Under One...God, Being, Purpose

@AWohlfarth,

uumm.. not that I mean to knock ya here or anything, but isn't a thesis supposed to be an original sort of idea? Cuz I've heard before that various religions share a common origin. You didn't go into a whole lot of detail here, so you might be thinking of something new and unconsidered, but it's hard to say so from what you posted.

0 Replies

@AWohlfarth,

I am not sure that "ultimately" all religions are "one" when, as a matter of history, they are often different. Such an assertion would be difficult to prove, although it might be a more likely assertion to say that all religions seem to fulfill a human need (to be defined). Perhaps an explanation of this part of the thesis would clarify your position.

The other part of your thesis, that the specific forms taken by different religions are "influenced" or dependent on the cultural and historical experiences of societies in which they developed, seems more probable, depending on the depth of the argument.

I am not sure how one could argue, though, that these differences were "distortions" of something; for then, one would have to argue convincingly that there was a "real" or "true" or "secret" set of religious dogma (as I take it you mean) for them to distort. It would be difficult to establish any sort of criteria or tests by which you could determine what was "real" or "true" and what was a distortion. Religion is known, or exists, only through interpretation.

A more detailed explanation of your thesis would probably clarify your position and thus make my remarks not to the point.

0 Replies

@AWohlfarth,

Ah...yes of course Solace, that's entirely true what you just said of course. Several religions share the same origin, that's not a theory or anything that's simply a truth. It's not an original idea...it's actually an extremely broad perspective of what it has to be narrowed down into. Of course in saying that every single religion shares the same origin, in which case I actually meant not origin rather than truths, would be an extremely enormous number of books rather than a 2 hour presentation or one thesis paper. This is the generalization that I was making and of course going into detail here to support it would have been about 20 pages long just to even get into the basis of it so I was looking for feedback on such an idea.
At any rate...I see your point, coming off with an idea such as that would lead people to conclude what you said. Also (sorry going off on my own thoughts here) that would require knowledge of ?hundreds of ancient languages to actually unearth the meanings of the original transcripts to relieve them from the manipulation they have undergone through the different perspectives accumulated by certain people who have actually written the holy books. My knowledge goes as far as only 5 languages?and not even fluent in all of them so yes that was a huge flaw, but then again that's why I'm doing this.
Thank you again for showing me that I really need to narrow it down then, anymore input is welcome.

Thank you for your input?I'm trying to synthesize what you meant by all religions seem to fulfill a certain human need. I understand it but I guess I'm trying to ask for more of an elaboration about that? I read your profile and saw that you studied existentialism, now that's actually part of the basis for this though, the theory of the "over soul" of the romanticism period in literature.
I defiantly did phrase the statement wrong of mine, I in no way meant that every religion is the same?.what I meant to try to say was that threads of truth run throughout all religions and that ultimately these threads form a repeating pattern therefore creating a premise that can be upheld as a ultimate truth. Presuming then that we ultimately all live under one same truth (that bas been bonded throughout the universe, throughout the history of man and animals alike.)

1 Reply

@AWohlfarth,

AWohlfarth wrote:

I'm working on a doctorate thesis at the moment though am still very early in the preparation stages; I am in the fields of Philosophy, Religion and Psychology.

Basically I just wanted some input first to try and analyze how others would perceive my thesis and on how they might try to comprehend and interpret the generalized idea behind it.

My theory is that all religions are truly based under one main "being" or essence of life. The separations that we perceive come into place under the distortions of principles and ethics weaved into each religion as well the differences in the socio-cultural development of nations and groups. A certain degree of truth is weaved throughout each religion, though ultimately all are one.

I couldn't agree with you more. I would also imagine you have your work cut out for you. To be able to observe the overall mosaic that represents our different cultures, interpretations, peoples, faiths and religions is, IMO and amazing puzzle to solve, but at the same time, one that will solve itself once we become truly human. For any one culture of belief's to hold superiority over another is reason for much of the hell we have experienced since our being. IMO. For it is my belief once we become truly human there will be need for no religion. Let's hope we survive that long. I think if you delve into what the need for some religions to have control, and those who don't and research why "control" is needed, it may open a few doors for you. Of course the enormous "wealth" involved has something to do with it. Good luck in your research.
William

0 Replies

@AWohlfarth,

I appreciate the clarification, or rewording, of your thesis:

.what I meant to try to say was that threads of truth run throughout all religions and that ultimately these threads form a repeating pattern therefore creating a premise that can be upheld as a ultimate truth.

