Guest guest Posted November 23, 1998 Report Share Posted November 23, 1998 On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > SELF pervades all. So, there is no entity without the SELF. That is, > there is no not-SELF anywhere by itself. Right! However, the rest of the post contradicts that fundamental statement. So let's dwell on that for a while. If we take just the _sat_ aspect of sat-cit-Ananda, and translate that as Existence (with capital-E), then the entire niverse is dependent upon that Existence for its manifestation: no Existence, no universe. Within that universe is an insignificant little star that we call the Sun; spinning round that Sun is a minor planet called Earth; on that planet are millions of types of life form; one of these life-forms is the human being; among billions of these human beings, there is one that says "I am Charles." (It is sometimeshelpful to put the ego into perspective in the universal scheme of things.) Now, Charles is the name of a particular human form that is _very_ limited in space, time, etc, but the "I am" that identifies with Charles, is ultimately Existence Itself -- it is the "being" of a human being. [ NB "I am" is not Existence Itself, but a reflection of existence in the buddhi, and hence already limited: therefore "I am" is expressed only as "ultimatel the Self." ] Any object that is observed, any idea in the mind, any state, must be manifest in order to be observed, which is to say that it must exist -- but it has no existence of its own independent of Existence Itself. > Further, the SELF does not mis-identify as not-SELF. It is not a question of MIS-identifying, just simply identifying. In "I am Charles", the "I am" identifies with "Charles". > It is the not-SELF > that (i) can mis-identify itself as SELF or (ii) can mis-identify itself > as not-SELF (that is, by itself, without the SELF). To put it in other > words, the SELF cannot mis-identify, the not-SELF cannot but mis-identify. The not-Self has no existence or intelligence of its own, that it could use to identify with the Self; therefore it is the Self that identifies with the not-Self, which is something linmited in the creation. > For us jeeevas, to say that we are SELF + not-SELF is still a > mis-identification, unless we have that nishchalatvam of the SELF and > behave like nishchalatvam manasA, vAcA, karmA. Further, when we say > that we are the SELF + not-SELF, the not-SELF component is still there. The not-Self component is not going to disappear, not even to a truth-knower: the difference is that he sees Existence everywhere, with the transient superimposed upon it, and does not take the transient to be real (having an independent existence) and does not identify with it. > Until and until that not-SELF component is fully erased, it is a > mis-identification and the individual jeeva behaves like a not-SELF. You could try "erasing" the not-Self by commiting suicide: it won't make any difference to Existence, but it won't do your Karma any good. > Now, the entity that says "I had a good sleep" is the mis-identifying > not-SELF. You may call it the individual jeeva (SELF identified with > not-SELF), but it is still a mis-identification. Identification is the problem: what do you mean by mis-identification? > This again presumes the same not-SELF superposed on the SELF in all the > three states. It is the same causal ignorance that is latent in deep sleep and manifest in dream and waking, that makes Charles recognisably the same from day to day, and different from other humans, as well as different from other species, such as dog or tree. > That is against the logic provided above ( and in the previous > post) where the existence of the not-SELF itself is questioned, not to > talk of the sameness of the not-SELF. The not-Self has no existence of its own, but only that temporarily "borrowed" from Existence Itself. > It *appears* multiplicity. But is not so. The logic is for non-existence > of the not-SELF. SELF pervades all and there is no not-SELF anywhere > anytime without the SELF. It is the SELF which, although does not have > shape or form, does not speak, hear or act, which allows the not-SELF to > claim existence or speak, hear or act. The not-SELF does the imitation, The problem is limitation rather that imitation. > and further claims to be the subject and continuity of itself through > all the states. The way to dissect and annihilate the not-SELF (the ego) > is to disprove its continuity from state to state and even in one state. > If that is done, the ego, the not-SELF that claims to be the subject, > would not have a locus and would disintegrate. Thus, rather than implying > multiplicity of the not-SELF, the above logic attacks the very existence > of the not-SELF. If it is three different "persons" in the three states, then the waking one will have no knowledge of the other two states, and thus have no cause to doubt the "reality" of the waking state. > In the case of statement "I had deep sleep", it is easier to refute it > because it is an inferential statement. Statements attributable to