Guest guest Posted June 30, 2002 Report Share Posted June 30, 2002 Just one final word on our discussion Richard. It WAS a question of semantics in my mind. What you call Self-Realization I call God- Realization. Self-Realization has a whole different meaning to me, but I understand what you are talking about as God-Realization, so in that sense we were not on the same page. And the use of the word objective really threw me. The way that you (Ramana?) use it, I still don't quite see it. As a teacher I use objective to mean the goal of learning something particular in a unit, or that something is objective (real, unbiased answer) versus subjective (your thoughts). I am afraid it did not register as part of a spiritual definition. I apologize for my tunnel vision. But on rereading your clarification IT does make sense totally as the Realized Master or God if you will. This, especially after reading UG's experience, because THAT is what I understand, "when the world appears upon waking as a dream....." And it was a dream and sort of a nightmare of adjustments for UG to become accustomed to NOT NEEDING TO THINK or to think p.r.n., as needed. So you see semantics, until we go beyond mind, is important, to define your terms. Thank you for taking the time to do so for me. You do have fine teachers. Namaste Netemara ******************** -- In RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Hi Netemara, > > Thank you for jumping in. This is just what is desired. > +++++ > At the end of this essay you invite dialog and I was interested in > the way that you framed this argument and am trying to understand how > you, and group sees the teachings of Ramana and I don't have time to > read every single post that is on this list. So I will just jump in > here if that is okay? > > First I want to make sure that I have an understanding of terms to > really see this argument clearly. When using the word `objective' I > immediately thought of my usual definition of it, which is like the > #4 definition in Webster's i.e. to be without bias, detached. > > But on further reading of this post I realized that you were not > using that definition of objective but rather this one from > Webster's "(1) of or having to do with a known or perceived object as > distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the > subject, person thinking. 2) being, or regarded as being, > independent of the mind; real; actual." > > So for purposes of argument, discussion, or dialog I am proposing > that you are referring to either the #1 or #2 definition of objective > as it is being used. Correct me if I am wrong here. > ++++++ > > By objective I mean simply "something perceived or known." This is > used in inquiry, with the idea that if something is perceived, then > it is "external" from the "perceiver." Inquiry is to point the > seeker to the Consciousness that is the witness to all. > > +++++++ > Paragraph 17 > > For the subsidence of mind there is no other means more effective and > adequate than Self-enquiry. Even though by other means the mind > subsides, that is only apparently so; it will rise again. > Quotes and comments: > > Now Ramana starts instruction on the practice of Self-inquiry. This > will continue for several paragraphs. > > "The first issue addressed is `the subsidence of mind.' It is only > when the mind is quiet that most seekers can start to see that there > is something beyond the mind, that even one's subtle thoughts are > objective. This points them directly to Self. (Who knows these > thoughts?)" > > ************ > comment: > > Here you (or Ramana) are equating a quiet mind with a mind which is > in subsidence, okay, then when the seeker has begun to have practice > in attaining this quiet mind, which the average person does not seek, > the seeker begins to see that there is something beyond -- (meaning > greater than the mind?) the mind. That is a solid argument for > pursuing that something beyond the mind and a good starting point. > > Then you state that in this state of quiescence that one observes the > subtle thoughts and finds that they too are objective. Meaning that > the subtle thoughts that one encounters in this practice, have a life > of their own apart from the mind itself. Am I reading that right? > Therefore, by this inquiry the seeker finds that HE (the seeker) is > not the creator of these thoughts, be they subtle or gross in nature. > > ++++++++ > By Self, I mean Atman (or Brahman), "The Self of all." > > This Self is described by Sages as (among other descriptions), > beginningless, endless, formless, changeless, etc. The mind cannot > then be the Self, as it changes moment by moment. In Advaita > Vedanta, ego is usually used to denote the idea that one is a > separate identity, whereas Self, Atman, Brahman and many other terms > are meant to denote that "Sat-Chit-Ananda," (Being-Consciousness- > Bliss) which is Absolute Being. . > > As to what the mind is, Ramana says that the mind is but "a bundle of > thoughts." > > Sages speak of the Self as the "witness of all." This Self is not > the doer, is not the thinker, but rather is the Consciousness