First, threads of truth can mean many things, and such threads may be so broadly defined as to be meaningless if you are not careful, especially if you want to press the claim that all (each and every instance) of religion share each (and every) thread in common. Naturally, how you define religion will be important, and as long as you do not define it as those sets of beliefs that happen to share certain threads in common, you can avoid the problem of circularity. So the first step is a historical analysis that attempts to find common conceptions amongst the many religions in the world.

The second step in what I understand to be your argument is that all religions share certain characteristics and this sharing in some way warrants what is shared to be ultimate truths. But you must avoid, it seems to me, an argument that truth is somehow a showing of hands, or that it can be found by saying, in effect, well everybody thinks this way. I would be interested in reading how you will handle this step.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

My own view of world religions is similar to your theory.

I would suggest looking into the Baha'i faith and the way they handle the issue of religious diversity.

0 Replies

@AWohlfarth,

Okay, a little more information goes a long way. I can certainly see more potential for originality in your thesis now. I guess that all I can suggest right now is that this point of yours speaks volumes;

Quote:

unearth the meanings of the original transcripts to relieve them from the manipulation they have undergone through the different perspectives accumulated by certain people who have actually written the holy books.

Sifting through ancient texts to weed out manipulation is monumental and, in a sense as it pertains to your research, perhaps even pinnacle. If you hope to uncover relations between various religions, it's very important to note when and how specific beliefs entered the various religions. For instance, could missionaries from one religion have interfered with, and perhaps even changed, the previously held beliefs of another religion? This has been known to happen, and in such cases, the altered religion may now appear to share common ground with the missionary's religion that it did not contain prior to the missionary's involvement. So I think it would be important to your thesis to establish that any similarities in religious beliefs did not occur through such interference.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

This has been known to happen, and in such cases, the altered religion may now appear to share common ground with the missionary's religion that it did not contain prior to the missionary's involvement. So I think it would be important to your thesis to establish that any similarities in religious beliefs did not occur through such interference.

Why would the influence of missionaries be excluded from a consideration of the similarities of various religions?

Are Taoism and Buddhism any less similar because missionaries from both traditions influenced one another? Isn't there something to be said about the ease with which missionaries are accepted into communities with different faiths?

Taoism and Buddhism were so easily compatible that they merged into new traditions, like Zen. That two distinct faiths can merge so harmoniously, I think, would be evidence of their similarity.

1 Reply

@AWohlfarth,

I think he said that missionaries should be taken into consideration, not excluded?

And onto that concept of Taoism and Buddhism I'm just going to add that the branches that they formed came down from the ancient I Ching oracles (which have been transcribed many times over, at least through 11 distinctly different Chinese written languages.) On a side note though, a tomb was actually opened in the 1970's where was found oracle bones with 2nd century BC texts of the I Ching and Dao De Jing along with other works from the Han Dynasty in Mawangdui (Hunan province) which were perceptively different from the original I Ching texts (though they seemed to have been attributed to Confucius.)

In my perception there is the Eastern and the Western philosophers view on life. I like to say?truth and happiness. The two seem to merge, and now I'm going to go off topic again though this brings into account under the theories of MetaPhilosophy, what IS the real reason for philosophy and what purpose does it serve? What power does every philosopher have?.the power to significantly change others perceptions and attitudes on life, and of course if not everyone's, then at least your own.

A small trip into history, Confucius, a single man who made an enormous impact on human existence. His touch began such as a small stone thrown into a pond that creates a ripple which travels throughout the whole, so did his small touch ripple throughout history and create an enormous impact on all of the East and human existence.
Socrates from the West whose ideals of seeking truth made an impact on everyone that he met, his life was ended for his ideals. This sacrifice of his and what he accomplished exists strongly today, it has helped shape and free all of the West from the clutches of the bondage of the old mindset.

What is the purpose of philosophy then? Well?with assurance we can at least say that it creates and unearths such strong truths that outlast time itself, the I Ching, one of the earliest written texts was a book on philosophy. Philosophy is one of the oldest studies in time and will outlast our existence because it is simply and purely truth itself.