the > wake-up state like "I acted, I ate..." also lack reality because the > very existence of not-SELF is questioned. Yes, do question the "existence" of the not-Self! The advantage of the three states is that each casts doubt upon the validity of the other two. The question is then: What is that which is common to the three states, upon which they are superimposed? This is better than trying to separate the three states, for this lends them a reality and importance that they don't deserve: rather direct the enquiry away from the states and towards the Self -- neti, neti. > Why not discard the not-SELF ? Are we closer to the TRUTH by not > discarding the not-SELF ? Who is going to do the discarding? The not-Self does not have the power to do so, and the Self has no need to do so. The problem is the Self identifying with some limited aspect of the not-Self. Only Knowledge is going to remove that identification. > When SELF alone is all that exists and > the not-SELF is just a superposition which just melts away upon > removal of ignorance, All that exists is saguNa brahman: the saguNa is the All and brahman is the Existence. > why do we need to hang on to that perspective > of the not-SELF ? Excellent question! Would you like to try answering it: why does Gummuluru need to hang on to the human body? :-) I shall append a few extracts from the Pancadashi (Svahananda's translation) concerning the identification of the jIva. Regards, Charles. 7.7 When jIva, having the immutable kUTastha as his basis, wrongly identifies with the gross and subtle bodies, he comes to think of himself as bound by the pleasures and pains of this world. 8 When jIva gives up his attachment to his illusory portion, the nature of the substratum becomes predominant and he realises that he is actionless and of the nature of pure consciousness. ______ 14.6 The Self is spoken of as two types: the individual Self and the supreme Self. The consciousness, through identification with the three bodies, thinks itself as the jIva and becomes an enjoyer. 7 The supreme Self, who is by nature existence, consciousness, and bliss, identifying itself with names and forms becomes the objects of enjoyment. When by discrimination it is disidentified from the three bodies and names and forms, there is neither the enjoyer nor anything to be enjoyed. 8 Desiring the object of enjoyment for the sake of the enjoyer, the jIva suffers, being identified with the body. The sufferings are in the three bodies, but there are no sufferings for the Self. 9 The diseases due to the disequilibrium of the bodily humours are the suffering of the gross body; desire, anger etc., are the suffering of the subtle body; and the source of the suffering of both the gross and subtle bodies is the suffering of the causal body. 10 The knower of the supreme Self, while discriminating about it as mentioned in the Chapter on the 'Bliss of Non-duality', sees no reality in any object of enjoyment. What then should he desire? 11 When the individual Self is determined (to be identical with the immutable) through the methods mentioned in Chapter 12 on the 'Bliss of the Self', there remains no enjoyer in this body. So how can there be sufferings which are the result of identification with the body? ______ 13.30 The pot with its properties of thickness, roundness and so forth, is the product of power acting on the clay with its five properties of sound, touch, form, taste, and smell, but the power is different here (from both the pot and the clay). 31 In the power (that creates the pot) there is neither form nor quality; as it is it remains (even when it has produced the effect, it undergoes no change). It is therefore said to be beyond thought and description. 32 Before the creation of the pot, the power (of giving rise to a pot) is implicit in the clay. With the help of the potter and other means the clay is transformed into a pot. 33 People of immature minds confound the properties of the effect with those of the cause, the clay and speak of it as a pot. 34 The clay, before the potter worked on it, cannot be called a pot. But it is proper to call it a pot when it acquires the properties such as thickness, hollowness and so forth. 35 The pot is not different from the clay, as it has no existence apart from the clay; it is neither identical with the clay, as in the unmoulded clay it is not perceived. 36 Therefore the pot (a product of power) can only be called indescribable, like the power which produces it. Hence the product of power when imperceptible is simply called power, and when perceptible it is called a pot. 37 A magician's power is not apparent earlier; it is only when he brings it into operation that it appears as an army of Gandharvas and the like. 38 Thus being illusive, in the scriptures, the products of power are called unreal whereas reality is predicated only of the entity in which the power inheres, e.g. of the clay in which the pot inheres. 39 A pot taken as a product of power is only a name composed of words; it is not a real entity. Only the clay that possesses sound, touch, form, taste and smell, is a real entity. 