Part 6 13724
While the Gārhapatya symbolizes earth and the Āhavanīya symbolizes the sky
plus ocean, the Dakshina symbolizes the Antariksa– ‘intermediate space’ (as
explicitly affirmed in the Shatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 12.4.1.3).
SB 12 4 1 3. His Gārhapatya is this (terrestrial) world, his
Anvaharyapacana (or southern fire) the air-world, and his Āhavanīya yonder
(heavenly) world; and freely, indeed, birds, both combined (yukta) and
single, pass to and fro in these worlds; and even if a whole crowd were to
pass through between his fires, let him know that no harm and no hurt will
come to him.
The sky-born Agni is specifically described as protecting the sacrificial
ordinances and spanning the Antariksa-.
ṣa jā́yamānaḥ paramé vyòmani
vratā́ny agnír vratapā́ arakṣata
vy àntárikṣam amimīta sukrátur
vaiśvānaró mahinā́ nā́kam aspr̥śat Rig-Veda 6.8.2
Born in the highest sky,
Agni the ordinance-guardian watches over the ordinances;
the Sukratu, he spans the intermediate space;
the Vaiśvānara, he touches the sky-vault with his greatness.
The antárikşa– is the context for a fusion of Agni with Indra in the act of
smiting the demon Vr̥tra in a stylized thunderstorm:
antárikṣam máhy ā́ paprur ójasā Rig-Veda 10.65.2
they [the gods] filled the intermediate space with their ójas-.(light)
The root of ójas– ‘power’ is cognate with that of vájra– , the name of
Indra’s thunderbolt, which is conferred upon him by Agni:
ā́ bāhvór vájram índrasya dheyām Rig-Veda 10.52.5
I [Agni] will put the vájra- in the arms of Indra.(symbolically lightning
is vajra )
In fact, the epithet vájra–bāhu– ‘he who holds the vájra– in his arms’
is applied
to the fused figure of Indra-Agni (Rig-Veda 1.109.7) as well as to Indra
alone (1.32.15, etc.). To conclude: since the Dakṣiṇa symbolizes the
antárikṣa– ‘intermediate space’, it follows that it is proper to the
sky-born Agni of lightning.
We are now in a position to summarize the symbolism of the Indic Triple
Fire:
1. Dakṣiṇa: sky-born Agni, lightning
2. Gārhapatya: earth-born Agni, fire
3. Āhavanīya: water-born Agni, sun (KR Earlier narrated tri partition tri
agni are now placed in water, at home by grahastan and in space as
lightning. )
The three fires have been listed here to match the order of Agni’s three
births, as revealed by Rig-Veda 10.45.1. This Rig-Vedic order of Agni’s
three births is significant because it helps account for the interpretation
of the name Trita Āptya as the watery ‘third one’. It is also significant
because it corresponds to the order in which th Deva-s had set up the
Triple Fire:
1. Dakṣiṇa
2. Gārhapatya
3. Āhavanīya
By contrast, the antagonists of the Deva-s, the Asura-s, had set up the
Triple Fire in the following order:
3. Āhavanīya
2. Gārhapatya
1. Dakṣiṇa
The myth of these rival orders is recorded in the Taittirīya–Brāhmaṇa
(1.1.4.4-7), where it is added that the fortunes of the Asura-s or ‘demons’
consequently went backward and they lost all, while the fortunes of the
Deva-s or ‘gods’ went forward and they prospered. But the Deva-s were not
to have any progeny; in this respect, the Deva-s are then contrasted with
Manu, whose sacrifice brought him both prosperity and progeny. Throughout
the Brāhmaṇa-s, this Manu is the ideal sacrificer and the ancestor of the
human race. Manu is the hero of the sraddha given that this Vedic word
designates the sacrificer’ s attitude toward his sacrifice. As ancestor of
the human race, Manu would naturally have the same order of fire placement
as that practiced by the Indic peoples; throughout the Rig-Veda, whenever a
sacrificer kindles fire, he does so manuṣvát– ‘like Manu’ (1.44.11, etc.).
