Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Discussion of the SES' satellite schools in Australia and New Zealand.
Ella.M.C.
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:12 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Ella.M.C. » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:07 am

Hello Ahamty2,

Thank you ..your post covered many good points.
The part where you described the story of the NZ Wellington group, breaking the bonds with
Londons' SES and then, Michael Mavros subsequent 'reaction' .. is so very typical of reactions I have
seen (in varying degrees) over the years.
It is such a shock when you first experience this.. first hand.

Ahamty2 wrote:The Wellington NZ branch of the SES under its leader with almost all its members broke with Leon McLaren’s SES in London completely. The news was broken to the ‘top group’ at its Friday’s group night. MM language was such that it could only be described as totally occult warning us never to challenge his leadership, that all the Wellington School had turned its back on the truth and are now damned for the rest of their lives, the eternal fires stuff. You had to be present to appreciate what the atmosphere was like that evening. MM and NM were no longer the couple of old.


Hello Jo-Anne,
I really liked your post here, (below) ..the words make perfect sense to me, thank you.

I recall in the first few years of SFSK from (1990's) MM would always tell us that we were following jnani yoga.
Then at one point, without an explanation he started saying we were on the most direct route that incorporated all the paths (Action, Bhakti etc).
Of course it was the best and most special ..

It also reminds me of what I heard a few years back (2004-2005), but really could not understand,
words said from HH to others (not myself) .. but repeated to me.
These words are echoed here in the last 3 posts from yourself, Ahamty2 and Middle Way.
These last posts have given more insight into why these words were said.

HH told these former students that the school (SFSK) had ... 'No love in it'.


Jo-Anne Morgan wrote:
So you can call yourself a jnani; your diploma saying that you are now a qualified jnani yogi.


You are right Ahamty2. It is Jnana Yoga that the SES is trying to use.

It is dangerous, it is unsuitable even for monks and ascetics, it is definitely unsuitable for householders. It is too dry and barren. It is not Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta is not a religion, it is a study of Man in depth, it is an understanding of the ultimate truth. It comes out of Sanatana Dharma, (what we call Hinduism) which is the eternal and everlasting way of life. This Jnana Yoga that you are learning about is feeding the ego. The ego self is growing stronger which must devour all you have, without love and compassion you are lost in this dry desert of knowledge which is useless. So leave!

My statement above is a paraphrase of something I was told by a previous poster on the Board. He received it from someone he highly respected in the field. SES/SFSK are best left alone. There is no love and compassion there.



Hi Middle Way,

This last sentance of your post, is so very apt ..
As part of the subtle manipulation/brainwashing .. that SFSK is so good at providing to members!


MW[/quote]


Middle Way wrote: And this is harder the more the student has come under the delusion that only SFSK provides the good company needed to further one’s “spiritual journey”.

MW

Middle Way
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:46 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Middle Way » Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:43 am

I am declining the invitations on the Sydney SOP 70’s thread to join in the philosophical/semantic discussion because as previously noted I am happy to leave that to others who have much more desire and ability to do so. I would prefer to get back to the reason I first came on this forum, which is to try to help clarify the thinking of those who are ambivalent about staying at SFSK.

In doing this I have had in mind a psychological counselling approach called Motivational Interviewing which was designed to help people resolve ambivalence about drug/alcohol abuse, but is also useful to help clarify ambiguity/ambivalence about anything, including suicidal thinking. I bring this up because I think it’s important that those who would like to help friends or family leave SES/satellite schools appreciate that pointing out to those people all the downsides only works if the person is more or less resolved to leave anyway (and thus is no longer “ambivalent”).

The MI approach eschews any such lecturing of those who have both pros and cons of giving something up. Because focusing on the cons of staying in school (or using alcohol, or killing oneself) leads to the ambivalence arising which causes the person to say “yes, but” and then arguing the pros for staying, drinking, killing themselves, thus entrenching those arguments in their heads. (Those reading this might have experienced the phenomenon of arguing about something and then suddenly becoming aware of a new point, and adding “oh, and another thing!” triumphantly).

Taking the scariest example, for someone who is seriously thinking about the pros and cons of suicide, the MI approach first explores all the pros of suicide in detail, with the counsellor towards the end throwing in some possible reasons which occur to the counsellor, which sounds really frightening and counter-productive, but I can assure people does work. Because the counsellor is trying to understand in detail how that person thinks and feels (which is the “magic bullet” in listening). And because after deliberately focusing the discussion on the pros of suicide (almost always about ending fear/pain), the ambivalence then can come out in the same ‘yes, but’ manner and the person starts to verbalise in their own words the reasons not to kill themselves. And what we’re hoping is that the same “and another thing” phenomenon occurs and they have become aware of another reason to stay alive. (If the reasons for living don’t come out, the counsellor can ask something like “why haven’t you killed yourself already?” and then that other side can come out, and in my experience this has always involved love in some way. And if it doesn’t come out, straight into hospital or some other place of safety).