40 Of the three entities, the manifest (i.e. product of power), the unmanifest (i.e. the power itself), and the substratum in which they both inhere, the first two exist by turns (thus cancelling one another); but the third persists in both (and at all times). 41 A product of power though visible has no real substance, as it is subject to creation and destruction. When it appears, it is given a name by men. 42 When the product perishes, its name continues to be used by men. Since it is indicated only by a name, it is said to be of nominal existence. 43 This form of the product (of power, like the pot) is not real like clay, because it is unsubstantial, destructible, anda a mere name based upon words. 44 The substance clay is said to be the real entity because by nature it is unchanged, substantial and indestructible at all times, before the creation of the pot, after its destruction, and even while it is manifest. 45 (Doubt): If the thing indicated by the three terms i.e, the manifest, the pot, and the modified form is unreal, why is it not destroyed when the knowledge of its substratum (clay) dawns? 46 (Reply): With the knowledge of the substratum the pot is destroyed, for your idea of the reality of the pot is removed. This is what is meant by the destruction of the pot through knowledge; it does not mean that the pot would cease to appear. 47 Though a man appears head downwards when reflected in water, he is not so. No one would ever mistake it for the real person standing on the bank. 48 According to the doctrine of the non-dualists, such knowledge (i.e. the knowledge of the unreality of the superimposed thing, the world), gives liberation, the supreme goal of life. As the substratum clay is not rejected, the appearance of a pot in it is accepted. ______ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 1998 Report Share Posted November 23, 1998 On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Charles Wikner wrote: > Charles Wikner <WIKNER > > On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > > > SELF pervades all. So, there is no entity without the SELF. That is, > > there is no not-SELF anywhere by itself. > > Right! However, the rest of the post contradicts that fundamental > statement. So let's dwell on that for a while. > > If we take just the _sat_ aspect of sat-cit-Ananda, and translate > that as Existence (with capital-E), then the entire niverse is > dependent upon that Existence for its manifestation: no Existence, > no universe. Within that universe is an insignificant little star > that we call the Sun; spinning round that Sun is a minor planet > called Earth; on that planet are millions of types of life form; > one of these life-forms is the human being; among billions of > these human beings, there is one that says "I am Charles." > (It is sometimeshelpful to put the ego into perspective in the > universal scheme of things.) > Yes, to all the points made above and a big "yes" to the last sentence about putting the ego into perspective in the universal scheme of things. However, the existence of the universe is in Me. Without Me, there is no universe, no Sun, no Earth and no life forms. That Me is the Consciuousness (Capital C), the sat-cit. Shri Shankara says in Viveka ChuDAmaNi (verse reference I cannot say right away but can find it) that the knower of Truth alone knows that Me is the Consciousness. > Now, Charles is the name of a particular human form that is _very_ > limited in space, time, etc, but the "I am" that identifies with > Charles, is ultimately Existence Itself -- it is the "being" of > a human being. > > [ NB "I am" is not Existence Itself, but a reflection of existence > in the buddhi, and hence already limited: therefore "I am" is > expressed only as "ultimatel the Self." ] > "I am" is the sat. By taking it as a reflection in the buddhi, we are limiting it to Charles or Gummuluru's intellect. "I am" is above that and certainly pervades all. > > Further, the SELF does not mis-identify as not-SELF. > > It is not a question of MIS-identifying, just simply identifying. > In "I am Charles", the "I am" identifies with "Charles". > > > It is the not-SELF > > that (i) can mis-identify itself as SELF or (ii) can mis-identify itself > > as not-SELF (that is, by itself, without the SELF). To put it in other > > words, the SELF cannot mis-identify, the not-SELF cannot but mis-identify. > > The not-Self has no existence or intelligence of its own, that > it could use to identify with the Self; therefore it is the Self > that identifies with the not-Self, which is something linmited > in the creation. > We seem to have a difference in our perspective here. You are saying "It is the SELF which identifies with the not-SELF". I am saying the other way "It is the not-SELF that mis-identifies". We both agree with the fundamental statement at the top of my last post "SELF pervades all. So, there is no entity without the SELF. That is, there is no not-SELF anywhere by itself". Is it the SELF that identifies with the not-SELF or is it the not-SELF that mis-identifies with