Hello Peeps,

About the Gunas. I understand the gunas a little bit differently from what My Joe posted above. I don't really see them as a progressive quality from bad/stuupid (tamas) to enlightened (sattvas).

If you consider life/existence as a dynamic system, ie a process extending over time, then the 3 gunas are descriptions of the tendencies of the process.

So,

1) Tamas is a tendency towards inertia. In this case we are looking a system that doesn't change. In human terms we are talking about someone who is caught up in habitual patterns and cannot break out of them. This 'being stuck' can be likened to death.


2)Rajas is a tendency towards quickness. Rajas can change gear, can change paradigms. By quickness I mean it in the old english sense of the word, as life as opposed to death, movement as opposed to inertia.
However Rajas is not totally free of form or structure. It is merely not stuck in one form, or in one formula.

3)Sattvas is a tendency towards total freedom. Here spontaneity can occur. A sattvic system is free of the determinism of rajas and tamas.

For example, imagine someone living in a grid like city, like New york. He learns that the way to get to work from his home is to go north for 2 blocks, ie past the first right and past the second right, and then take the 3rd right and walk down it for one block and his office is on the corner.

Imagine that one day there is a road block on his north bound route. If he is a Tamasic person he will be totally confounded. His pattern has been blocked. He might try to force his way through the road block by arguing and kicking up a force. and then he might try stealth. This attitude might be successful for him or it might not.

If he was a rajasic person, he would waste no time in devising an alternative route. Up the road for one block, take the first right, and then the first left and then continue up for one more block. The Rajasic process of getting to work is more flexible.

A sattvic person might not even encounter the road block at all. From the minute he left home he spontaneously found himself taking an alternative route. If asked why, he might just say that he felt like doing something different.

Each of these tendencies have situations and times when they are most apt. There is not one that is better than the other. There are times when it is beneficial to inculcate habits into ourselves and there are other times when it pays to be more creative.

@Kieryn:

Could you please enlighten me on this issue of dreams, visions, etc being done away with. There has to be a source for such a precise statement- please lets have it

Mad_Max:

[color=#000099]One quick addition. We don't mean the same thing by the word 'reincarnation',MyJoe. I'd mentioned earlier that reincarnation as Christ taught it is NOT the popular idea of it. Christ did NOT teach successive human rebirths. Although it's possible, under unusual circumstances, for a spirit to be born here a second time, in which case he'd have no memory of the other time, we live this life only once. When we die, we're done here. We're eternal spirits made in the image of God. This life isn't the beginning of our existence,nor its end. When we're here we're spirit beings who take on flesh, and by that, a dual nature; body and spirit. Death is merely us shedding the body and reverting back to our natural spirit form. What happens after we die is between that individual and God. Christ did NOT teach the Hindu/Buddhist doctrines of successive cycles of human rebirths and experience. Reincarnation, as He taught it, had nothing to do with repeat human births, nothing to do with this world, everything to do with the idea that each of us comes here only once and the sum of our choices determine our fate after we leave this life. It has everything to do with the fact, which shocked me, that NO ONE attains Christlikeness (perfection to other faiths)in a single lifetime and so we don't automatically go to be with God after we die. It is a continuous and very long process, and spirits are at different stages of it.

This biological life on earth is merely a single step in a long road. It is a very important step; it determines what happens when we leave time (the physical universe) and go back to eternity,

This really resonates with me: especially the last line in the quote above. However just a quick question: you state that this earth life is merely a single step in the long road and that it is a very important step, and that it determines what happens after we leave time. I could not agree more.

In that event what do you think happens re: human beings who die as infants and who as such are not able to inculcate this earthlife into their experience - do you think that such human  beings are the main ones who will have to be reincarnated on the earth in order to properly inculcate the earthly experience into their spirits. Much like repeating the class.

Now following from the foregoing, do you not think that the analogy can be stretched: namely that any human being regardless of his age who has not properly inculcated the experience of the earth into his spirit will be reincarnated on AN Earth or this Earth for the purpose of firmly completing that crucial step in his development before moving on.

If that is the case how can you be certain that reincarnation does not obtain in the successive and repeatitive fashion as envisaged by oriental religious thought?

@ Pastor/ MyJoe. . .