1 Reply

@AWohlfarth,

Yes, Taoism grew out of the earlier I-Ching tradition of philosophy, but Buddhism grew out of the Hindu tradition of the Indian subcontinent.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Why would the influence of missionaries be excluded from a consideration of the similarities of various religions?

Are Taoism and Buddhism any less similar because missionaries from both traditions influenced one another? Isn't there something to be said about the ease with which missionaries are accepted into communities with different faiths?

Taoism and Buddhism were so easily compatible that they merged into new traditions, like Zen. That two distinct faiths can merge so harmoniously, I think, would be evidence of their similarity.

What you're saying is true, DT, but I think that, to the point of the two faiths of which you speak, Taoism and Buddhism so very easily meshed because both of the original religions already carried very similar beliefs. I think that this reinforces his thesis. Certainly I never meant to suggest that the influence of missionaries should be excluded, but to the contrary, that it should be considered specifically.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

[quote=Didymos Thomas]Yes, Taoism grew out of the earlier I-Ching tradition of philosophy, but Buddhism grew out of the Hindu tradition of the Indian subcontinent.[/quote]

Um hum, I think I was quoting off of someone else when he said that the religions meshed together. I know Siddhartha was Hindu, I have read his story many times over; I think it's a very inspiring story. I am confused about one thing though...as far as the spirit of 'Tao' the Tao goes the one ruler over everything (that exists as nothing because it has no ego), oh how I do love Taoism, its complexities which are framed as simplicities. Which?I suppose really in turn are simplicities. Sorry about that, back to the question, do you believe that Taoism anywhere along the line played a role in the forming of Buddhism? Possibly the oral tradition or such.

This could start such a great conversation now! If we toke from Jesus and confirmed that the newly found gospel of Thomas (spoken in aphorisms and parables with very little narration) that framed him more as a sage was in essence...the true...or more pure sayings of Jesus than we could assert his similarity to Siddhartha. Then in more modern history Gandhi...breaking the cast systems just as Jesus belonged to no one group (even though born as a peasant.) As well did Siddhartha and Guatama persist that their was only the whole. In the canon of the New Testament their was the Jesus tradition of oral sayings, the first written sayings were not even transcribed until 100 years after his death, (possibly 50 for one piece of Thomas'), and then not until 200 years after his death was the first full gospel of Mark written. Sorry I'm terribly going off course here and running from idea to idea...excuse me. Any input about other religions would be greatly appreciated! Theirs a key I'm missing?I just have to figure it out.

To add onto the previous post of mine I just had to say that I found what I needed in Judaism for my thesis in the books of Leviticus.

1 Reply

@AWohlfarth,

AWohlfarth;36808 wrote:

….what I meant to try to say was that threads of truth run throughout all religions and that ultimately these threads form a repeating pattern therefore creating a premise that can be upheld as a ultimate truth.

As what you are proposing is not a feature of 'personal experience', from whence comes your 'expertise' on your, for all intents and purposes, idle speculation? Are you going to quote the writings and words of those who claim such experiential knowledge? Fiddle with them and come to some unexperienced and unsupportable hypothesis? You can do no experimentation, no testing, everything will be anecdotal and any data will be interpreted differently by different people, different Perspectives, and you are, somehow, going to bring home the 'philosopher's stone'?? Are you Indiana Jones from the Indy School of Higher Adventure?
If you actually can 'see' this 'Truth', if 'Truth" can be seen, if this is the universe in which you live, you'd be running an ashram rather than buying a tin 'degree'.
I can't possible see how you would be given the OK to base a doctoral thesis on these unsupportable idle tail-chasing speculations. Are they trying to humiliate you?
Your professors aught be euthanised.
Ahhh, the ivy covered walls of academe... how the weed doth grow!

But i digress, why not write on something of which you have some 'experience'? This subject smacks of Perspective and you, according to you, ain't got none. And this has been okayed? I'm stunned. With what institution are you associated?

Quote:

Presuming then that we ultimately all live under one same truth (that bas been bonded throughout the universe, throughout the history of man and animals alike.