the SELF ? You say it is the former, I say it is the latter. Let me give my reasoning why it is the latter. Firstly, the SELF does not have to identify with anything. The SELF, in its serene, quiet, ever-present and being the only one that is present, does not have anything to identify Itself with. The not-SELF, being present, means it has not melted away yet [being melted away does not mean the body has disappeared, but the thinking - that I am limited by the body - has disappeared]. That is, the ego that I am limited by the body and by my intellect is still present. Even though the not-SELF has understood that it has no basis by itself and that it is the SELF that gives the not-SELF the intelligence and the thinking capability, but it is still intellectual understanding only for the not-SELF, and not part of that entity. In that scenario, it is the not-SELF that is the identifier. The SELF does not identify. > > For us jeeevas, to say that we are SELF + not-SELF is still a > > mis-identification, unless we have that nishchalatvam of the SELF and > > behave like nishchalatvam manasA, vAcA, karmA. Further, when we say > > that we are the SELF + not-SELF, the not-SELF component is still there. > > The not-Self component is not going to disappear, not even to a > truth-knower: the difference is that he sees Existence everywhere, > with the transient superimposed upon it, and does not take the > transient to be real (having an independent existence) and does > not identify with it. > What is the not-SELF component ? The not-SELF component is not the jagat, but the perception of the reality of the jagat. The perception of the reality of the jagat disappears for the Truth-knower. > > Until and until that not-SELF component is fully erased, it is a > > mis-identification and the individual jeeva behaves like a not-SELF. > > You could try "erasing" the not-Self by commiting suicide: it won't > make any difference to Existence, but it won't do your Karma any good. > What I mean by erasure of the not-SELF component, is the erasure of the thinking that not-SELF is real and not-SELF is the doer of actions. You seem to be identifying the not-SELF component with the presence of the body. Presence of the body is irrelevant. Thus, thinking that one can erase the not-SELF component by committing suicide is contra-indicated in advaita. Shri Shankara says in Viveka ChuDAmaNi (verse 558) dehasya moksho no moksho .. the giving up of this body is not liberation. I am sure you do not mean that (suicide) as a serious advaita argument either. > > Now, the entity that says "I had a good sleep" is the mis-identifying > > not-SELF. You may call it the individual jeeva (SELF identified with > > not-SELF), but it is still a mis-identification. > > Identification is the problem: what do you mean by mis-identification? > The pure SELF does not do any identification or non-identification. It is the not-SELF [please keep in mind that when I say not-SELF, there is SELF as substratum to it, there is no not-SELF by itself anywhere and what I mean by not-SELF is not-SELF superposed on the SELF] which goes through the identification. What I mean by mis-identification is the wrong identification. The not-SELF, when it goes through the identification process always does the wrong identification for the following reasons. The not-SELF, if it says it is the SELF, is going through steps which the pure SELF would not do, viz (i) identification of itself which the pure SELF would not do, (ii) If the not-SELF really means it is the SELF, that is an untrue statement because the not-SELF would not have melted away prior to not-SELF being able to truly make that statement. For that reason, the not-SELF cannot identify itself with the SELF. If the not-SELF says it is the not-SELF (i.e. by itself without the SELF), it is an untrue statement and hence is a wrong identification. > > This again presumes the same not-SELF superposed on the SELF in all the > > three states. > > It is the same causal ignorance that is latent in deep sleep and > manifest in dream and waking, that makes Charles recognisably the > same from day to day, and different from other humans, as well as > different from other species, such as dog or tree. > Yes. What I am exhorting is to get beyond that ignorance. > > That is against the logic provided above ( and in the previous > > post) where the existence of the not-SELF itself is questioned, not to > > talk of the sameness of the not-SELF. > > The not-Self has no existence of its own, but only that temporarily > "borrowed" from Existence Itself. > We both are making the same point; that the not-SELF does not have existence of its own. I am rejecting the existence of the not-SELF altogether, you are accepting it as a conditional existence. > > It *appears* multiplicity. But is not so. The logic is for non-existence > > of the not-SELF. SELF pervades all and there is no not-SELF anywhere > > anytime without the SELF. It is the SELF which, although does not have > > shape or form, does not speak, hear or act, which allows the not-SELF to > > claim existence