Reading your posts on the gunas really sparked my interest and having dwelt on those gunas a little, I thought that in addittion to Pastor's brilliant surmise, it is possible to also obtain other interesting perceptions of the essence of these gunas by viewing them as follows -

It is said that in Samkyha philosphy all creation is made up by a balance composed of all three forces. So it seems to me that one could understand this eternal balance as -

<- - - - Destruction     - - -        Preservation     - - -  Creation    - - - - >

Tamas                                           Raja                                  Sattva

ORIGINAL: NON-BEING                     WORLD                              ORIGINAL: BEING

Where Sattva would equate with original being and existence: thus the tendency of GOD - hence its relation to that which is most liberated in totality. This would make sense as Sattva is said to denote order, balance and purity - core elements of the conception of the primordial GODHEAD.

And raja would equate with the air, the firmament - thus creation and all the various possibilities inherent in it. This is related to preservation and has some connection with the eternity of the creations. . .

And Tamas would equate with darkness and non-being and will thus be less mobile, less creative and express itself in terms of force. This will be borne out since Tamas is said to denote inactivity and inertia, and also has a somewhat negative connotation.

This is a contrived reading. Different, but I do not think takes anything away from that which you have expressed, which is another reading that also seems simultaenously brilliant and true to me.

Particularly, since all exist in balance (and I can see some relation here to that which we have discussed in the past on the self-existence of light and darkness) it is possible to view, perhaps not just Sattva, but all three as being inherent in the Godhead, or fountain of existence. This will particularly rhyme with Pastors perception that that all three have a purpose and are beneficial in specific contexts.

Does anybody detect within this a possible resolution of the philosophical question of evil. . .?

@Mad Max
LOL. It is quite complicated. There are different ancient scripts dealing with specific aspects. But it is a system that has developed over millennia with various sages and gurus making their inputs.

Anybody can be a Sadhaka, but not everyone can become a supreme seeker. Being good looking is a function of natural endowments and healthy living. A man who grew up physically well endowed who allowed himself to grow a protruding belly would not be considered good looking in this sense. To be a supreme seeker, one must be appreciably physically attractive, spiritually minded, intellectually gifted, morally upright, and emotionally sound. Bear in mind that for this fourth and last category it is unrealistic to expect up to 2% of seekers to qualify.

Yoga is one of the six classic schools of Hindu philosophy. You often find an interconnection between all the schools. For examples guna comes from Samkhya. The short path? That would be Kundalini Yoga, although I will hardly call it short since the disciple is supposed to wait for the master to watch him and then pronounce him ready before he can commence studies. But, again, all that is changing now you can purchase Yoga across the counter like paracetamol to be taken three times daily. And yes, the “short path” can be a dangerous state of affairs.

Some Tenets of Yoga
Ahimsa: Non violence. It has a negative meaning not to kill, and a positive meaning to abide in love for every creature, for the same Universal Spirit pervades them all. To kill a living thing is to insult its Creator. You are not to kill for sport, food or anything. A vegetarian diet is necessary to advance in this path. You would not carry weapons, for instance, on your person for your own protection since a Yogi fears no evil and relies on God for protection. A Yogi lives in opposition to evil, but not the wrong-doer. Connoted in Ahimsa are abhaya (freedom from fear) and akhroda (freedom from anger). Freedom from fear comes from purity and knowing. Note there are two types of anger: one which is spiritually up-building and one which is debasing. It is the latter the Yogi avoids. Thus he is stern with himself whenever he stoops low but gentle with others when they fail.

Satya: Truth. This is the highest moral standard, without which you cannot become fit for union with infinity. Truthfulness is in thought, words and deed. This principle encompasses the control of the tongue, that is, the avoidance of the four sins of speech listed as: (i) abuse and obscenity, (ii) lying, (iii) tale bearing, (iv) ridiculing what others hold as sacred. A truthful person needs not run after anything, for when she prays with a pure heart, everything she needs comes to her.

Asteya: Non stealing. Stealing to a Yogi includes taking what belongs to another without permission, taking it with permission but using it for a purpose other than that for which it is requested, holding on to it for more than the time requested from the owner. It also includes acquiring or gathering to himself things he does not need.