Fortunately the question of whether or not to say in SES/SFSK/SoP is mostly much less scary that the choice to kill oneself (although I have heeded some very sobering messages on this forum). My message is not that concerned people should become counsellors or MI practitioners. I’m trying to say that if you really want to help someone leave these places, you should first ask them why they stay and actively encourage that and listen to all their reasons (and even throw in some that might occur to you), swallowing your own fear of entrenching their position as you do so, with the added bonus that you may just learn something yourself along the way. What we’re hoping is that at some point they start to verbalise the other side, why they might be thinking about leaving, and then we actively encourage that. You’re only human, you would more actively encourage that side of the discussion (I know I do), but as long as they are verbalising the reasons for leaving in their own words, that is precisely what we want. And if we have offered some reasons of our own in the first part, they might just be more receptive to hearing words from us about leaving.

And the discussion ends with the words about leaving, again what we would prefer. If they do not offer any reasons for leaving, they are probably rusted-on, in which case have a pleasant discussion about the weather or anything other than SES/etc, and hope ambivalence arises in them down the track. Or in the case of SFSK, that the school completes its implosion sooner rather than later.

I hope this makes sense and that it helps someone.

MW

Ahamty2
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Ahamty2 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:00 am

My final comment on this thread is simply to say that in the end, each and every one of you will have to deal with, and come to terms with your experiences with Michael and Nina Mavro and the SFSK in your own way like each and every one of us has had to do ourselves.
Plato is attributed to have said:
“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school.
And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool”
Been there-Done that

Unique
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:30 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Unique » Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:58 am

Thank you MW for your detailed and helpful posts.
In relation to:
Middle Way wrote: But there is love and compassion in SFSK amongst and between many of the students and it is leaving that love and compassion which makes it so hard to leave the school. MW

The “love and compassion” are much talked about in the SFSK but hardly ever seen in practice.They also seem to disappear as soon as person leaves the school. The endless regurgitations of plagiarized texts and book definitions are accepted by the SFSK members as a confirmation of the school's assertions that those fine human qualities can only be properly understood and genuinely experienced through the school's unique teaching.

The SFSK sees itself as a chosen guardian of the most special knowledge, kept strictly confined within its own walls and like everything else there, for the exclusive use of the school’s members. Many ideas are slowly and subtly planted into the minds of those people, such as that any experience of love and compassion is of value only when related to the school, since their free and spontaneous expression enjoyed by anyone outside the school were always considered to be nothing more than mere attachments and sentimentality of the “ordinary” people.

Mrs Mavro has never shown any compassion or even a simple acknowledgment of people's hardship and suffering, even if they happen to be in her nearest proximity. This was conveniently labeled by herself as “non-attachment”. Yet another nonsense and delusion unlikely to be ever expressed by a true spiritual person. The degree of coldness and the lack of a basic human understanding and empathy shown by her in many situations (whatever the excuse/justification), many would find frightening.
Last edited by Unique on Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

actuallythere
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:05 pm

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby actuallythere » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:23 am

Unique wrote:

Mrs Mavro has never shown any compassion or even a simple acknowledgment of people's hardship and suffering, even if they happen to be in her nearest proximity. This was conveniently labeled by herself as “non-attachment”. Yet another nonsense and delusion unlikely to be ever expressed by a true spiritual person. The degree of coldness and the lack of a basic human understanding and empathy shown by her in many situations (whatever the excuse/justification), many would find frightening.


Yes indeed. This is the central theme of SES. It is absolutely terrifying for a child to see the eyes of their once-loving parent being turned into those of an emotionally detached zombie. Recurring anguish awaits them in adult life.

Personally, I find this to be utterly evil.

Tootsie
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Tootsie » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:57 pm

Hi Ella. M.C. I thought you would be interested in what Swami Shree Swaroopananda Saraswati ji said about charging money for initiation.

Q: Brahmananda Saraswati did not charge any fees when he used to initiate?

Shankaracharya: This is a principle. A quotation from Goswami Tulsidas:-
"The guru who charges or takes money from his disciples in return for initiation, steals disciple's property and goes to damnable hell."
For that reason Gurudeva used to give upadesha (initiation) without any fees. He used to say "If I accept any gift from the disciple (or fees), then his sins are transmitted to me."
http://www.paulmason.info

Ella.M.C.
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:12 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Ella.M.C. » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:35 pm

Tootsie wrote:Hi Ella. M.C. I thought you would be interested in what Swami Shree Swaroopananda Saraswati ji said about charging money for initiation.