that > fills thinking and doing with reality. The reality felt in thinking > and doing is really the Reality projected onto some object of mind. > ++++++++++++ > > Then you state "this points them directly to Self" meaning the true > Ego? So the argument is that the maker or genesis of thoughts is > what is Real? That this creator of thoughts is the Self? And thus by > seeing the mind as a mere recorder of the thoughts, which are > objective (real) and coming from the producer, which is equal to > Self, that the seeker will begin to grasp true reality. > > ***************** > It is a common goal of a variety of spiritual practices to still the > mind. For example, Buddha, according to a sutra once said, "Stop, > stop. Do not talk. The highest truth is not even to think." It is > clear, in this Self-inquiry practice, that the still mind is just a > starting point. When the mind is still, who knows the still mind? > So there continues to be Consciousness-Being. When thoughts are > still you continue to exist. Can you be any thought? When one can > look deeply, one sees that the idea of ego, of individuality, or > being a separate person, is just another thought, another idea. > Which thought are you? Are you any of them? Are you all of them? > > So how is best to get subsidence of mind? Here Ramana is specific. > He says, "there is no other means more effective and adequate than > Self-enquiry." In Self-inquiry, the seeker uses the mind, and the > capabilities of the mind to look `past' the mind (into Bring- > Consciousness-Bliss). > ********************* > > Comment: > > " In this inquiry one sees that their identity, their being, "who > they are," is not any thing that is objective. (And even subtle > experience like thought is objective.) And the seeker > continues to direct the mind to Being (Being-Consciousness-Bliss)." > > Okay, here is the other statement I was trying to fully understand, > above. Ramana says that their true nature/ego is not `any thing that > is objective' if we reverse this statement it would read `their being > is any thing that is objective' and what do we have then? If we > return to the definition of objective then it would read: "their > being 'who they are` is not any thing that is real or separate from > their thinking." I only understand this though when I read it > as "who they are is not real" do you mean really "who we THINK we are > is what is not real?" Because only in the process of thinking do we > bump heads with the not-real, the illusory right? When we suspend > thinking then we are bumping into the sky of reality, the real Self, > at least that is how I read this. > > ++++++++++++++++++ > Your thinking here does not fit what Ramana teaches. So back to the > drawing board. > > First see again the definition of `objective.' Clearly in the > teaching, one's Being is NOT ANY OBJECTIVE THING, EXPERIENCE, OR > THOUGHT. What is "real" is said to be that which is permanent, > always present (even in dream or deep sleep). Clearly no object of > the world or object of mind (thought) fits this description. > > The metaphor that Ramana used was that of a movie projected on a > screen. The movie is all the objective `reality,' the screen is > Being. Does any scene in the movie upset the screen? > > The other thing that one needs to understand is that there are NOT > two selves, the deluded ego self, and the Atman. There is just one > Self, it is who we are. What we seek is who we are. The process of > Self-inquiry is one of eliminating from one's view of `who they are' > all the things that they are not, until all at eliminated. Then what > remains? If you are able to do this meditatively, you will find that > even after everything has been negated, eliminated, and the mind is > totally quiet, that there still remains this > consciousness/existence. I put them together because as you will be > able to verify with your own meditation, they cannot be separated. > > The other thing about what Ramana taught is that the fundamental > process is one of practice (Self-inquiry), not one of trying to grasp > all this conceptually. This truth rises from ones deepest > experiences. This is not book learning, nor some conceptual > edifice. This is meditation that becomes deep Knowledge (the capitol > is used in Knowledge to differentiate it from mental knowledge. This > Knowledge is as the same level as the knowledge that you exist. Is > this conceptual? > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > ****************** > Comment: > > Then you have "and even subtle experience like thought is > objective." I asked myself what does that really mean to the seeker, > or to myself? If I rewrite it using the definition of objective it > would read "and even subtle experience like thought is real." To my > mind that is a contradiction of the first statement, unless some > words are missing. Like this: to say that to participate in thinking > at this point of self-inquiry is objective, or apart from the > thinker? Is that what you mean here? Because how else are you > conducting self-inquiry other than to watch the thoughts as they come > and go and