Here is the order in which the Indic sacrificer sets up the Triple Fire:
2. Gārhapatya
3. Āhavanīya
1. Dakṣiṇa
The key to Mann’s success in progeny—where even the gods have failed—is
that he started the order of fire placement with the Gārhapatya, where Agni
is born like a human: as the Mātariśvan-, the one ‘swelling in the
mother’, Agni
is born of the Gārhapatya’s yóni– ‘uterus’. From the Rig-Veda, we know that
it was Mātariśvan who gave } Agni to Manu (1.128.2, 10.46.9), and that Agni
abides among the offspring of Manu (1.68.4).
Manu can be described as a specialized multiform of Vivasvat: both figures
are primordial sacrificers, both are ancestors of the human race, both have
special affinities with Mātariśvan and the Gārhapatya. In fact, Manu is in
some versions the “son” of Vivasvat and thus bears the epithet Vaivasvata
(Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 13.4.3.3, etc.). Also “son” of Vivasvat is Yama
(Rig-Veda 10.14.5, etc.), who likewise bears the epithet Vaivasvata
(10.14.1, etc.). As the first person ever to experience death, Yama
Vaivasvata is ruler of the dead, while Mann Vaivasvata is ruler of the
living sacrificers (Śatapatha–Brāhmaṇa 13.4.3.3-5).
The etymology of mánu– is transparent: it is derived from the verb man– ‘to
have in mind’. The meaning of Manu as ‘the mindful one’ is appropriate to
the theme of Manu: his sheer virtuosity in “the delicate art of sacrifice”
confers upon him an incontestable authority on matters of ritual. (KR Hence
in sankalapa Vivasvata manvantara…prtame padhe…) There is no sacrificial
error for which he does not know a remedy (Taittirīya–Saṃhitā 2.2.10.2,
etc.). To the degree that ritual was the informing principle of law in the
social history of the Indic peoples, Mann’s authority was further extended:
he was also regarded as a sort of lawgiver, and it is for this reason that
the Indic corpus of juridical and moral aphorisms is named after him.
The semantics of Mánu– go beyond the theme of being ‘mindful’ at a
sacrifice. The broader implications are visible in another derivative from
the root man-, the noun mánas-. As we shall see, mánas- conveys both the
mental power of prayer at sacrifice and the cosmic power triggered by such
prayer. It also conveys, along with the noun ásu-, the aspect of man that
survives death. Just as Mánu– assures the perpetuity of the human race by
way of sacrificial fire, so also mánas- assures the regeneration of the
individual human—again by way of Agni as sacrificial fire.
How, then, is this regeneration concretely visualized with an abstract noun
like mánas-? As we shall see, the concrete imagery associated with mánas–
(and with ásu-) is vision and breath in microcosm, sun and wind in
macrocosm. The focus of this imagery is Agni’s aspect as terrestrial fire,
which provides the dead with a direct link to Agni’s aspect as celestial
fire, namely, the sun. The sun-gods Savitr̥ and Pūṣan can be psychopomps
only because Agni himself is a psychopomp, by virtue of cremating the dead.
Agni is the supreme model and guide of rebirth.
The cremating fire of Agni ultimately confers upon the dead a communion
with the sun:
sū́ryaṃ cákṣur gacchatu vā́tam ātma Rig-Veda 10.16.3
may the eye go to the sun and the breath to the wind
Here we see the elements of vision and breath absorbed into the macrocosm
of sun and wind. Elsewhere too, the theme of wind is correlated with that
of the sun:
sū́rya ātmā́ jágatas tasthúṣaś ca Rig-Veda 1.115.1
sun, the breath of everything moving and unmoving
Such correlations of wind with sun can be derived from the microcosm of
sacrificial fire: its air-suction and exhaust are simply transferred to the
macrocosm of the sun.
Turning now to the associations of these concrete images with the abstract
noun mánas-, let us examine the deployment of this word in Vedic diction.