or speak, hear or act. The not-SELF does the imitation, > > The problem is limitation rather that imitation. > > > and further claims to be the subject and continuity of itself through > > all the states. The way to dissect and annihilate the not-SELF (the ego) > > is to disprove its continuity from state to state and even in one state. > > If that is done, the ego, the not-SELF that claims to be the subject, > > would not have a locus and would disintegrate. Thus, rather than implying > > multiplicity of the not-SELF, the above logic attacks the very existence > > of the not-SELF. > > If it is three different "persons" in the three states, then the > waking one will have no knowledge of the other two states, and thus > have no cause to doubt the "reality" of the waking state. > As I stated two posts ago, the contents of one state are not available to other states except may be in a blurred fashion. Further, there are enough causes to doubt the reality of the wake-up state without needing to depend on the inferences of the other states(although that would be very helpful). Firstly, there is continuous change and the reality would never change. Secondly, the Truth is one, non-dual. But what our sense organs perceive is duality all over. Hence what we perceive is not the Truth. And more importantly, the MANDUkya kArikA statement "adau ante ca yAn nAsti, vartamAnepi tat tathA". > > In the case of statement "I had deep sleep", it is easier to refute it > > because it is an inferential statement. Statements attributable to the > > wake-up state like "I acted, I ate..." also lack reality because the > > very existence of not-SELF is questioned. > > Yes, do question the "existence" of the not-Self! The advantage > of the three states is that each casts doubt upon the validity of > the other two. The question is then: What is that which is common > to the three states, upon which they are superimposed? This is > better than trying to separate the three states, for this lends > them a reality and importance that they don't deserve: rather direct > the enquiry away from the states and towards the Self -- neti, neti. > I do not deny the importance of analysis using the three states. They indeed serve a very useful purpose of each state casting doubt on the reality of the other two. Your question is important. We know the answer to it. It is the turIyA, the fourth state, the one which is witness to the three states. But, that is the *only* commonality to the three states. There is no worldly I which is common to the three states. (If there is, I would like to know what it is). TurIyA, the Consciousness (capital C) is common to all but that is not worldly or cognitive consciousness. Further, the turIyA, the Consciousness (capital C) is common not only to the three states but also to all jeevas. So, what can Gummuluru or Charles (the not-SELF superposed on that Consciousness) claim as common exclusively to that individual that is common in all the three states of Gummuluru or Charles ? I agree that if this logic is taken to its conclusion, the three states are not there either. Thus, I do not have a clear answer why I am including the three states in my logic but at the same time denying the continuity of the jeeva through the three states. Obviously, the three states do not exist either. Ultimately however, your advice of directing the enquiry away from the states and toward the SELF is a sage advice and I would follow that. > > Why not discard the not-SELF ? Are we closer to the TRUTH by not > > discarding the not-SELF ? > > Who is going to do the discarding? The not-Self does not have the > power to do so, and the Self has no need to do so. The problem is > the Self identifying with some limited aspect of the not-Self. > Only Knowledge is going to remove that identification. > > > When SELF alone is all that exists and > > the not-SELF is just a superposition which just melts away upon > > removal of ignorance, > > All that exists is saguNa brahman: the saguNa is the All and > brahman is the Existence. > > > why do we need to hang on to that perspective > > of the not-SELF ? > > Excellent question! Would you like to try answering it: why does > Gummuluru need to hang on to the human body? :-) > "Hanging on" to the human body is *not* hanging on to the not-SELF perspective. In my view, both are entirely different. The not-SELF perspective is making the human intellect the subject and looking at it as the doer of actions and enjoyer of fruits. On the other hand, the human body is a vehicle for us to use it to discard the not-SELF perspective. Throughout upanishhads and Shri Shankara's writings, what is condemned is the not-SELF perspective and not the human body. Shri Shankara in VC and Atma-bodh and Shri Chandrasekhara Saraswati of Kanci wrote about the usefulness and precious nature of the human body. > I shall append a few extracts from the Pancadashi (Svahananda's > translation) concerning the identification of the jIva. > Thanks very much for the Pancadashi extracts. I will try to digest them first before commenting on them. I would