not go along with them? So, to stop (real still) the > mind I will use the practice of self-inquiry which is to watch the > thoughts (which are real) but to know that the mind which records > them is NOT real. Is that a fair conclusion? And this is meditation > whose practice will eventually lead me to the Real Home of the Ego. > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > Again, you need to move past these ideas. > > You will see in Self-inquiry that you exist, even when there is no > thought. So no individual thought, nor any of them together make up > your real identity, your real being. If this is not any thought, > then what is it? > > Now Self-inquiry is practice by the mind. The Self has no need for > inquiry. By a process of discrimination as to what is permanent and > what is transitory one's focus becomes "deeper and deeper." > > It may seem paradoxical, but in Self-inquiry you use the power of > the "thinker" to move past the "thinker" to see that your own Reality > is something that is much deeper. Who knows the thinker? That is > much closer to who you really are. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > *************** > Comment and conclusion: I read into this that the purpose of self- > inquiry is to use the mind to not think but to observe that thoughts > are real, but the mind or the thinker (small self) is not real. > Thoughts are being produced by a producer, and this producer or Self > is what is real? And by pushing through thoughts like we push aside > rain or snow as it obstructs our view that we will eventually see > what is precipitating thoughts and/or how we (as mind) are allowing > it to drop into that mind or not self. > > And by continuing this practice we will arrive at reality, which is > still only the first stage, of knowing that we are not our thoughts > or thinking or mind. What lies behind these thoughts is our goal or > aim at this stage, as you state not the final or ultimate stage by > any means. > > My final question would be this: how long does this stage last? > > +++++++++++++++ > Your conclusion needs more work. The purpose of Self-inquiry is to > see that you are that which you (and all seekers everywhere for all > time) seek, it is to move your `stand' from that of being an > individual embodied person to the stand of identity as Being- > Consciousness-Bliss. What is "unreal' includes the world, the body, > the senses, the life energy (prajna), thoughts and the `I'- thought. > What is real is Being-Consciousness-Bliss. > > Reality is not the first stage. It is the only stage. Knowing that > we are not our thoughts is a step along the way. Sages say that when > Self-realization comes, it is seen that it was there all the time. > We do not "become" realized. This is not something that is in any > way produced; rather it is Who We Are. Reality is also described as > timeless, not created, beginningless and endless. So when did this > start? Per the description, did it start? Will it end? To verify > this, when you come to your own Self-realization, you can report back > to the group, "Did it ever begin?" > > Stay with this series where I post and comment on "Who am I?" In > subsequent paragraphs Ramana talks about thoughts and the mind. I > will post these sections with my comments. > > Again my comments come from two sources: I have been with two Self- > realized sages, Nome and Russ at the Society of Abidance in Truth, in > Santa Cruz, CA, USA, for more than ten years. Every week in satsang > they dialog about Self-inquiry, who we are, and Reality. I have also > gone to perhaps 20 or so retreats with them. One part of the > comments comes from the wisdom that I have slowly absorbed from my > precious teachers. The other part is from my own spiritual > practice. There is an ancient approach to spiritually that I follow > here, it is "Listen, reflect, then meditate deeply." > > Namaste > > Netemara > +++++++++++++++++ > Also, I appreciate your comments and that you are trying to > understand this teaching. It is quite deep, and without a living > teacher, can be hard to grasp. Without a teacher, then it is too > easy to get 'trapped' in ideas and ego. This teaching is beyond > both, it points to that which is the 'substratum' of both. How can > the mind know that which 'holds' it? > > > We are Not two, > Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2002 Report Share Posted June 30, 2002 Dear Net, Thank you for your posting. One problem is spirituality is the terminology varies with dirrerent teachers and teachings, so the semantic problem is often there. Though my background was originally Ch'an Buddhist, for about the last decade, I have been with Nome, and his orientation is definately Advaita Vedanta, so his language use is "American Hindu." In this language Atman is often translated as "Self." Certainly Self- Realization and God-Realization are equivalent terms. I am glad that you asked the questions you did, so we had this opportunity to see how much that we are talking about the same Truth (here I capitalize the word to stand for that Truth that is the Absolute Reality, whatever name one