That is your presumption, I suppose, another idle speculation, and again, not your experience. No one does a 'doctoral thesis' based on "presuming"! That sentence itself will require a half dozen major works just to 'support/prove' all the essential implications and assertions!
From whence will come your expertise on this matter, also, of which you have no experience? What arrogance makes you think that you will bring this Fire from Olympus? IF there is a "Fire" (which you cannot demonstrate) and IF there is an "Olympus" (ditto) and IF you are "The One".
(Are we on Candid Camera? Glances around...)
(please don't stalk me, I'm only the messenger!)

Wait, inspiration that can be worthy of doctoral level work! The examination of your 'thesis' while under the influence of LSD! Mescaline! Magic mushrooms! All medically, scientifically documented and journalled. Then, perhaps, you might find some actual 'experience' and 'authority' from which to earn a doctorate!

And this;

Quote:

"Remember, happiness doesn't depend upon who you are or what you have, it depends solely upon what you think." - Dale Carnegie

..is ridiculous. The word "solely" makes it absurd. And it sure as hell does depend upon "who you are", and when observed. He sounds like capitalist materialist pig (history) who hasn't a clue as to what 'happiness' is, or from whence!
Just my opinion...

1 Reply

@AWohlfarth,

AWohlfarth wrote:

Um hum, I think I was quoting off of someone else when he said that the religions meshed together. I know Siddhartha was Hindu, I have read his story many times over; I think it's a very inspiring story. I am confused about one thing though...as far as the spirit of 'Tao' the Tao goes the one ruler over everything (that exists as nothing because it has no ego), oh how I do love Taoism, its complexities which are framed as simplicities. Which?I suppose really in turn are simplicities. Sorry about that, back to the question, do you believe that Taoism anywhere along the line played a role in the forming of Buddhism? Possibly the oral tradition or such.

You may be thinking of Zen Buddhism which blends Buddhism, Taoism, and Japanese Shinto beliefs.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

As what you are proposing is not a feature of 'personal experience', from whence comes your 'expertise' on your, for all intents and purposes, idle speculation? Are you going to quote the writings and words of those who claim such experiential knowledge? Fiddle with them and come to some unexperienced and unsupportable hypothesis? You can do no experimentation, no testing, everything will be anecdotal and any data will be interpreted differently by different people, different Perspectives, and you are, somehow, going to bring home the 'philosopher's stone'?? Are you Indiana Jones from the Indy School of Higher Adventure?
If you actually can 'see' this 'Truth', if 'Truth" can be seen, if this is the universe in which you live, you'd be running an ashram rather than buying a tin 'degree'.
I can't possible see how you would be given the OK to base a doctoral thesis on these unsupportable idle tail-chasing speculations. Are they trying to humiliate you?
Your professors aught be euthanised.
Ahhh, the ivy covered walls of academe... how the weed doth grow!

But i digress, why not write on something of which you have some 'experience'? This subject smacks of Perspective and you, according to you, ain't got none. And this has been okayed? I'm stunned. With what institution are you associated?

That is your presumption, I suppose, another idle speculation, and again, not your experience. No one does a 'doctoral thesis' based on "presuming"! That sentence itself will require a half dozen major works just to 'support/prove' all the essential implications and assertions!
From whence will come your expertise on this matter, also, of which you have no experience? What arrogance makes you think that you will bring this Fire from Olympus? IF there is a "Fire" (which you cannot demonstrate) and IF there is an "Olympus" (ditto) and IF you are "The One".
(Are we on Candid Camera? Glances around...)
(please don't stalk me, I'm only the messenger!)

Wait, inspiration that can be worthy of doctoral level work! The examination of your 'thesis' while under the influence of LSD! Mescaline! Magic mushrooms! All medically, scientifically documented and journalled. Then, perhaps, you might find some actual 'experience' and 'authority' from which to earn a doctorate!

And this;

..is ridiculous. The word "solely" makes it absurd. And it sure as hell does depend upon "who you are", and when observed. He sounds like capitalist materialist pig (history) who hasn't a clue as to what 'happiness' is, or from whence!
Just my opinion...

Hello,

I'm not mad at your comment at all, I'm curious however...what credentials that you have, what have you studied? I am a Religion & Philosophy and Psychology double studies (major) student.