As “thought” or “power of thought,” mánas- has speed comparable with that
of the Aśvin-s’ horse team (Rig-Veda 1.181.2, 6.62.3, 4). These Aśvin-s are
the Nā́satyau, sons of Dyaus ‘Sky’ (1.183.1, etc.), consorts of the
sun-goddess Sūryā (4.43.6) and fathers of Pūṣan (10.85.14); their sunlike
chariot (8.8.2) is set in motion by Savitr̥ before the dawn (1.34.10). They
appear as the sacrificial fire is kindled and as the sun rises (1.157.1,
7.72.4, etc.). ***The frequent Rig-Vedic theme that their chariot is faster
than mánas- ‘thought’ (1.117.2, etc.) implies a comparison of mánas- with
wind. In the hymn to the Sacrificial Horse, the victim’s thought is
specifically likened with vā́ta-, the wind (1.163.11); the epithet for
vā́ta– here is dhrájīmat– ‘rushing’, which occurs elsewhere only once:
***यः । वाम् । अश्विना । मनसः । जवीयान् । रथः । सुअश्वः । विशः । आजिगाति ।
येन । गच्छथः । सुकृतः । दुरोणम् । तेन । नरा । वर्तिः । अस्मभ्यम् । यातम् ॥
yaḥ | vām | aśvinā | manasaḥ | javīyān | rathaḥ | su-aśvaḥ | viśaḥ |
ājigāti | yena | gacchathaḥ | su-kṛtaḥ | duroṇam | tena | narā | vartiḥ |
asmabhyam | yātam
“With that car, Aśvins, which, rapid as thought, drawn by good horses,
appears before men, and with which you repair to the dwelling of the
virtuous, come, leaders of (sacrifice), to our abode.”
áhir dhúnir vā́ta iva dhrájimān Rig-Veda 1.79.1
The raging serpent, like the rustling wind
The raging serpent here is none other than the fire-god Agni himself,
The Greek cognate of mánas-, ménos (μένος), generally means not ‘thought’
or ‘power of thought’ but ‘power’, by way of a basic meaning ‘having in
mind, reminding’ common to both Indic mánas- and Greek ménos. For instance,
the goddess Athena reminded (hup-é-mnē-sen) Telemachus of his father,
thereby giving him ménos:
τῷ δ’ ἐvὶ θυμῷ θῆκε μένος καì θάρσος, ὑπέμνησέν τέ ἑ πατρὸς
μᾶλλον ἔτ’ ἢ τὸ πάροιθεν Odyssey i 320-322
In his thūmós she had put ménos and daring; and she had reminded him of
his father, more than before.
Besides the contextual guarantee from the verb root *men-/*mn-eh2– in
hup-é-mnē-sen (ὑπέμνησεν) here, there is also a thematic guarantee for the
interpretation of ménos as ‘reminding’: in order to put ménos into
Telemachus, Athena has assumed the form of a hero called Méntēs (Μέντης i
105ff.), a name that literally means ‘the reminder’.
The precise transmission of divine ménos is by breathing, as the gods blow
it (ἐμπνεῖν) into the hero (Iliad X 482; XV 59-60, 262; XX 110; Odyssey
xxiv 520). Consequently, warriors eager for battle are literally “snorting
with ménos,” that is, μένεα πνείοντες (Iliad II 536, III 8, XI 508, XXIV
364; Odyssey xxii 203). The gods also breathe ménos into horses:
ὣς εἰπὼν ἵπποισιν ἐνέπνευσεν μένος ἠύ Iliad XVII 456
So saying he [Zeus] breathed good ménos into the horses.
Parallel to this μένος ἠύ ‘good ménos’ blown by Zeus is the “good mánas-’
that Agni is implored to blow into the sacrificers:
bhadráṃ no ápi vātaya mánaḥ Rig-Veda 10.20.1 blow us a good mánas-!
Besides heroes and horses, other entities, too, can have ménos, such as the
sun (Iliad XXIII 190), fire (VI 182, XVII 565), moist winds (Odyssey xix
440), and streams (Iliad XII 18). Like heroes, cosmic forces have to be
reminded of their power, and this is precisely what sacrificers have to do.
One Vedic word for this reminder is mánas-, as when the priests (vípra-s)
hitch up mánas– and thoughts at the coming of the sun-god Savitr̥:
yuñjáte mána utá yuñjate dhíyo Rig-Veda 5.81.1
they hitch up mánas– and they hitch up thoughts
The time of Savitr̥’s coming is sunrise (Rig-Veda 5.81.2), and his function
as daily “vivifier” (the actual meaning of Savitr̥-) [114] is duly
recounted (5.81.2-5). By hitching up mánas-, the priests indirectly hitch
up the dhī́yas ‘thoughts, consciousness’ of mankind, insomuch as they have
reminded Savitr̥, whose daily function it İs to rouse men by awakening them
at sunrise (4.53.3, 6.71.2, 7.45.1). Specifically, it is the consciousness
of men that Savitr̥ rouses: {114|115}
tát savitúr váreṇyam bhárgo devásya dhīmahi
dhíyo yó naḥ pracodáyāt Rig-Veda 3.62.10
May we receive this choice light of the Deva Savitr̥,
who will rouse our thoughts.
