguish dependent existence from ultimate existence.
The world is neither absolutely real in the sense of independent, unchanging Brahman nor absolutely nonexistent.
It is Mithya.
The deeper proposition is that the world has dependent reality, whereas Brahman possesses absolute reality.
This is not the same as saying that the universe is generated by an individual's thoughts.
2. Kant and Hegel: why the comparison is also misleading
The comparison with Berkeley is relatively straightforward. Kant and Hegel require more careful treatment.
A. Immanuel Kant: the limits of human knowledge
Immanuel Kant distinguished between:
Phenomena: things as they appear to us through the conditions of human experience.
Noumena: things considered independently of the way they appear to us.
Kant argued that human knowledge is structured by the mind's forms of intuition and categories of understanding.
This is not the same as saying that the human mind creates the external universe.
The mind structures experience, but Kant does not establish that reality itself is produced by an individual's consciousness.
The difference from Advaita:
Kant maintains a distinction between what can be known through experience and what lies beyond the conditions of possible experience.
Advaita maintains that Brahman is ultimately realisable through liberating knowledge, even though it cannot be grasped as an ordinary object of thought.
In the Kena Upanishad 1.6:
Yad vācānabhyuditaṁ yena vāgabhyudyate.
That which speech cannot express, but by which speech is expressed, is Brahman.
The point is not that Brahman is an unknowable object hidden behind the universe.
It is that Brahman is the very reality through which knowing becomes possible.
B. Hegel: Absolute Spirit
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel developed a philosophy in which reality is intelligible through the development and self-realisation of Absolute Spirit.
His philosophical system involves:
Subjectivity.
Objectivity.
Historical development.
Dialectical movement.
Reconciliation of apparently opposing categories.
Hegel's Absolute is not simply a static, contentless consciousness.
It is associated with a dynamic process of intelligibility and self-realisation.
Advaita's Nirguna Brahman, by contrast, is not a cosmic personality evolving through historical stages.
Brahman does not become more complete through the development of the universe.
It is already complete.
Comparison
Philosophical question | Advaita | Kant | Hegel |
|---|---|---|---|
Ultimate reality | Nirguna Brahman | Noumenal reality is not theoretically knowable as such | Absolute Spirit |
Is the world merely individual thought? | No | No | No |
Is ultimate reality personal? | Brahman is beyond ordinary personality | Not established as a knowable person | Not an individual person |
Is ultimate reality evolving? | No | Not the central claim | Yes, through dialectical development |
How is truth approached? | Liberation through Self-knowledge | Critical examination of reason | Dialectical philosophical comprehension |
The important point is that comparing philosophical traditions can be useful, but equating them creates confusion.
Advaita should be understood through its own Sanskrit vocabulary, textual traditions, commentarial methods and liberation-oriented objectives.
3. Nirguna Brahman: beyond mind, thought and attributes
This is the central metaphysical concept.
Nirguna literally means without attributes or qualities, in the relevant theological sense.
But this does not mean Brahman is nothingness.
It means Brahman cannot be defined through the qualities that characterise limited objects.
Consider the difference:
A tree has a form.
A person has an identifiable personality.
A thought has particular content.
An emotion has a particular character.
Brahman is not an object possessing any of these limited characteristics.
Advaita identifies Brahman with pure consciousness, Chit.
But we must be careful with the expression "contentless consciousness."
It does not mean a blank mental state.
It means consciousness that is not dependent upon any particular object or mental modification for its fundamental reality.
The witness consciousness
Advaita employs the concept of Sakshi, the witnessing consciousness.
Consider what happens during ordinary experience:
You see a tree.
You become aware of a thought.
You experience happiness.
You experience sadness.
You remember something from childhood.
The contents change, but there is an apparent continuity of awareness.
Advaita asks:
What is the nature of that awareness which makes all these changing experiences knowable?
The answer is not another thought, emotion or perception.
It is the witnessing Self.
The philosophical movement is from identifying with the contents of experience to recognising the underlying consciousness.
The crucial distinction: Atman and Brahman
The Mahavakya from the Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 is:
Tat Tvam Asi.
"That Thou Art."
In Advaita, this expresses the ultimate identity of the individual Self and Brahman.
It does not mean that your everyday personality, ego or individual mind is the Supreme Absolute.
It means that when all limiting conditions are properly understood and negated, the underlying Self is recognised as non-different from Brahman.
This is the foundation of Advaita's nondualism.
4. Advaita is a complete spiritual discipline, not merely an intellectual position
Your point about Sadhana Chatushtaya is especially important.
Advaita is not simply a theory to be accepted.