Brahmacharya: Celibacy or self-restraint. The retention of semen means the retention of life, its loss means the reverse. What Yoga really emphasizes, though, is the continence of the body, speech and mind. Brahmacharya should not be interpreted literally as the prohibition of marriage. In fact, marriage is encouraged for the Sadhaka, since without experiencing human love it is difficult to recognise divine love. And one of the scriptures say the Yogi should not renounce family, profession, or society. But he is to put the Lord first and foremost. He can keep his work, but his mind should not lie there

Aparigraha: Non-hoarding. This is an extension of asteya (non-stealing). This one goes further to say you should not take anything from anyone as a favour without having worked for it, for that is poverty of the spirit. A Yogi does not hoard because he has faith in the abilities of God and himself to provide for the future. Whenever he faces poverty he remembers the moon. During the latter half of the month, it rises late in night when no one is awake to appreciate its splendor. But it keeps proudly in the sky knowing that in a short while it will be full again and men will croon its praises. Aparigraha makes life simple. It takes the Sadhaka out of illusion and misery.

Niyama: Personal rules of conduct. The five niyamas deal with rules of conduct for the individual, as opposed to the universal rules. They are listed by Patanjali as: (i) saucha (purity), (ii) santosa (contentment), (iii) tapas (austerity), (iv) savdyaya (Self study), (v) Isvara pranidhana (dedication to the Lord). There is no vagueness here, either. Each of the rules has specific connotations in Yoga. For example, dedication to the Lord does not mean going to a temple, but absolute submission to God in will and action. Thus a Sadhaka surrenders every sense of “I” or “me” and never prays for personal gratifications. His prayer is: “I do not know what is good for me. Let your will be done, Lord.” He knows that all creation truly belong to God and so cannot possibly be vain about any abilities or possessions.

The breath or life force of every individual is connected to the cosmic breath, that is, the breath of the Universal Spirit, Brahma. Yoga, the Enlightened state, is the stage where there is Oneness between the individual’s breath that of the Universal Spirit. Pranayama helps bring this about. It is the bridge, the link. That is the belief.

When you reach the state of Yoga, you will have no doubt because you will go into a state of super consciousness. I cannot fully comprehend that, much less explain it, since I am quite obviously not in that state! But think of someone who is in a state of absolute peace. Not the peace of the dead, but a living, knowing peace. You cannot threaten to kill him, for instance, because death is not significant. You cannot take his house away because he doesn’t have a need for shelter. You cannot throw him in prison because his soul is liberated and no man can touch the soul. He feels no pain. Now that is another thing I do not fully grasp. There are claims that enlightened ones do not feel the physical effect of heat. There are no recorded objective cases of this – not that enlightened ones would be interested in having their cases objectively exhibited or recorded. But there is hardly any doubt that enlightened ones have come out of being buried alive for days. Think of someone who knows everything – all his past lives and where he has ever been, doesn’t have to wonder if there are people in other universes because he can simply go out there and get the knowledge he craves.

What you wrote about reincarnation up there makes for interesting reading. I am obviously far less familiar with what Jesus taught on the matter than you are. Perhaps you can shed more light. I think it’s perfectly fine for the Yogi to call Jesus master. I am deeply skeptical about the claims of Jesus’ Essenic links, but I have nothing to refute them. My personal views on reincarnation are nothing set in stone. It is a topic I take every opportunity to explore. From what I have explored, I am inclined to the continuous rebirth theory. But perhaps you can shed more light on your perspectives. Where did Jesus teach reincarnation?

And who says fish-consuming MyJoe will become a guru or even has such aspirations? 

Pastor’s post above brings other valuable perspectives to that matter and should help us to understand the gunas better as tendencies, rather than traits.

Tamas: Inertia, Heaviness; Resolves by means of ignorance and obstruction

Rajas: Activity; Energy; Resolves by passion born of craving and attachment

Sattva: Truth and Goodness; Spiritual Essence; Resolves by means of attachment to knowledge and joy

These are tendencies ingrained in the unconscious, so, no, they do not manifest as “progressive qualities”. And it is fair to argue that we don't change. But we can. The scriptures enjoin it. It is recommended that tamas and rajas are to be weeded out to obtain a sattvic frame of mind. And people in whom the sattvo-guna frame of mind predominate are to work to transcend the three gunas. This is what Yoga teaches.