This stanza is the celebrated Sāvitrī, [115] with which Savitr̥ is invoked
at the inception of one’s Vedic study. Again, the word for “thoughts” is
dhī́yas, which was the correlate of mánas– in Rig-Veda 5.81.1, quoted
above. From such contextual evidence, İt is possible to infer that not
only Savitr̥ but also mánas– is connected with awakening from sleep as well
as resurrection from death. In Greek usage, too, ménos is an element that
is lost during sleep:
οὐ γὰρ πανσωλή γε μετέσσεται, οὐδ’ ἠβαιόν,
εἰ μὴ νὺξ ἐλθοῦσα διακρινέει μένος ἀνδρῶν Iliad II 386-387
There will not be a pause for rest [from battle] in between, not a bit,
unless the night comes and separates the ménos from the men.
We come back, then, to our original starting point: that the Greek word
ménos is synonymous with thūmós and psūkhḗ at the moment of death in
particular and of losing consciousness in general. Now we see from the
comparative evidence of the Indic cognate mánas– that this Greek word has a
heritage of leaving open the possibility of reawakening from death on the
model of reawakening from sleep or a swoon. In Indic traditions the context
of this reawakening is the realm of the pitŕ̥-s ‘ancestors’. We also come
back, then, to the collocation of the expression ménos ēú with the name
Patro–kléēs ‘whose glory is that of the ancestors’ in a context where the
expression designates the aspect of Patroklos that is separated from his
body by death (Iliad XXIV 6).
The comparative evidence of the Indic cognate mánas– can tell us still more
about Greek ménos: we now see that there is an inherited affinity between
the ménos of the sun (Iliad XXIII 190) or wind (Odyssey xix 440) and the
ménos of a hero whose name conveys the glory of the ancestors. Through the
intermediасу of the fire that cremates the body, vision and breath can
become one with sun and wind. It is therefore a vital fact that the fire
of cremation is itself called “the ménos of fire” in Iliad XXIII 238 and
XXIV 792; moreover, in the first passage, the body that is being cremated
is that of Patroklos himself. By way of this intermediасу, we can now see
how a verb like psū́khō, which designates the blowing of winds at Iliad XX
440, has a noun-derivative psūkhḗ that can function as the synonym of ménos
at the moment of dying. Or again, we now see how the Indo-European verb
root as attested in Indic ániti ‘blows’, leads to noun-derivatives like
both ánemos ‘wind’ in Greek and animus ‘spirit’ in Latin. Significantly,
the word ánemoi (plural) in Greek can also designate ‘spirits of the
ancestors’ (e.g. Suda s.v. tritopátores, etc.). Further, Latin fūmus and
Indic dhūmá-, both meaning ‘smoke’, are cognate with Greek thūmós: again,
we can better understand such semantic specializations when we envision the
exhaust of sacrificial fire as it transforms the breath of life into wind
(and we have already witnessed this theme in an earlier passage).
We are still left, however, with the problem of the epithet ēú in the
Homeric expression ménos ēú (μένος ἠύ). Semantically, ēú corresponds to
bhadrám ‘good’ in the Vedic expression bhadrám…mánas. Formally, as we shall
now see, ēú corresponds to the noun ásu-, which is used in combination with
mánas– to designate the conveyors of identity after death. Before we can
examine this formal connection, however, we shall have to survey the
concrete visualizations of ásu– at the moment of cremation and thereafter.
As we have already seen, the setting sun can be envisioned as taking along
the breath and vision cosmically absorbed from the cremated dead.