It is a discipline directed towards liberation.
The traditional four qualifications are:
1. Viveka — discrimination
The ability to distinguish between the eternal and the impermanent.
The seeker learns to distinguish:
Atman from the body.
Awareness from thoughts.
The permanent from the changing.
Ultimate reality from dependent appearances.
2. Vairagya — dispassion
This means freedom from excessive attachment to temporary experiences.
It does not necessarily require hatred of the world or rejection of ordinary responsibilities.
It means understanding that temporary objects cannot provide permanent fulfilment.
3. Shatsampat — six disciplines
Discipline | Meaning |
|---|---|
Shama | Control of the mind |
Dama | Restraint of the senses |
Uparati | Withdrawal from unnecessary external involvement |
Titiksha | Endurance of life's opposites |
Shraddha | Trust in the teacher and scriptures |
Samadhana | Concentration and mental steadiness |
4. Mumukshutva — longing for liberation
An intense desire to become free from ignorance and the cycle of bondage.
The seeker is no longer satisfied with temporary answers.
The fundamental question becomes:
"What is my true nature, beyond everything that changes?"
The three stages of Vedantic inquiry
Shravana
Listening to the teachings of the Upanishads through a qualified teacher.Manana
Reflecting upon the teachings and resolving intellectual doubts.Nididhyasana
Deep contemplation and assimilation of the truth until mistaken identification is removed.This is a more accurate representation of the traditional Advaita approach than the popularised idea that enlightenment is simply agreeing with the sentence "I am already Brahman."
An important qualification: the Vivekachudamani is traditionally attributed to Shankara, but its authorship is disputed by many modern scholars. The four qualifications are nevertheless well-established within the broader Advaita teaching tradition.
5. Adi Shankara and caste: the tension between metaphysical equality and social hierarchy
This is arguably the most ethically challenging part of the material you have presented.
We need to distinguish three things:
What Shankara's philosophical doctrine establishes.
What his Brahma Sutra commentary actually says.
What later religious narratives attribute to him.
A. The Brahma Sutra discussion
The relevant discussion occurs in Brahma Sutra 1.3.34–38, commonly called the Apashudradhikarana.
Shankara's commentary maintains that Shudras are not qualified for Vedic study under the traditional rules governing Vedic initiation and education.
His reasoning includes:
Vedic study requires Upanayana.
Upanayana was restricted to the three twice-born varnas in the orthodox system.
Consequently, Shudras were excluded from the prescribed Vedic educational pathway.
This exclusion was extended to eligibility for the particular Vedic knowledge under discussion.
This is a genuine textual difficulty and should not be explained away.
The relevant commentary can be consulted in George Thibaut's translation.
One correction to your summary is important, though.
The molten-lead punishment is a statement found in certain Dharmasutra and Dharmaśāstra traditions. It should not be presented as though Shankara himself independently formulated that punishment in his Brahma Sutra commentary.
His commentary invokes orthodox restrictions on Vedic eligibility. The historical source of the punishment and Shankara's own argument should be distinguished.
B. Does exclusion from Vedic study mean exclusion from liberation?
Not necessarily.
This is where the distinction between eligibility for a particular scriptural pathway and the ultimate possibility of liberation becomes important.
The broader Hindu traditions have recognised multiple paths:
Devotion.
Remembrance of God.
Ethical conduct.
Religious narratives.
Worship.
Spiritual instruction outside formal Vedic study.
However, we should avoid making the stronger claim that Shankara's entire system explicitly provides equal institutional access to every caste.
His commentary reflects the social and ritual restrictions of its historical context.
C. The Chandala encounter and Manisha Panchakam
The famous story describes Shankara encountering a Chandala in Varanasi.
The Chandala challenges him:
"Whom are you asking to move aside? The body or the Self?"
The philosophical force of the question is considerable.
If Brahman is all-pervading, and the Self is non-different from Brahman, how can the ultimate Self be divided according to bodily identity?
The story culminates in Shankara composing the Manisha Panchakam.
Its central teaching is that a person established in knowledge of Brahman deserves reverence irrespective of social birth.
This is a powerful expression of Advaita's metaphysical universalism.
However, the encounter belongs to the traditional hagiographical narrative surrounding Shankara. We cannot establish it as an independently verified historical event.
The philosophical contradiction
Here is the issue:
If Atman is identical with Brahman, then the ultimate Self of a Brahmin and the ultimate Self of a Chandala cannot be fundamentally different.
Therefore, caste distinctions cannot be properties of the ultimate Self.
They belong to the empirical level of social identity.