I in no way would mean to be rude or disrespectful to you despite what you said to me. The ego given to man was such a vain and defeating concept, man is egocentric and we must defeat and overcome this. I am simply trying to explain that, at least in my religion I hold nothing against any person...life is passing and all we feel is passing so I am asking a real question in this not trying to stab you in the back.

I will give you my research that I have already conducted if you are curious...to be honest, this has not been approved yet...as I said this was the entire concept...really kind of a massive undertaking if it is to be done. I would in no way...no how twist any one thing from a religion...I have been to different sermons for all kinds of religions. I have actively participated in a number of them as far as they will let me. I respect all religions and do not want to twist their basis.

I see where your anger stemmed from, and thank you that was also a valuable insight to how others may react, I expected a response like yours long before and was surprised I did not receive it. Humbling as it may be thank you for it.

The basis, is in a form of truth, I phrased this badly?and actually you picked out my my original post what I have previously corrected. We have discussed this already in the thread base, it may benefit you to go back and read it, (again not trying to demean you if it sounded that way.) Afterwards if you have any input I would be glad to hear it and thankfully take it in and listen.

Thank you, please be respectful as well. I do not take offense to anything any one person may say as I said before, however some do not hold my same ideals and so I simply bid you please be respectful to others.

nameless wrote:

Wait, inspiration that can be worthy of doctoral level work! The examination of your 'thesis' while under the influence of LSD! Mescaline! Magic mushrooms! All medically, scientifically documented and journalled. Then, perhaps, you might find some actual 'experience' and 'authority' from which to earn a doctorate!

And this;

..is ridiculous. The word "solely" makes it absurd. And it sure as hell does depend upon "who you are", and when observed. He sounds like capitalist materialist pig (history) who hasn't a clue as to what 'happiness' is, or from whence!

Nameless...you even criticized my quote by Carnegie, was that necessary?

Also...no I am not under the influence of "LSD" or..."magic mushrooms" neither do I drink nor use any other...drugs. I was asking for criticism of my thesis...attacking the person directly shows a very low respect for others. (Apart from the fact that you also just attacked my personal beliefs as a Buddhist, no intoxicating substances may be used.)

I thought the same thing about Carnegie before too...but then I realized he's coming from another sense of discovery. Also, why judge someone on the pretense of their disposition in life, surely it should be taken into account...although to what point? (Affluency in life, not dissposition towards life, that makes all the difference in the world their dissposition towards life of course!) That does offer an interesting point...what makes a person a philosopher or not? Having the right to talk about something....or the validity. Why couldn't just a random person on the street be that intelligent? All philosophers throughout time were just like any other person in the beginning, so any person could actually offer you the highest insight of wisdom you have ever heard...just reminds us to always keep our minds open.

Now?there is something I believe you must know, for you to understand, that I would have to talk about Nameless. I'm sorry but you probably know now I'm using psychology on you and I'm sorry about that?.I shouldn't always be analyzing a person. I could give you much insight right now into what, without even talking to you, I have already come up with. You are an open book?your anger makes you vulnerable. I study Buddhism, I will just say that, as well as Taoism, but I define myself to no one particular religion. I was born into Christianity however?so these beliefs have not always been with me; the road to find them was a rather difficult one.

I'm not trying to hurt you in any way?I would never want to create an argument, I'm attempting to choose words carefully, though the truth has to be said regardless even if I have to take your anger. Please forgive me for saying what I just did to you.

Nameless?if you wish to know?this whole chunk of what I believe you are missing then let me know and I'll do what I can to help you discover it. It's really an awesome?and all uniting truth, the one thing you cannot see because your mind is not open to seeing it. I'm not saying it's a perfect truth and I'm not saying you'll believe it?but I expected a more closed minded person to write. I feel the others here can see? the significance that really is life. It is such a larger perspective than just the egocage of the "I" and the "Me" it is something the transcends all else. To begin I would beg you at least read the Tao Te Ching and Dhammapada, yes they of course are religion specific but from there is so?so much more.

I hope this may help a bit.

Amanda W.