In terms of whether or not one is better than the other, we have to ask “better” in relation to what? Let me look at it in terms of our day to day life. Is it better to be thin or to be fat? It is better to be thin if you wish to become an athlete. It may be better to be thin if you wish to have good health. It is better to be fat if you wish to be a sumo wrestler. Many would say it is better to be thin on the whole. But some will vehemently disagree with that. Now, that is a grossly inadequate example, as the differences between the gunas are much more profound. They can determine your choices which can profoundly affect the course of your life.

If my driving life ambition is to become a billionaire (if you read some of these self-help books, you’d think that is all there is to life) then one guna may not be better than the other – depending, of course, on how I intend to make my billions. If all I want to be is a Nobel Prize winning writer or an Olympic medal winning swimmer, one may often not be better than the other. Even in my family life, it is possible to have a wonderful relationship with my spouse and kids whatever my guna if I happen to be on the boat with people I gel with. And in your world nobody may care if you eat milk and vegetables (sattvic in Yoga), fish and chocolate (rajasic), or meat and onions (tamasic).

However, gunas influence your thoughts, actions are relationships. It takes a man of certain tendencies to be able to relate with everybody than a man of other tendencies. It takes a woman of certain tendencies to quarrel with everyone in the neighbourhood. Someone may enter a room and the whole place is lit up. That is to do with his tendencies. People may be caught up in the rain and all run past the only house in the vicinity rather than seek shelter, because of certain tendencies of the landlord.

In the ordinary business of life, the different tendencies may serve you in different situations (expediency), but the thoughts and actions most closely associated with tamas and rajas are those you are most likely to identify as bad traits and work hard to overcome. That is why you often hear, “I can’t control myself once I’m angry,” “I worry too much,” “I have been trying to stop smoking for three years.” The example Pastor gave bears this out when you look at the big picture. Still, maybe there are times it is better to go robotic than to be creative – there could be, but I’m not sure of that.

The three gunas are present in everyone, with the predominating one often asserting itself in your thoughts and actions, tamas tending towards the coarse, and sattva towards the fine. Thus, in Yoga there is no equivocation – tamas and rajas are to be rooted out completely, for the gunas are like gravity, they drag you down when you desire to go up.

Are the three gunas inherent in God? I will sit back and enjoy Deep Sight philosophise on that one. 

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 1 Cor. 13:8

The use of "tongues ", speech to spread God's message in those time was effective since radio, print and other media were not available. As the bible message began to spread and advance no was no longer a use for prophecies and speaking of tongues.

FYI- Speaking in tongues today is babble, gibberish, whereas during the first century speaking in tongues, meant speaking a different language. Why the change?

^^^

Oh, an assumption! Radio, TV and print media are the new equivalent of dreams, visions and speaking in tongues, right?

I think you need to re-assess your beliefs, Sir/Ma.

A statement such as "Femi" is dead infers certainty of his demise rather than a "feeling" that since you've not seen him for the past 5 years, definitely he must be dead.

1 Cor 13:8 did not give a timeline and God still retains choice to use whatever He wishes to pass the message across. That said, I am not supporting the machine-guns on the pulpits, only stating the obvious - no one has right to determine for God His timing.

There is a point to everything. There was a reason for visions, dreams and tongues back then because "spiritual knowledge" was it infancy, the bible was not finished,
Fast forward today we have advanced "spiritual knowledge and a complete bible and pretty much everyone around the world has some understanding about god. what is the point of vision, dreams, and tongues. There purpose was served and no longer in use. As earlier said people speaking in tongues speak gibberish which has nothing to do with spreading "spiritual knowledge".

MyJoe:
Still, maybe there are times it is better to go robotic than to be creative – there could be, but I’m not sure of that.

If in order to achieve a certain goal you need to establish a routine then being tamasic will be of help. For example if I'm studying for an exam and I want to wake up at 7 am every morning to start studying and then leave to go to the library at 9am till 1 pm when I'll break for lunch then study some more then go to the gym then return home and study some more before going to bed. And I need to do this everyday for 2 months. If I didn't cultivate a tamasic nature I'm sure that I would die of boredom.