Q: Brahmananda Saraswati did not charge any fees when he used to initiate?

Shankaracharya: This is a principle. A quotation from Goswami Tulsidas:-
"The guru who charges or takes money from his disciples in return for initiation, steals disciple's property and goes to damnable hell."
For that reason Gurudeva used to give upadesha (initiation) without any fees. He used to say "If I accept any gift from the disciple (or fees), then his sins are transmitted to me."
http://www.paulmason.info


Hello Tootsie,

Yes thank you, I have seen some of Paul Masons' interviews on youtube, they are very interesting.

Swami Shri Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji said to the 4 ex students of SFSK on the recent trip to India ..
That money should not be taken ..even for school fees.
People should open their houses for Satsang .. not pay fees in school.
He also commented that schools in the west had no substance.

He also apparently has said this in the past to Nina and Michael Mavro,(re money) who choose to ignore
the directions of their Guru.

He has on numerous occassions told them not to prevent students from visiting him ..yet they continually
still do the opposite.

They also have ignored his directions to publish all of the talks and questions, they have had with him over the years, (plus rare manuscript/books that were given to them for this very purpose)
They were told to make all the knowledge given by HH available, for all .. the people in the West and in India.
They have only given a few crumbs to school people .. most of what is given to even school people, is SES material
and text from books on theosophy.

I cannot understand how they could have been in such a priviliged position with such a rare soul as HH,
and not obey their Guru ..

Do they think they know better ..
Because they are superior?
Or from the west?
Do they know better how to help souls on their spiritual journey, than a Self Realised Sage?

It can only be arrogance, spiritual pride, and selfishness ...
And sadly now delusion, from what I can see of Nina Mavro ..

But looking on the bright side of things ..
How good is it, that we paid all those fees and money for initiation .. worth every penny and more to
have our sins transferred!!

When helping at the 'initiation ceremony' we had to put the students name on the back of their money envelope ..
We were told that it was only so they (MM and NM) could see how much a student valued what they were being given.

Middle Way
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:46 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Middle Way » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:44 am

Ella.M.C. wrote:When helping at the 'initiation ceremony' we had to put the students name on the back of their money envelope ..
We were told that it was only so they (MM and NM) could see how much a student valued what they were being given.

I always suspected that exactly that happened!

Unique
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:30 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Unique » Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:58 am

Ahamty2 wrote: However, some of the responsibility must rest with those members of the Sydney SOP who followed them and helped them start up the SFSK.
Did their egos deceive them into thinking they would be more important in the SFSK under the Mavros, when in fact they were only being used by them for their own end.

Thank you Ahamty2!
Yes, "some of the responsibility must rest with those members of the Sydney SOP who followed them and helped them start up the SFSK". Unfortunately that is true. The sad thing is, that it wasn't even an ego issue...

There were three people who remained loyal to Mavros when they were expelled from SOP. They were all completely indoctrinated with the school’s philosophy and firmly believed in Michael Mavro’s discrimination in matters of “truth”. They genuinely believed that (1) they are on a spiritual path, (2) they must have guidance to proceed further, (3) that Mr Mavro (and one of them still thinks the same about Mrs Mavro!) is that special person with necessary “energy, discrimination and genuine desire for truth” to lead them in their search, (4)that Mr and Mrs Mavro "have only their students' spiritual welfare in mind",(5)that as students they “must serve and uplift other spiritual seekers coming to the school” not only in order to progress further themselves, but also because that is one’s duty in life , (6) that "being in a spiritual school” is the only way to do “The Work” , that being the only endeavour that is worthwhile in one’s life .

This may not be the whole list, but hopefully sufficient for the purpose intended, which is to explain why those people chose to continue with Mavros. There was no “ego trip“ issue...Those were psychologically tempered with, mind controlled people, who interpreted their own subservience to the unending Mavros’ demands and whims, as well as an ongoing gross exploitation by them on many different levels, as a sacrifice and "service to Truth” which was necessary for one's own spiritual benefit , which is the idea that was continually planted into many people’s minds by the same Mavros.

This will sound unbelievable to some people, as it does to me now, yet, I have also stayed in Mavros school for some years believing exactly the same things. That is what mind control is. This, of course, would be adamantly rejected (even as a remote possibility) by the current SFSK members ! Unfortunately, so many times and by so many people "the good and true" was twisted and turned into an efficient tool for control and exploitation of the good,naive"truth" seekers.