Significantly, a goat has been cremated together with the corpse (Rig-Veda
10.16.4). With the goat as warrant of divine guidance, the righteous dead
must travel along the way of the ancestors, the pitŕ̥-s, who have reached
the ásu– and who have been avr̥kā́s ‘unharmed by the wolf’:
ásuṃ yá īyúr avr̥kā́ r̥tajñā́s Rig-Veda 10.15.1
who have reached the ásu-, unharmed by the wolf, knowing righteousness
Not only the cremation of the goat but also the threat of the wolf point to
the psychopomp Pūṣan: it is he who fends off the wolf from the traveler’s
path (Rig-Veda 1.42.2). Another threat are Yama’s hounds, who are asutŕ̥pā
‘ásu-robbers’ (10.14.11). It is because of these hounds that the following
prayer must be recited:
tā́v asmábhyaṃ dr̥śáye sū́ryāya
púnar dātām ásum adyéhá bhadrám Rig-Veda 10.14.12
may these two [hounds], so that we may see the sun,
give us back, here today, our good ásu–
Thus “good ásu-” with the same epithet bhadrá– ‘good’ that we have already
seen applied elsewhere to mánas-, [123] is a key to the vision of sunlight.
With Agni/Savitr̥/Pūṣan as psychopomp, the dead must travel along the
ásunīti– ‘path leading to ásu– (Rig-Veda 10.12.4, 10.15.14, 10.16.2);
elsewhere, ásunīti– is personified as a goddess, implored to give bach to
the dead their vision of sunlight (10.59.5-6). As the dead near the end of
their trip from west to east, sleepers are ready to waken and Uṣas ‘Dawn’
is awaited:
úd īrdhvaṃ jīvó ásur na ā́gād
ápa prā́gāt táma ā́ jyótir eti
ā́raik pánthāṃ yā́tave sū́ryāya
áganma yátra pratiránta ā́yuḥ Rig-Veda 1.113.16
Arise! The living ásu– has come to us;
darkness has gone away, light draws near;
she [Uṣas] has made free the path for the sun to go;
we have arrived where they continue life.
At the same moment that sleepers awake, the dead are resurrected. After the
righteous dead have successfully traveled along the underworld path, they
rise with the sun on the pravát– stream, following the example of Yama, to
the abode of the pitŕ̥-s ‘ancestors’, the highest point of the sun
(Rig-Veda 9.113.9), where they may stay in communion with it (1.125.6,
10.107.2, 10.154.5).
A suitable psychopomp for the ascent (with Yama: 10.14.8) into the abode of
the pitŕ̥-s is the sun-god Savitr̥ himself (10.17.4). [124] Or Agni can
serve as a cosmic model, in the function of Apām Napāt. [125] There is even
a variant of apā́ṃ nápāt that is specially applicable to Agni, namely,
praváto nápāt ‘progeny of the pravát– stream’ (Atharva–Veda 1.13.2). We may
also compare this declaration in the Vedas:
pravát te agne jánimā Rig-Veda 10.142.2
The pravát- stream is your birthplace, Agni!
Since ásu– in the highest heaven is the ultimate goal of the righteous
dead, it is significant that every time Agni is lit again on the
sacrificial altar, he himself returns to his own ásu-:
devó yán mártān yajáthāya kr̥ṇnván
sī́dad dhótā pratyáṅ svám ásuṃ yán Rig-Veda 10.12.1
When the Deva [Agni] helps mortals sacrifice,
abiding as Hotr̥, returning to his ásu-…
When flames die down, it is Agni who quickens them with ásu-:
tā́sāṃ jarā́m pramuñcánn eti nā́nadad
ásuṃ páraṃ janáyañ jīvám ástr̥tam Rig-Veda 1.140.8
taking away from them their oldness, he comes roaring,
producing a higher, living, unsurpassable ásu–
There is an Iranian cognate for the expression ásuṃ páram ‘higher ásu-’
here: it is Avestan parāhu– ‘higher existence’ (Yasna 46.19), describing
the place where the righteous dead abide. The translation of parāhu– as ‘higher
existence’ is warranted by the synonym parō.asti– ‘higher existence’ (Yašt
1.25). [126] These Iranian formations *para-ahu- and *para-asti- both seem
to be noun-derivatives of the verb *(h1)es-, namely, *es-u- and *es-ti-, in
terms of Indo-European morphology. If indeed Iranian ahu– and Indic ásu–
are cognates derived from *es-u-, then it is possible to translate ásu– in
a passage like Rig-Veda 1.140.8, quoted immediately above, as ‘existence’.