@Nuclearboy. Speaking in tongues? There's probably no singular religious and hilarious absurdity I've ever come across than this one. According to the bible, the reason is clear. There really is no need for it especially in recent times. I've once asked a 'prayer warrior' what the reason was for his agitated vocalisations and he told it is so that the devil will not understand his prayers and thus intercept and destroy them. I was speechless. I left my friend alone. Truth is, the devil is probably the most over-rated being provided he ever existed. You know the way Bush and his people (or rather some people and their dimwit puppet Bush) cohered the citizens by creating an enemy image which was 'terrorism.' Religions use the same tactic with the boogeyman, the devil. He 'tempted' Christ. He of all people should know better, no? It's like tempting a King with chocomilo. I've done a lot of light research over two years that became very vigorous in the last six months. Unfortunately, my methods are not good for finding what is true (which is what I'm really concerned with) but I only get convinced of untruth or unnecessary things which don't matter if it were true or not. I've discovered that there seems to be, as far as humanity is concerned, an evolution of sorts from polytheism to monotheism and I feel the next step is agnostism (which most of us are but won't admit) and finally atheism. This is a trend I think is happening but truth is truth and it doesn't matter if majority of humanity believe a thing but the trouble I face is that even though I believe such a man as Jesus walked the earth and he was something special, I find no proof of the historical Jesus. The little I found refer to a Christ which is a title. I thought then, if he did all those fantastic things, he ought to be the rave of the century and I nearly dismissed him as myth because of this. Later I found that many awesome things that were attributed to him where probably myths from old Jewish prophets, their messianic expectations or pagan myths brought from all over chiefly by Paul. There is an unsettling similarity between myths about Jesus and other myths. Virgin birth, Dec 25th, Easter, Crucifiction, Resurrection, 3day death, almost every darn thing has a parallel in some mythological being widely known at those times.

Extrapolating I've gone through phases of unhappiness that I'm sure there can be no God. I very nearly lost my left eye yesterday and I started to think. If I became blind, would I wanna keep living knowing that after I die, that would be it? That would be the most miserable existence I can imagine. I've decided to stop searching and start praying (or hoping for I dunno how to pray) before I convince myself that there is no God. I'm really struggling with what to believe. Whatever the case may be, God's existence is a delusion, I'm afraid, I'm not ready to shed.

^^^ The argument is not whether it exists today or not. It is the certainty of the assertion that it does not.

Note the assertion is based solely on feeling - radio is here and so is tv THEREFORE it doesn't exist anymore (not it is no longer necessary).

I was speaking to someone today about a couple of "friends" who felt they were competing with me business-wise and ended up losing more than anyone thought possible. I told him nature preaches to us better than even the Bible - plant a seed, watch it bud, watch it grow, tend it, nuture it, get rid of weeds and in the NATURAL time (for its species), it will bring forth (based on the level of nurture it had). Thus Maize will not bud in the time Oranges do. My point concerning my business as expressed to my friend was that cash crops take longest but when they start, thats it. Cocoa will not fruit in Maizes' 3 months no matter what you do. I basically showed him the process and nurturing I went through!

You might want to try same and seek God in nature - Nature teaches better than scholarship or intellect and its there obvious to us all (if we look).

Effect shows a "Cause"! On every single level. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

^^ Sorry Mummy: Was far yet here! Had some pressing business to attend to.

I referred to cause AND effect. For every effect we see in Nature, there exists a cause. Nothing starts by itself!

Aside that, nature itself provides us a balance in which I see design - its called the food chain and I would that Vescucci consider that its a cycle that if you removed man from, would approach perfection. Man, which is the "strange portion" of that chain is the only one allowed the capability to take something given to him and make of it another thing - thus possessing the capability to upturn "nature". That is the message given in the creation story - difference, the power to tend, to build up or tear down BUT within limits.

Allowed to run riot without control, I believe men would have destroyed everything as we know it but repeatedly, an unseen hand ensures that even with all that power, men end up unable to change the status quo. That I see as nature portraying God to us.

Oh. I see what you mean, Nuke but I'm not sure it proves the existence of God. At least it doesn't constitute proof to me. What you're saying proves Gaya or Mother Nature or the order of things, yes, but not really who put those in place. In any case, I'm not an atheist but three years ago I wouldn't believe I'd disbelieve in the things I disbelieve in now.