Some people who stayed with Mavros never saw anything wrong with their ridiculous behaviour, including a plain, obvious bullying and all sorts of manipulation, as they were led to interpret it as nothing else but an expression of special love and care (such a common justification used by people who abuse their position of authority ) .Others just chose to put up with it as they were well trained to believe that “it was only ‘The Truth’ that matters”! What truth would that be, one wonders…

Tootsie
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Tootsie » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:07 am

The sad thing about the School for Self Knowledge is that they must be collecting a lot of bad karma for the leaders of this organization. If one reads about Swarupananda Saraswati ji Maharaj who is supposed to be their Guru the SFSK is simply not following his teaching. If one is Christian one can not be given a mantra connected a Hindu God. The following are his words on the subject.

Transcripted excerpts, pertinent to the life story of Guru Dev Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, from an interview of Shankaracharya of Dwarka, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, by Robert Kropinski in Vrindaban, India, 1985.

Shankaracharya Swaroopanand Saraswati: I was also his disciple, Brahmanand Saraswati's. He was my Guru. He would not accept any offerings from his disciples.
Disciple should be such that he gives to his Guru everything. Then nothing belongs to the disciple, everything is Guru's. Guru should be such that he does not take anything from the disciple. He thinks only good of his disciple.

Q: My Lord, Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswati Ji Maharaj, who is our pujyapaad (whose feet are worthy of our respect), who is brahmaleen (absorbed in Brahma, the omnipresent form of God) who is presiding over the Jyotirpith, who is the teacher of the entire universe - that he used to instruct mantras to his disciples. I would like to know which mantras were those?

Shankaracharya: The Lord, Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswati Ji Maharaj strictly adhered to the varna (caste) and ashram (four stages of life) systems. He believed in one's varna by birth. Whosoever came to him to become a disciple, he used to ask him which form of God he was in love with. Whichever form the new disciple had an interest in, that form he would explain to the new disciple. [Guru Dev] used to explain, either you should depend on your own inclination or else, he, after understanding your previous life and which form of God you worshiped then, would instruct the initiate accordingly.
Without having an ishtadevata (a personal form of God), no one could have a mantra from him. The very meaning of mantra is ishtadevata. Therefore, along with every mantra, thinking or reflecting over the form of the ishtadevata is essential. Therefore, in all the modes of worship, one reflects over one's ishtadevata before chanting or meditating with one's mantra.

Ella.M.C.
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:12 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Ella.M.C. » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:34 pm

Thank you Tootsie,
For writing in detail the details of the teaching in regard to diksha/initiation .. from the interview with HH, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati from 1985.

What you have written is still adhered to by HH in India today (as one would expect).
HH appears very traditional in following the teaching as it is passed down from
Guru to Disciple.

I have heard a rumour that Nina Mavro has told students that she has 'proof' ..records
(kept carefully by MM & NM) of the authority that was given to them in around 1991/92 to initiate.

One seriously wonders about this ..
In light of the tradition and the rules Holy men follow.

Could it be totally, some fabrication or doctored notes ? ..
As doctoring of messages is 'the done thing' in SFSK?
Or some authority by Shantananda or someone from Marahrishi's camp .. allowing
them to give 'RAM' to SOP at some earlier date?
But I believe no authority is necessary for RAM.

All I know is that HH even though, is now at a mature age ..his memory is excellent,
and would NEVER FORGET that he gave authority to a westerner ..

Especially something that is totally out of the tradition ..

So if he had thought MM was very special and made an exception in his case ..
he certainly would not forget such a thing.
In India recently he stated, that MM never asked for permission,and also that he has never
considered giving it to anyone (this means not even his closest Dandi Swamis)

So I would appeal to any current SFSK members (or even Nina Mavro herself) ..
If they believe, or have sighted this evidence to come forward and show it ..
for the benefit of the school and its members.

If this is true ..
(And it could be proved quickly with HH)
And ..
If N Mavro or her senior school members had nothing to hide in this regard,
she/they would very happily bring things into the open to clear the air,
for the future benefit of all.

Ella.M.C.
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:12 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Ella.M.C. » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:54 pm

And just a crazy thought I had after posting ..

Just say,
IF.. HH had thought MM very special and granted him permission to inititate,
Would it then be OK (after his passing), for just anyone that NM thought suitable to carry on with
this 'special permission' (which had been granted to someone else) .. to initiate into such a holy tradition.
And the responsibilities it implies ..

There is no way ever that this current situation could be right ...

Tootsie
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Tootsie » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:00 am

Ella, do you know anything about the Parabhakti Ashram Sydney? According to the website www.paramahamsi.org it was started in 2004, and was Shankaracharya Swaroopanand's first ashram overseas. Is it connected with the SFSK in anyway? They seem to be mainly Indians who study the Bhagavad Geeta.