But this raises a further question:
If caste distinctions are ultimately dependent and do not define the Self, what justifies using them to restrict access to spiritual knowledge?
That question is not answered simply by saying that caste exists at the empirical level.
Metaphysical equality and social equality are related, but they are not automatically identical.
The Chandala narrative can therefore be read as a powerful internal challenge to the social implications of rigid caste hierarchy, even while the historical Shankara's commentary retains orthodox restrictions.
6. Adi Shankara and women: spiritual equality versus institutional exclusion
The question of women's spiritual status requires similar historical care.
A. The metaphysical position
Within Advaita, Atman is neither male nor female.
Gender belongs to the body and its associated empirical identity.
Brahman has no biological sex.
Consequently, the ultimate spiritual reality cannot be divided into male and female categories.
This is an important philosophical principle.
B. The historical religious environment
Shankara's institutional and monastic environment was shaped by traditional Brahmanical rules governing:
Initiation.
Household life.
Renunciation.
Vedic education.
Monastic authority.
Women frequently faced restrictions within these institutions.
However, the statement that Shankara categorically denied all women access to Sannyasa or Upanishadic knowledge is too sweeping without specifying the particular institutional and textual evidence.
The history of Hindu women's asceticism is more complicated.
Women have pursued renunciation, spiritual instruction and philosophical inquiry through different traditions, sometimes despite institutional restrictions.
C. The Gargi example
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad contains the famous philosophical encounter between:
Gargi Vachaknavi.
Yajnavalkya.
Gargi questions Yajnavalkya about the fundamental support of reality.
Her inquiry eventually reaches the imperishable, Akshara.
This is remarkable because she is presented as a serious metaphysical philosopher, not merely as a passive recipient of religious instruction.
Maitreyi is another important example.
In the same Upanishad, she engages Yajnavalkya in a profound discussion of immortality and the Self.
These figures demonstrate that women were represented as participants in serious philosophical inquiry in early Upanishadic literature.
But we must distinguish the earlier Upanishadic world from Shankara's later institutional environment.
D. The statement about women as the gateway to hell
The verse attributed to the Prashnottara Ratnamalika is particularly controversial.
The wording commonly circulated is:
Dvāraṁ kim ekaṁ narakasya nārī.
"What is the one gateway to hell? Woman."
This should be approached carefully.
First, the work is traditionally attributed to Shankara, but the authorship of many shorter works attributed to him is disputed.
Second, the verse belongs to an ascetic context in which attachment and sexual desire are treated as obstacles to renunciation.
Third, even within that context, language that presents women themselves as dangerous is open to criticism.
There is a distinction between warning a renunciant against sensual attachment and treating an entire gender as spiritually inferior.
The former is a discipline of detachment; the latter is a social judgement.
We should not confuse them.
The history of female Hindu asceticism also demonstrates that women were not universally excluded from spiritual renunciation across Hindu traditions.
7. The deeper philosophical problem: Does Advaita's metaphysical equality demand social equality?
This is where I think your material becomes particularly powerful.
Let us follow the logic of Advaita.
Premise 1: Brahman is the ultimate reality.
Premise 2: Atman is non-different from Brahman.
Premise 3: The distinctions of caste, gender, wealth and social status belong to empirical identity.
Premise 4: None of these distinctions defines the ultimate nature of the Self.
The philosophical question follows:
If the ultimate Self is identical in all beings, should social distinctions be permitted to determine who can pursue knowledge of that Self?
There are two broad ways to approach this.
Traditional hierarchical interpretation
One interpretation maintains that empirical social duties and qualifications can remain distinct even though ultimate reality is nondual.
The two levels are not treated as contradictory because they operate within different domains.
Universalist interpretation
Another interpretation emphasises that if spiritual knowledge reveals the identical Self in all beings, spiritual access should not be restricted by birth or gender.
The Chandala narrative and the philosophical implications of the Upanishadic teachings can be used to support this interpretation.
Neither approach should be confused with a straightforward historical description of everything Shankara personally believed.
The important point is that Advaita's metaphysics creates resources for questioning social hierarchy, even where its historical institutional expressions retained hierarchical structures.
8. The connection with Krishna consciousness: a particularly important philosophical distinction
Given our earlier discussion of Krishna, this comparison deserves special attention.
Advaita and Gaudiya Vaishnavism both accept the importance of consciousness and the spiritual nature of the self.
But they differ fundamentally over the ultimate relationship between the individual soul and the Absolute.