I get your taking order, cause and effect, as reasons for God's existence. The reasons why I discount atheism is that matter seems to tend towards disorder and not cohesion let alone life. Life seems to have only one purpose which is continuity. Evolution points to the gradual and continuous process of the improvement of a species to live longer and better. The question is why and not how. Why should a bunch of molecules care if they exist together as an animal or separately as rocks and cloud. Every living thing has one thing in common: an absolute desire to remain alive and an equally absolute aversion to cessation of life. What is so special about life to a plant for instance? And I believe if evolution is to be wholly accepted, as far as life on land is concerned, plant life existed first before, obviously herbivores and consequently carnivores. The existence of Plankton makes the game different as far as sea life is concerned. Back to my reasons. Why should natural selection be concerned with improving the lots of every single living thing which makes no sense since the stalemate will stand. Predators will hunt better but prey will escape better too. The ratio of success remains about the same. Also why is it that living things do not only care about their own survival but have a vested and urgent need to ensure the continuity of their species? I believe in evolution. I just don't think it's spontaneous.

vescucci:

The reasons why I discount atheism is that matter seems to tend towards disorder and not cohesion let alone life. Life seems to have only one purpose which is continuity. Evolution points to the gradual and continuous process of the improvement of a species to live longer and better.

Professor Vesc!

The bolded words - reading that was better than s.ex!

Sometimes we just need a good ol' prof like your eminent self with your gift of clear and lucid communication to come along and set out clearly that which plebians like myself struggle with. I entirely agree with those words -

- - -Indeed a while back I opened a thread titled "Evolution proves creation" - and what you have expressed is exactly what I was trying to set out therein - but the thread never got off the ground. I abandoned it after a few posts, although I recall viaro vehemently disagreed.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-393099.0.html

Lol. I'm afraid you only think me eminently something something because you are in sync with me. It has nothing to do with Vescucci really. It's just the same way people who simply read different stuff seem far out. I'll go check out your thread then.

BTW, if you don't mind me saying, you oughta spice up your sex life. Try new things.

vescucci:


BTW, if you don't mind me saying, you oughta spice up your sex life. Try new things.

Lol; believe me i rather need to slow down on the crazee stuff.

Mad_Max:


Why shouldn't you be a guru? A Yogi. Don't you want to? That's the point, isn't it? From what you say, Yoga seems to demand awesome self-discipline, though. Not everyone has that. I certainly don't. Honestly, it sounds fantastically interesting.

Not necessarily. There are people who do just the physical stuff. I could do stages 1-4 before having to make up my mind whether I want to take on 5-8, the real mystical stuff. I am sufficiently motivated but a lot else is needed.

Yoga is fascinating. But it’s much more. I think it’s also special. It does not make specific promises beyond “communion with God”, but different people report different results at various stages of practice. People are cured of “incurable” illnesses. Some start experiencing OBEs and other “supernatural” phenomena naturally.

This non-linear reincarnation sounds interesting. But all the circumstantial evidence one has supports earthly rebirth. I guess I will treat it as one of the beliefs out there, for now, and keep an open mind on it.

Deep Sight:

Lol; believe me i rather need to slow down on the crazee stuff.

Em, the great philosopher wasn't talking about quantity, Deep Sight! 

MyJoe:

Em, the great philosopher wasn't talking about quantity, Deep Sight!

yep, that's why i said -

Deep Sight:

Lol; believe me i rather need to slow down on the [b][size=16pt]crazee[/size] [/b]stuff.

Believe me!

I believe you.

^^^ & ^^^^ Very interesting. Perfect explanation for a phenomena I've had all my adult life.

Whenever I rebel, get too angry, go "crazy", I get these dreams where I'm back in the university and at times, even in high school and just failed an exam or am about to take one and know I'm not prepared. I have met just the one person who also has the same experiences. Regretably, we're no longer in touch though she remains one of the people I've respected most in my life.

Deep lessons there. Where do you get these stuff, Mad_Max?

Osanobua e!

Nairaland nawa.I was just thinking the Grail message adherents were piecing everything together(wanted to get there book),now Mad Max has spin everything Inside out & Upside down.I really appreciate how everybody has elaborated on this topic,you all made my day splendid.Everything is so complicated,still everybody bring plausible explanations(esp Mad Max).Now i know we will never know until we leave this earth,so am sticking to my bible.All the miracles,blessings & personal relationship with Christ is enough.Just wanted to know more but i guess nobody knows,& i ain't failing or repeating no class either.