I just remembered...I actually just finished a short paper on how it is through the power of the mind that we perceive everything around us. It's only about 11 pages long I could send it to you if you'd like Nameless. Also, try reading Zen and the Art of Happiness, that's also a low entry book into the mindset which I'm talking about. (Let go of any anger towards me...I don't wish to make you angry, I do not mean to harm no person in any way.) What I want to do is to help...simply and purely that. I have dedicated my life towards helping humanity as best I can...my field of psychology is aimed towards helping those with addictions to overcome the mindset that keeps them there and to help them become free of all addictions to love life. (As well I may assume you are also regarding my age as to my credit, but I believe I am old enough to take control of my own life. A Thousand years ago 20 meant you were half way through your life.)

1 Reply

@AWohlfarth,

It's very important that discussions stay *OFF* the people involved an *ON* the subjects. Let's please refrain from making comments on other individuals; even the most seemingly-innocuous comments can easily be construed as insulting, derisive or otherwise negative.

Life's taught me that for whatever I think may be going on inside another's head, there's only one thing for sure: Whether a little or a lot, it's probably incorrect.

Thanks

0 Replies

@AWohlfarth,

AWohlfarth;36714 wrote:

My theory is that all religions are truly based under one main "being" or essence of life.

If this is your hypothesis, and it's going to form a doctoral thesis, then I hope it's based on a LOT of interviews both with authorities and laypeople from all kinds of disparate religions. There are a lot of people in Africa who observe indigenous religions, mostly animist, and I'm not sure their own philosophy would corroborate your idea. I mean if your assertion is one about ALL religions, then you need a way to exclude dissent from this assertion, because even a single exception would kill the "all".

And what that means is you need to find linguistically and culturally appropriate ways of asking these questions of people without leading them to the answer you want to hear.

You might get in touch with some people in experimental philosophy and cognitive science, as well as public health people (many of whom are experts in the design of interview questions for research studies) in order to design a study that gets at the question.

And you should probably approach this with an open mind, i.e. willingness to accept the possibility that your theory is not universally correct.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

There are a lot of people in Africa who observe indigenous religions, mostly animist, and I'm not sure their own philosophy would corroborate your idea. I mean if your assertion is one about ALL religions, then you need a way to exclude dissent from this assertion, because even a single exception would kill the "all".
And you should probably approach this with an open mind, i.e. willingness to accept the possibility that your theory is not universally correct.

Thank you, when I first posted this thread...I wasn't too in depth into this possibility as a thesis...my actual thesis that I am currently using is based in the power of the mind and the self utilized and exercised through many Eastern religions.

This was a theory I was going off of and you just pointed out the exact wall I have hit! African religions...I've been having a problem with them. Their is some relativity, but also taking into account all of the ancient religions it is just...a huge amount of to take into account with all of the sects that branched off everything is enormous. Also...thinking about how it may benefit society or not...if my wording is not precise...it will only harm society, never help it and possibly lead to a "Atheistic" induced mindset...which is not what I was going for.

I'm most likely pulling out of this thesis now and sticking with the main one I've been researching, I was using this forum to try out the idea. I won't...leave it entirely, but if I come back to it it will have to be precise...and all religions can not be included. I will hit on the main ones...it also will not take just interviews with scholars it will take hard evidence in primary sources...the original sources of course. Thanks again for your comment...I will have to find others will a similar viewpoint, scholars who have had an idea similar to mine.

(I'm finishing the post in the next one since it's a post for the whole thread.)

To elaborate just a small bit though, I am not trying to say that all religions came from one "being" as the title says to catch attention (of course) rather I am saying?universal human guidelines for life exist in each religion, and apart from the occult practices of a few these a relatively similar. I am pulling from the Tao when I say that all come from one source "These things from ancient times arise from one" ( Tao Te Ching).

It is from humanity itself that all things arise, we were born into life with a sense of being, a sense of right and wrong, even just the same as animals are born into life with much the same nurturing guide. (I am trying to be careful not to include animals as much as I can because many do not see them with the same light, or even on the same level as humans.) I am attempting to say that the human spirit?exhibits many of the same emotions, we rejoice in birth and we cry at death, of course there are always exceptions but overall we are the same. This is more directly my thesis?neither new?nor old, but timeless, just written in a new light in an attempt to inspire possibly someone out there.

0 Replies

@AWohlfarth,

You probably could define religion in a way that native Americans, Africans, and others could be set outside the realm of religion. There are definitely many ways to do so, but to me there is a major divide between religious systems and spirituality.

1 Reply

Under One...God, Being, Purpose

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know