gives to it). We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "netemara888" <netemara888> wrote: > Just one final word on our discussion Richard. It WAS a question of > semantics in my mind. What you call Self-Realization I call God- > Realization. Self-Realization has a whole different meaning to me, > but I understand what you are talking about as God-Realization, so in > that sense we were not on the same page. And the use of the word > objective really threw me. The way that you (Ramana?) use it, I > still don't quite see it. As a teacher I use objective to mean the > goal of learning something particular in a unit, or that something is > objective (real, unbiased answer) versus subjective (your thoughts). > I am afraid it did not register as part of a spiritual definition. I > apologize for my tunnel vision. > > But on rereading your clarification IT does make sense totally as the > Realized Master or God if you will. This, especially after reading > UG's experience, because THAT is what I understand, "when the world > appears upon waking as a dream....." And it was a dream and sort of > a nightmare of adjustments for UG to become accustomed to NOT NEEDING > TO THINK or to think p.r.n., as needed. > > So you see semantics, until we go beyond mind, is important, to > define your terms. Thank you for taking the time to do so for me. > You do have fine teachers. > > Namaste > > Netemara > > ******************** > > -- In RamanaMaharshi, "richard_clarke95125" <r_clarke@i...> > wrote: > > Hi Netemara, > > > > Thank you for jumping in. This is just what is desired. > > +++++ > > At the end of this essay you invite dialog and I was interested in > > the way that you framed this argument and am trying to understand > how > > you, and group sees the teachings of Ramana and I don't have time > to > > read every single post that is on this list. So I will just jump > in > > here if that is okay? > > > > First I want to make sure that I have an understanding of terms to > > really see this argument clearly. When using the word `objective' > I > > immediately thought of my usual definition of it, which is like the > > #4 definition in Webster's i.e. to be without bias, detached. > > > > But on further reading of this post I realized that you were not > > using that definition of objective but rather this one from > > Webster's "(1) of or having to do with a known or perceived object > as > > distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the > > subject, person thinking. 2) being, or regarded as being, > > independent of the mind; real; actual." > > > > So for purposes of argument, discussion, or dialog I am proposing > > that you are referring to either the #1 or #2 definition of > objective > > as it is being used. Correct me if I am wrong here. > > ++++++ > > > > By objective I mean simply "something perceived or known." This is > > used in inquiry, with the idea that if something is perceived, then > > it is "external" from the "perceiver." Inquiry is to point the > > seeker to the Consciousness that is the witness to all. > > > > +++++++ > > Paragraph 17 > > > > For the subsidence of mind there is no other means more effective > and > > adequate than Self-enquiry. Even though by other means the mind > > subsides, that is only apparently so; it will rise again. > > Quotes and comments: > > > > Now Ramana starts instruction on the practice of Self-inquiry. This > > will continue for several paragraphs. > > > > "The first issue addressed is `the subsidence of mind.' It is only > > when the mind is quiet that most seekers can start to see that > there > > is something beyond the mind, that even one's subtle thoughts are > > objective. This points them directly to Self. (Who knows these > > thoughts?)" > > > > ************ > > comment: > > > > Here you (or Ramana) are equating a quiet mind with a mind which is > > in subsidence, okay, then when the seeker has begun to have > practice > > in attaining this quiet mind, which the average person does not > seek, > > the seeker begins to see that there is something beyond -- (meaning > > greater than the mind?) the mind. That is a solid argument for > > pursuing that something beyond the mind and a good starting point. > > > > Then you state that in this state of quiescence that one observes > the > > subtle thoughts and finds that they too are objective. Meaning > that > > the subtle thoughts that one encounters in this practice, have a > life > > of their own apart from the mind itself. Am I reading that right? > > Therefore, by this inquiry the seeker finds that HE (the seeker) is > > not the creator of these thoughts, be they subtle or gross in > nature. > > > > ++++++++ > > By Self, I mean Atman (or Brahman), "The Self of all." > > > > This Self is described by Sages as (among other descriptions), > > beginningless, endless, formless, changeless, etc. The mind cannot > > then be the Self, as it changes moment by moment. In Advaita > > Vedanta, ego is usually used to denote the idea that one is a > > separate identity, whereas Self, Atman, Brahman and many other > terms > > are meant to denote that "Sat-Chit-Ananda," (Being-Consciousness- > > Bliss) which is Absolute Being. . > > > > As to what the mind is, Ramana says that the mind is but "a bundle > of > > thoughts." > > > > Sages speak of the Self as the "witness of all." This Self is not > > the doer, is not the thinker, but rather is the Consciousness that > > fills thinking and doing with reality. The reality felt in > thinking > > and doing is really the Reality projected onto some object of mind. > > ++++++++++++ > > > > Then you state "this points them directly to Self" meaning the true > > Ego? So the argument is that the maker or genesis of thoughts is > > what is Real? That this creator of thoughts is the Self? And thus > by > > seeing the mind as a mere recorder of the thoughts, which are > > objective (real) and coming from the producer, which is equal to > > Self, that the seeker will begin to grasp true reality. > > > > ***************** > > It is a common goal of a variety of spiritual practices to still > the > > mind. For example, Buddha, according to a sutra once said, "Stop, > > stop. Do not talk. The highest truth is not even to think." It is > > clear, in this Self-inquiry practice, that the still mind is just a > > starting point. When the mind is still, who knows the still mind? > > So there continues to be Consciousness-Being. When thoughts are > > still you continue to exist. Can you be any thought? When one can > > look deeply, one sees that the idea of ego, of individuality, or > > being a separate person, is just another thought, another idea. > > Which thought are you? Are you any of them? Are you all of them? > > > > So how is best to get subsidence of mind? Here Ramana is specific. > > He says, "there is no other means more effective and adequate than > > Self-enquiry." In Self-inquiry, the seeker uses the mind, and the > > capabilities of the mind to look `past' the mind (into Bring- > > Consciousness-Bliss). > > ********************* > > > > Comment: > > > > " In this inquiry one sees that their identity, their being, "who > > they are," is not any thing that is objective. (And even subtle > > experience like thought is objective.) And the seeker > > continues to direct the mind to Being (Being-Consciousness- Bliss)." > > > > Okay, here is the other statement I was trying to fully understand, > > above. Ramana says that their true nature/ego is not `any thing > that > > is objective' if we reverse this statement it would read `their > being > > is any thing that is objective' and what do we have then? If we > > return to the definition of objective then it would read: "their > > being 'who they are` is not any thing that is real or separate from > > their thinking." I only understand this though when I read it > > as "who they are is not real" do you mean really "who we THINK we > are > > is what is not real?" Because only in the process of thinking do > we > > bump heads with the not-real, the illusory right? When we suspend > > thinking then we are bumping into the sky of reality, the real > Self, > > at least that is how I read this. > > > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > Your thinking here does not fit what Ramana teaches. So back to > the > > drawing board. > > > > First see again the definition of `objective.' Clearly in the > > teaching, one's Being is NOT ANY OBJECTIVE THING, EXPERIENCE, OR > > THOUGHT. What is "real" is said to be that which is permanent, > > always present (even in dream or deep sleep). Clearly no object of > > the world or object of mind (thought) fits this description. > > > > The metaphor that Ramana used was that of a movie projected on a > > screen. The movie is all the objective `reality,' the screen is > > Being. Does any scene in the movie upset the screen? > > > > The other thing that one needs to understand is that there are NOT > > two selves, the deluded ego self, and the Atman. There is just one > > Self, it is who we are. What we seek is who we are. The process > of > > Self-inquiry is one of eliminating from one's view of `who they > are' > > all the things that they are not, until all at eliminated. Then > what > > remains? If you are able to do this meditatively, you will find > that > > even after everything has been negated, eliminated, and the mind is > > totally quiet, that there still remains this > > consciousness/existence. I put them together because as you will > be > > able to verify with your own meditation, they cannot be separated. > > > > The other thing about what Ramana taught is that the fundamental > > process is one of practice (Self-inquiry), not one of trying to > grasp > > all this conceptually. This truth rises from ones deepest > > experiences. This is not book learning, nor some conceptual > > edifice. This is meditation that becomes deep Knowledge (the > capitol > > is used in Knowledge to differentiate it from mental knowledge. > This > > Knowledge is as the same level as the knowledge that you exist. Is > > this conceptual? > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ****************** > > Comment: > > > > Then you have "and even subtle experience like thought is > > objective." I asked