That Indic ásu– and Iranian ahu– are truly cognates is suggested by other
evidence as well. For example, in the same passage that contained the
collocation of pára-and ásu– (Rig-Veda 1.140.8), corresponding to Avestan
parāhu– (Yasna 46.19), there is also the collocation of jīvá– ‘alive,
living’ and ásu-, corresponding to the Avestan expression juiiō aƞhuš
‘living ahu-’ (Hadōxt Nask 2.2). Moreover, there is the collocation of verb
jan– ‘produce, beget’ and ásu– (again, Rig-Veda 1.140.8), corresponding to
the Avestan expression aƞhə̄uš ząθōi ‘in the begetting of ahu-’ (Yasna
43.5). I draw attention to the context of the last expression, where the
supreme god Ahura is being described as the primal being ‘in the begetting
of essence [ahu-]’. The identical expression aƞhə̄uš ząθōi ‘in the
begetting of ahu-’ occurs elsewhere (Yasna 48.6) in a description of Ahura
as he causes the plants to grow at the begetting of primaeval essence
(ahu-), and we may compare a stanza immediately preceding the one where the
collocation of pára– and ásu– occurs (Rig-Veda 1.140.8): [133] here we find
a description of Agni as he causes the plains to grow (1.140.7). {119|120}
The Avestan ahu– ‘essence’ of afterlife is ambivalent: for the good, it is
vahišta– ahu– ‘best essence’ (Yasna 9.19, etc.), while for the bad it is
acišta– ahu– ‘worst essence’ (Yasna 30.4, etc.). There is a semantic
parallel in the Vedic combination of ásu– and the epithet bhadrá– ‘good’
(Rig-Veda 10.14.12).n the Indic evidence, the contexts of ásu– are
one-sidedly good. It happens, however, that the Avestan analogue to the
Rig-Vedic combination of ásu– plus root nī– ‘lead’ (as in ásu–nīti– ‘path
leading to ásu-) is in an evil context: tə̄m…ahūm…naēsat̰ ‘may it lead to
such an [evil] ahu-’ (Yasna 31.20). As for the good essence, another term
for it is ahu– manahiia– ‘essence of manah-, spiritual essence’ (Yasna
57.25, etc., as opposed to the negative ahu– astuuant– ‘essence of bones’,
Yasna 28.2, etc.). Not only is Avestan ahu– cognate with Vedic ásu– but
Avestaıı manah– is cognate with Vedic mánas-, and it is these two Vedic
words, ásu– and mánas-, that designate the elements of afterlife in the
Indic traditions. Furthermore, just as Vedic ásu– and mánas– can function
as correlates (Atharva–Veda 18.2.24, etc.), so also Avestan ahu– and
manah-:
yaθācā aƞhat̰ apə̄mǝm aƞhuš
acištō drǝguuatąmat̰ ašāunē vahištǝm manō
Yasna 30.4
as the ahu– will be finally.
It [the ahu-] of the unrighteous will be the worst [acišta-],
But the righteous will have the best [vahišta-] manah–
The Iranian comparative evidence, where we see not only noun manah–
coordinated with noun ahu– but also the adjective of noun manah–
subordinated to noun ahu– (ahu– manahiia-), helps account for the Greek
evidence, where the adjective ēú (ἠύ) is subordinated to the noun ménos
(μένος) in the expression ménos ēú (μένος ήύ, as in Iliad XX 80, XXIV 6).
[138] In brief, then, we find coordination and subordination in Iranian
(manah– plus ahu-, manahiia– plus ahu-), but only coordination in Indic
(mánas– plus ásu-) and only subordination in Greek (ménos ēú). The
directions of subordination, moreover, are reversed in Greek and Iranian.
Even if we may not be certain about the precise phonological prehistory of
Greek ēú (ἠύ) in comparison with Indic ásu– and Iranian ahu-, one thing
seems certain: that all are derived from root *es- ‘to be’. The semantic
specialization of ‘good’ in adjectival derivatives of *es- is commonplace:
we have only to cite the Greek adjective es-thlós (ἐσθλός) ‘good’ as
perhaps the most immédiate example. [139]
In the case of ménos ēú (μένος ήύ) in Iliad XXIV 6, where the expression
applies to the aspect of Patroklos that has been lost as a result of death,
I propose that we arc witnessing an archaic context where the meaning
‘good’ for ēú is only on the surface. Beneath the surface, we find the echo
of a Homeric hero’s afterlife.
Completed part 6 1-6 end K Rajaram IRS 13724 14724
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopwohsT1UKh8E9gQGU4rxZRyGQsA_6dz7zcq9%3DFFVQDsQ%40mail.gmail.com.