Subject | Advaita Vedanta | Gaudiya Vaishnavism |
|---|---|---|
Ultimate reality | Nirguna Brahman | Krishna, Bhagavan |
Individual soul | Ultimately non-different from Brahman | Eternally distinct yet inseparable from Krishna |
Material world | Mithya, dependent empirical reality | Real but temporary manifestation of material energy |
Liberation | Knowledge of Atman-Brahman identity | Awakening loving devotion to Krishna |
Individuality | Ultimately sublated as a separate identity | Eternally retained |
Supreme personality | Saguna Brahman, understood through limiting adjuncts in classical Advaita | The original and complete Absolute Truth |
Spiritual perfection | Self-realisation | Prema, pure love of Krishna |
This brings us back to Achintya-bhedabheda.
In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the individual soul is simultaneously one with and different from Krishna.
This means that spiritual unity does not require the disappearance of loving individuality.
An important difference concerning the world
Advaita does not teach that the world is absolutely nonexistent.
Gaudiya Vaishnavism also does not teach that the material world is independent of Krishna.
But it gives the world a different ontological explanation.
Material nature is a real energy of Krishna, although temporary and subject to transformation.
Advaita treats the world as Mithya because it does not possess independent, ultimate reality.
These are related but distinctly different metaphysical frameworks.
9. Final synthesis: what should we take away?
I would identify seven essential conclusions from this investigation.
1. Advaita is not solipsism. It does not teach that the individual human mind invents the external universe.
2. Mithya is not absolute nonexistence. It describes dependent reality, which is experienced empirically but does not possess independent ultimate existence.
3. Nirguna Brahman is not a cosmic mind. It is the attributeless, nondual reality that makes all experience and knowledge possible.
4. Advaita is a path of liberation. Ethical preparation, mental discipline, scriptural inquiry and contemplation are integral to its traditional method.
5. Shankara's social position requires historical scrutiny. His Brahma Sutra commentary reflects orthodox restrictions on Vedic eligibility, notwithstanding the universal implications of his metaphysics.
6. Metaphysical equality does not automatically produce social equality. The distinction between ultimate and empirical reality can be used either to challenge or to preserve social hierarchies.
7. Advaita and Vaishnavism offer different understandings of spiritual perfection. Advaita emphasises the identity of Atman and Brahman; Gaudiya Vaishnavism emphasises the eternal loving relationship between the individual soul and Krishna.
10. The most important philosophical question
I would finish with a question that connects everything we have discussed about Osho, Shankara, Advaita and Krishna.
If consciousness is the ultimate reality, is the highest spiritual achievement the realisation that the individual self is Brahman, or the realisation that the individual self is eternally related to the Supreme Conscious Being?
Advaita answers through Tat Tvam Asi — That Thou Art.
Gaudiya Vaishnavism answers through the eternal relationship between the jiva and Krishna.
This is not simply a disagreement about terminology. It concerns the nature of identity, individuality, reality, love and liberation.
For further textual study, I would prioritise these primary sources:
Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.3.34–38 — Shankara's discussion of Vedic eligibility. Read commentary.
Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.2.28 — His criticism of Buddhist consciousness-only idealism. Read commentary.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4 and 3.6–8 — Maitreyi, Gargi and the nature of the Self.
Kena Upanishad 1.6 — Brahman as that by which the mind thinks.
Bhagavad-gita 15.7 — The eternal individual soul.
Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.11 — Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.
Which direction should we investigate next?