myself what does that really mean to the > seeker, > > or to myself? If I rewrite it using the definition of objective it > > would read "and even subtle experience like thought is real." To > my > > mind that is a contradiction of the first statement, unless some > > words are missing. Like this: to say that to participate in > thinking > > at this point of self-inquiry is objective, or apart from the > > thinker? Is that what you mean here? Because how else are you > > conducting self-inquiry other than to watch the thoughts as they > come > > and go and not go along with them? So, to stop (real still) the > > mind I will use the practice of self-inquiry which is to watch the > > thoughts (which are real) but to know that the mind which records > > them is NOT real. Is that a fair conclusion? And this is > meditation > > whose practice will eventually lead me to the Real Home of the Ego. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Again, you need to move past these ideas. > > > > You will see in Self-inquiry that you exist, even when there is no > > thought. So no individual thought, nor any of them together make > up > > your real identity, your real being. If this is not any thought, > > then what is it? > > > > Now Self-inquiry is practice by the mind. The Self has no need for > > inquiry. By a process of discrimination as to what is permanent > and > > what is transitory one's focus becomes "deeper and deeper." > > > > It may seem paradoxical, but in Self-inquiry you use the power of > > the "thinker" to move past the "thinker" to see that your own > Reality > > is something that is much deeper. Who knows the thinker? That is > > much closer to who you really are. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > *************** > > Comment and conclusion: I read into this that the purpose of self- > > inquiry is to use the mind to not think but to observe that > thoughts > > are real, but the mind or the thinker (small self) is not real. > > Thoughts are being produced by a producer, and this producer or > Self > > is what is real? And by pushing through thoughts like we push > aside > > rain or snow as it obstructs our view that we will eventually see > > what is precipitating thoughts and/or how we (as mind) are > allowing > > it to drop into that mind or not self. > > > > And by continuing this practice we will arrive at reality, which is > > still only the first stage, of knowing that we are not our thoughts > > or thinking or mind. What lies behind these thoughts is our goal > or > > aim at this stage, as you state not the final or ultimate stage by > > any means. > > > > My final question would be this: how long does this stage last? > > > > +++++++++++++++ > > Your conclusion needs more work. The purpose of Self-inquiry is to > > see that you are that which you (and all seekers everywhere for all > > time) seek, it is to move your `stand' from that of being an > > individual embodied person to the stand of identity as Being- > > Consciousness-Bliss. What is "unreal' includes the world, the > body, > > the senses, the life energy (prajna), thoughts and the `I'- > thought. > > What is real is Being-Consciousness-Bliss. > > > > Reality is not the first stage. It is the only stage. Knowing > that > > we are not our thoughts is a step along the way. Sages say that > when > > Self-realization comes, it is seen that it was there all the time. > > We do not "become" realized. This is not something that is in any > > way produced; rather it is Who We Are. Reality is also described > as > > timeless, not created, beginningless and endless. So when did this > > start? Per the description, did it start? Will it end? To verify > > this, when you come to your own Self-realization, you can report > back > > to the group, "Did it ever begin?" > > > > Stay with this series where I post and comment on "Who am I?" In > > subsequent paragraphs Ramana talks about thoughts and the mind. I > > will post these sections with my comments. > > > > Again my comments come from two sources: I have been with two Self- > > realized sages, Nome and Russ at the Society of Abidance in Truth, > in > > Santa Cruz, CA, USA, for more than ten years. Every week in > satsang > > they dialog about Self-inquiry, who we are, and Reality. I have > also > > gone to perhaps 20 or so retreats with them. One part of the > > comments comes from the wisdom that I have slowly absorbed from my > > precious teachers. The other part is from my own spiritual > > practice. There is an ancient approach to spiritually that I > follow > > here, it is "Listen, reflect, then meditate deeply." > > > > Namaste > > > > Netemara > > +++++++++++++++++ > > Also, I appreciate your comments and that you are trying to > > understand this teaching. It is quite deep, and without a living > > teacher, can be hard to grasp. Without a teacher, then it is too > > easy to get 'trapped' in ideas and ego. This teaching is beyond > > both, it points to that which is the 'substratum' of both. How can > > the mind know that which 'holds' it? > > > > > > We are Not two, > > Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.