very much appreciate if you can provide me the full book title, publisher, year and ISBN if possible so that I can try to get it on the Inter-Library-loan. > Regards, Charles. > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 1998 Report Share Posted November 24, 1998 An addendum to what I posted early this morning: On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > [...] > > We seem to have a difference in our perspective here. You are saying > "It is the SELF which identifies with the not-SELF". I am saying the > other way "It is the not-SELF that mis-identifies". We both agree with > the fundamental statement at the top of my last post "SELF pervades all. > So, there is no entity without the SELF. That is, there is no not-SELF > anywhere by itself". > > Is it the SELF that identifies with the not-SELF or is it the not-SELF > that mis-identifies with the SELF ? You say it is the former, I say it > is the latter. Let me give my reasoning why it is the latter. Firstly, > the SELF does not have to identify with anything. The SELF, in its serene, > quiet, ever-present and being the only one that is present, does not have > anything to identify Itself with. The not-SELF, being present, means it > has not melted away yet [being melted away does not mean the body has > disappeared, but the thinking - that I am limited by the body - has > disappeared]. That is, the ego that I am limited by the body and by my > intellect is still present. Even though the not-SELF has understood that > it has no basis by itself and that it is the SELF that gives the not-SELF > the intelligence and the thinking capability, but it is still intellectual > understanding only for the not-SELF, and not part of that entity. In that > scenario, it is the not-SELF that is the identifier. The SELF does not > identify. > Namaste. I wish to clarify the above point a bit. What I mean to say above is that it is the not-SELF which *thinks* it is identifying. In reality, there is no identification or mis-identification process. The SELF is in its serene state, the not-SELF goes through its imitatations of the SELF within its own limitations. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 1998 Report Share Posted November 25, 1998 On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > Is it the SELF that identifies with the not-SELF or is it the not-SELF > that mis-identifies with the SELF ? In fact it is mutual superimposition (anyonyAdhyAsa) of Self and not-Self. See Shankara's introduction to the Brahma Sutras. > What is the not-SELF component ? The not-SELF component is not the jagat, > but the perception of the reality of the jagat. The perception of the > reality of the jagat disappears for the Truth-knower. The not-Self component is that which is transient, which is the jagat (see BG 2:16 with Shankara's commentary). The jagat is illusory; taking it as real is delusory. Having different understandings of the term leads to our mutual misunderstanding. > Yes. What I am exhorting is to get beyond that ignorance. Beyond that is the Self. > Firstly, there is continuous change and the reality would never change. Therefore it is the illusory not-Self. > Secondly, the Truth is one, non-dual. But what our sense organs perceive > is duality all over. Which is delusory. > Your question is important. We know the answer to it. It is the turIyA, > the fourth state, the one which is witness to the three states. But, > that is the *only* commonality to the three states. How about transience and ignorance? > "Hanging on" to the human body is *not* hanging on to the not-SELF > perspective. In my view, both are entirely different. The not-SELF > perspective is making the human intellect the subject and looking > at it as the doer of actions and enjoyer of fruits. On the other > hand, the human body is a vehicle for us to use it to discard the > not-SELF perspective. The human body means the causal and subtle bodies, not just the physical. You restrict the not-Self to the sense of agency (ahaMkAra). The jIva comes before that as mutual superimposition: you don't have continue thinking "I am a man; I am a man; I am a man...", for it is simply there as a colouring through which we perceive everything. And the cause of the superimposition is ignorance, which is simply the failure to know that you are the Self. Its a strange notion to wander through the world not knowing what you are. :-) > I would very much appreciate if you > can provide me the full book title, publisher, year and ISBN if > possible so that I can try to get it on the Inter-Library-loan. I have two translations: (1) Pancadasi, tr. Swami Swahananda, Sri Ramakrishna Math, Madras, (2) Panchadashi, tr. H.P.Shastri, Santi Sadan, London. I prefer the former (it is also cheaper), and available from http://www.vedanta.com/categories.html for $6 http://www.amazon.com/ for $11 http://www.BarnesAndNoble.com/ for $16 I suggest that you invest in a copy rather than borrow from a library: it is not a novel that you read once and discard. Regards, Charles. 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.