Advaita versus Krishna consciousness The historical Shankara Is the world real or Mithya? The nature of pure consciousnessAdvaita Vedanta and Western Idealism (such as the philosophies of Berkeley, Kant, or Hegel) are frequently conflated in modern, popular discourse. While both question the ultimate nature of the material world, stripping Advaita of its traditional foundations to make it fit a Western academic mold distorts its core tenets. Here is a textual and philosophical breakdown of how modern interpretations artificially "Westernize" Advaita Vedanta, followed by an examination of the historical texts regarding Adi Shankara’s stance on caste and women. Debunking the Modern "Western Idealism" Makeover Modern apologists often reshape Advaita into Subjective Idealism (the belief that the world exists only as a figment of an individual's mind) or Objective Idealism (the world as a product of a cosmic mind). Traditional Advaita rejects both. 1. The Myth of "The World is an Illusion" (Solipsism) The Modern Twist: Popularizers often translate Maya or Mithya as a literal illusion, suggesting the physical world is a matrix-like hallucination generated by the human mind (akin to Bishop Berkeley’s esse est percipi). The Textual Reality: Adi Shankara explicitly fights against this view. In his Brahma Sutra Bhashya (2.2.28), he rigorously refutes the Buddhist Vijnanavada (Idealist) school, which argued that external objects do not exist outside of consciousness. Shankara argues that external objects are experienced as real by our senses and cannot be dismissed as non-existent while we operate in the empirical world (Vyavahara). The Distinction: For Shankara, Mithya does not mean "does not exist." It means "dependent reality." A clay pot exists, but its reality depends entirely on clay. The world is not a mental projection; it is an appearance with an empirical reality that is only sublated upon achieving ultimate liberation (Paramartha). 2. Treating Brahman as a "Cosmic Mind" The Modern Twist: To align with Hegelian Idealism, Brahman is often described as a Supreme Mind or Absolute Ego evolving through history. The Textual Reality: Advaita maintains that Brahman is Nirguna—without attributes, thoughts, or actions. Brahman is not a "mind" because a mind requires a subject-object duality (a thinker and a thought). The Kena Upanishad (1.6) states: "That which cannot be thought by the mind, but by which the mind is known—know That alone to be Brahman." Brahman is the contentless consciousness (Chit) that illuminates the mind, not a cosmic mental factory. 3. Erasing Sadhana (Spiritual Practice) for Intellectualism The Modern Twist: Western philosophy is primarily an academic, intellectual exercise. Modern "Neo-Advaita" treats enlightenment as a mere intellectual paradigm shift—"realizing you are already enlightened" without needing moral or physical discipline. The Textual Reality: Shankara establishes strict prerequisites (Sadhana Chatushtaya) before one can even study Advaita. According to his Vivekachudamani, a student must possess: Viveka (Discrimination between the eternal and ephemeral) Vairagya (Dispassion for sensory pleasures) Shatsampat (Six virtues: mental control, sense control, endurance, cessation of desire, faith, and focus) Mumukshutva (An intense longing for liberation) Advaita is a lived, experiential soteriology (a doctrine of salvation), not an armchair epistemology. Adi Shankara's Textual Stance on Caste and Women When evaluating Adi Shankara’s views on caste and gender, textual experts observe a tension between his metaphysical radicalism (all souls are identical to Brahman) and his social conservatism (adherence to orthodox Vedic social hierarchies). 1. Discrimination Based on Caste In his commentary on the Brahma Sutras (specifically the Apashudradhikara or "Section on the Exclusion of Shudras," 1.3.34–38), Shankara upholds the orthodox view of his era regarding caste hierarchies: Exclusion from Vedic Study: Shankara asserts that Shudras (the lowest tier in the traditional varna system) are forbidden from hearing, reciting, or studying the Vedas. He quotes ancient law codes (like the Gautama Dharma Sutra) approvingly, which state that if a Shudra hears the Vedas, their ears should be filled with molten lead. The Metaphysical Loophole: However, Shankara notes that while Shudras are barred from Vedic pathways, they are not barred from liberation (Moksha). They can attain knowledge of the divine through non-Vedic texts like the Puranas and Itihasas (Epics). The Counter-Narrative (Manisha Panchakam): Hagiographies record a famous encounter in Varanasi where a Dalit (untouchable) man challenged Shankara to move out of his path. When Shankara asked him to step aside, the man asked: "Are you asking this physical body of flesh to move, or the all-pervading consciousness?" Recognizing the ultimate truth of his own philosophy in the man's words, Shankara prostrated before him and composed the Manisha Panchakam, declaring that anyone established in steady awareness—whether a Brahmin or an outcaste—is his Guru. 2. Discrimination and Views Regarding Women Shankara’s writings reflect the monastic, ascetic (Sannyasa) worldview of ancient India, which viewed worldly life, domesticity, and female sexuality as primary obstacles to a monk's liberation. The "Gateway to Hell" Motif: In texts traditionally attributed to him, such as the Prashnottara Ratnamalika (Verse 29), the question is asked: "What is the gateway to hell?" The written answer is: "Woman" (Nari). In these contexts, women are frequently objectified as temptations that bind the male seeker to the cycle of rebirth (Samsara). Exclusion from Asceticism: Shankara maintained that women could not formally take Sannyasa (the formal vows of renunciation) or directly study the Upanishads within the orthodox institutional frameworks he established (the Mathas). The Metaphysical Equality: Just as with caste, this discrimination applies strictly to the empirical body. On the level of the Atman (Soul), Shankara's philosophy states that consciousness has no gender. In his commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, he interacts with the historical figure of Gargi (a female philosopher), acknowledging her profound metaphysical debate with Sage Yajnavalkya, proving that women of the Vedic past held high spiritual authority, even if his contemporary institutions restricted them.
No comments:
Post a Comment