Ella.M.C.
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:12 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Ella.M.C. » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:19 am

Tootsie wrote:Ella, do you know anything about the Parabhakti Ashram Sydney? According to the website http://www.paramahamsi.org it was started in 2004, and was Shankaracharya Swaroopanand's first ashram overseas. Is it connected with the SFSK in anyway? They seem to be mainly Indians who study the Bhagavad Geeta.


Yes Tootsie I do know of this Ashram and the people involved.
It is not connected to SFSK in Sydney .. MM and NM had no interest in it.
The couple that run the Ashram in Sydney and work also at HH's Ashram in ManiDweep Paramahansi, India, were once students of the school.

This is where all these things that are being said now first started ..
They donated much to SFSK, (monetary and otherwise) were used also for translations etc.
When they wanted to go to India to see HH ..they were told no.
The reply by the husband was 'but I am Indian, it is my country of birth'.

To cut a long story short ..the wife first went to India herself and found HH.
This was around 2002 or 2003 ..thereabouts.
She was initiated by him and is a truly devoted disciple. Mr M was furious at this of course.
Her husband and daughters have also taken Diksha from HH.

She works tirelessly in India for HH, and the Ashram built at the place where he did his Tapas
for 12 years in the jungle.
She is the one who first found out these things about the mantra, and initiation
authority.
They told some of the students that they were friendly with in school about what they
found on visiting India.
A few left immediately ..others disbelieved .. or could not believe.

One senior student .. approached Mrs M at a residential about the allegations, only to be terrorised in a small room .. it was abuse, nothing but, and no excuse for it.

And when contemplating this now, it seems to be that the only reason someone would be treated this way ..(when just simply asking about what worried her)
Was fear of being found out.

If there was nothing to hide ..a person would respond and just say the truth of the matter.
Not react, like a deranged person.
(no apologies for the graphic description ..because it is true)
Mr M was later told of the incident and he called her to the house.
There she repeated her questions of what she had heard.
Mr M was very calm and when asked if the mantra was wrong or partly wrong he responded ..'I don't think so'.
Without going into it too much ..there were a few things asked and Mr M responded in not very convincing tones and at times looked uncomfortable.

Jagat Guru HH Shankaracharya Swaroopanand, recommended the Ashram to any students in Sydney who wanted to attend. It is open to all.

Middle Way
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:46 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Middle Way » Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:33 am

Reading the above posts, raising extremely pertinent issues, reminded me again that the evidence seems to be getting pretty overwhelming that Nina Mavro will not be replying any time soon, to anybody! It appears the tactic is to just remain silent in the bunker and wait for the storm to blow over. So I thought I might try channelling her, if we can’t hear directly from the horse’s mouth.

This proved surprisingly easy to do. I simply sat still, quietened the mind, then meditated on the word ‘obfuscate’ for some moments, and then Nina came through. Here’s what she said.

“I find it difficult to express the level of deep sadness and regret I feel that you Ella.M.C., and MOTS and Unique, and Middle Way and all the other people who have left School have strayed so far from the Spiritual Path. It seems you have all forgotten the Truth, so often given in School, that only the Spiritual Realm is real and all else is unreal. Of course I have proof: I have said I have proof haven’t I? Of course I can easily answer all your objections and misgivings and all the other restless stirrings of your ahankaras about the things of this world, so obviously displayed throughout this forum."

"But I choose not to. Why? Because that would merely further indulge your ahankaras, at a time when they are doing rather too much of that already, and leading you even further from the Spiritual Path: to darkness away from light, away from the Truth. And so I have instructed my students, who remain firmly on the Path, not to reply to any of you, so that they too do not become unwitting facilitators of this most unfortunate direction you are all taking."

"We fervently hope that you will all awaken to the blindness that has overtaken you. Please rest assured if and when you do decide to resume the Spiritual Work, that in the True spirit of the Prodigal Son story, which has been mentioned so often in School, we will be here waiting for you, to give you a warm forgiving welcome back, with no thoughts of your past mistakes. But be aware that if you do come back, you will be punished with a few years in the sin bin of the Upper Middle School, to give you plenty of time to reflect on your misdemeanours.”

I couldn’t help putting that last bit in. I was starting to feel ill writing that claptrap. So while that's tongue-in-cheek, what is more serious and concerning is that there was a time when I would have wondered if maybe some of that rubbish is actually true. This is part of the subtle brainwashing, so well noted by Unique and others.

MW


Return to “The Australian and NZ schools”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests