Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Namaste, Consciousness is the Ground, the unchanging Witness of birth, growth, and death. How can That which is unchanging have an origin? Shiva (Consciousness) creates the world, contracts Himself into various jivas, and then wants to know how Shiva originates! Such is His Leela! advaitin, "Gopinath Mavankal" <g_mav@h...> wrote: > The term consciousness as used in Vedanta has a first person > referential frame which is best appreciated by learning from > a teacher. Consciousness is always the first person whether in Vedanta or elsewhere. Nobody has ever beheld Consciousness as a second person or second entity, and to even say that Consciousness is seen as persona or entity is a self-contradiction for consciousness would then be an object instead of the conscious subject. > A scientist speculates that based on the current work, > Consciousness is just an ability to integrate information > and he could not see why if you could generate an identical > computational ability in a machine, it would not be conscious. Because the computational 'ability' of a machine is a mere process seen by the consciousness of the scientists and the consiousness of the users of the computational machine. A process is an objective phenomena and is not the witnessing Consciousness. > Or rather its consciousness wouldn't be necessarily different > from what we might term animal consciousness. Animal-ness and human-ness are objective attributes and hence they are adjuncts on Consciousness, they are not Consciousness. The entire play of solving the 'hard problem' of consciousness takes place in Consciousness Itself. There is no problem except the problem posed by the illusion that Consciousness exists within bodies. Rather it is bodies that exist in Consciousness. Change pertains to bodies and not to Consciousness that is Akshara, immutable. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Consciousness is Shiva Himself...I agree completely with You On 10/3/05, Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: > > Namaste, > > Consciousness is the Ground, the unchanging Witness of birth, growth, > and death. > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan > > > > -- Humanity is one's only Religion Breath is one's only Prayer Consciousness is one's only God Ishaan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Namaste: Aren't you saying that "Humanity is the religion where Breath is the prayer with Consciousness as the only God!" regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, ishaan <ishwarananda@g...> wrote: -- > Humanity is one's only Religion > Breath is one's only Prayer > Consciousness is one's only God > > Ishaan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 advaitin, ishaan <ishwarananda@g...> wrote: > Consciousness is Shiva Himself...I agree completely with You > > On 10/3/05, Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > Consciousness is the Ground, the unchanging Witness of birth, growth, > > and death. Namaste, This story appeared in a book-review of Huston Smith's collection of essays in "Cleansing the Doors of Perception", concerning the history of the Psychedelic Drug movement. http://www.imprint-academic.com/jcs *Benny Shanon The Divine Within Review of Huston Smith's `Cleansing the Doors of Perception' " God wanted to hide his secrets in a secure place. `Would I put them on the moon?', He reflected. `But then, one day human beings could get there, and it could be that those who would arrive there would not be worthy of the secret knowledge. Or perhaps I should hide them in the depths of the ocean,' God entertained another possibility. But, again, for the same reasons, he dismissed it. Then the solution occurred to Him—`I shall put my secrets in the inner sanctum of man's own mind. Then only those who really deserve it will be able to get to it.' " Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Namsate: IMO: If we say, "Humanity" is the religion where "Breath" is the "dhaaraNaa" and "Consciousness" as the "iishvara" whould be a much better statement. Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote: > Namaste: > > Aren't you saying that "Humanity is the religion where Breath is the > prayer with Consciousness as the only God!" > > advaitin, ishaan <ishwarananda@g...> wrote: > > -- > > Humanity is one's only Religion > > Breath is one's only Prayer > > Consciousness is one's only God > > > > Ishaan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Pranaam Advaitins and Sunderji, Naikji: It is true about what you state. Your comments are also in the context of the shashtras. However, I feel, discussing what the scientists are upto, presents a different perspective to look at the same issue from a different angle. It can force us to examine more closely the implications and how it relates to the shashtra. I see that only as an exercise which instead of using the prakarna grantha of Atma bodha, is now using findings from the scientific community. I agree the context of the Atma Bodha and its analysis of the karana sharira is different. However, we are still talking about the same sharira and brain. Gopinath Mavankal advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > advaitin, ishaan <ishwarananda@g...> wrote: > > Consciousness is Shiva Himself...I agree completely with You > > > > On 10/3/05, Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Consciousness is the Ground, the unchanging Witness of birth, > growth, > > > and death. > > Namaste, > > > This story appeared in a book-review of Huston Smith's collection > of essays in "Cleansing the Doors of Perception", concerning the > history of the Psychedelic Drug movement. > > > http://www.imprint-academic.com/jcs > > *Benny Shanon > The Divine Within > Review of Huston Smith's > `Cleansing the Doors of Perception' > > > " God wanted to hide his secrets in a secure place. `Would I put > them on the moon?', > He reflected. `But then, one day human beings could get there, and > it could be that > those who would arrive there would not be worthy of the secret > knowledge. Or perhaps > I should hide them in the depths of the ocean,' God entertained > another possibility. > But, again, for the same reasons, he dismissed it. Then the solution > occurred to > Him—`I shall put my secrets in the inner sanctum of man's own mind. > Then only > those who really deserve it will be able to get to it.' " > > > Regards, > > Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Yes, Thats what I mean. On 10/3/05, Ram Chandran <RamChandran wrote: > > Namaste: > > Aren't you saying that "Humanity is the religion where Breath is the > prayer with Consciousness as the only God!" > > regards, > > Ram Chandran > > advaitin, ishaan <ishwarananda@g...> wrote: > > -- > > Humanity is one's only Religion > > Breath is one's only Prayer > > Consciousness is one's only God > > > > Ishaan > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > Links > > > > > > > > -- Humanity is one's only Religion Breath is one's only Prayer Consciousness is one's only God Ishaan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 Hi Sunder-ji, <<This story appeared in a book-review of Huston Smith's collection of essays in "Cleansing the Doors of Perception", concerning the history of the Psychedelic Drug movement.>> Then I'm afraid it was an act of plagiarism! The story, with very slight alteration, originated with Rudyard Kipling, I think. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > Hi MFEMFE-ji, > > <<This story appeared in a book-review of Huston Smith's collection > of essays in "Cleansing the Doors of Perception", concerning the > history of the Psychedelic Drug movement.>> > > Then I'm afraid it was an act of plagiarism! The story, with very slight > alteration, originated with Rudyard Kipling, I think. > Namaste Dennis-ji, The reviewer wrote this paragraph after the story: " I heard this story in the Amazon, told to me by two unrelated individuals in two different places. In both cases the story was linked to the knowledge assumedly imparted by Ayahuasca. " (Ayahuasca is an 'entheogen', a psychedelic that induces the 'unitive' state.) He does not say whether they were acquainted with Kipling's works!! Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 Namaste Dennisji and Sunderji: Psychelic drugs or not, there are very few ideas that are original. In fact, Darwin is not the originator of the idea of evolution. It was done forty years before him by another Englishman. However, Darwin provided a compelling case for it and proposed a hypothesis that could be tested. These are the critical elements in anything scientific: peer review that is not confined to place and time - if you can demolish established thinking, then your claim to fame is greater but so are the odds against you suceeding. The important thing is not the idea but the context to test and prove it. Case in point - Stanley Pruisiner worked on prions - proteins with an ability to transmit information from one generation to another. This was going against all dogma in science. Proteins are supposed to be the workhorses and DNA the information molecule. There was no known exception. So when Stanley proposed his explanation, most scientists criticized it as being dirty work - he had some trace DNA in his preparations. Then came the explanation for Mad Cow disease and prions were accepted and he won a Nobel prize. He spent a lifetime doing it. The nice thing is that the United States has a good peer review process for grants that worked. It funded a unacceptable idea with potential. Second thing about science - just because you are not subjecting yourself to the peer review process does not mean you cannot be accepted. Case in point, Steven Wolfram, never publishes in peer reviewed journals. He self publishes. He makes a living from the program he wrote called Mathematica. His work is not ignored. Why is this important - because most of what we call as pramana is considered as hand waving by scientists. I feel if we paid some attention to what is happening in science atleast as regards consciousness research, it will give us better ground for swadhyaya so that our doubts will be cleared better. While some people like to dismiss Charvaka, I feel you must prove your mettle by debating Charvaka. We did ourselves a disservice by not preserving the works of Charvaka. However, modern science is nothing but Charvaka. But, let us also remember the greatest of scientists were not necessarily materialists - they believed that understanding Ishwara's shrishti, is a way of devotion to Ishwara. The current thinking in science is that consciousness is a process. I feel you can change that if you can demonstrate reincarnation. It won't be easy. A good model for any scientist interested in doing w to would be to read Dr. VS Ramachandran's work on synaesthesia. This is a condition where there is a cross talk going on in the circuits in the brain that handle individual sense perception. An example is of people who see specific color associated with certain numbers, in one case. An extreme case of synaesthesia has been studied where the subject had not two senses, vision and hearing but all five sense circuits doing this. This subject demonstrated tremendous capacity for memory. Anyway, my point is that synaesthesia was considered "hearsay", not "phenomenon" in peer reviewed journals several years ago. Dr. Ramachandran changed that. Again, it was done through well designed experiments and a model that was reasonable. While Dr. Ramachandran was able to find funding to do that because of its greater implications, I doubt if America would support such work on reincarnation. However, India could some day. I feel if you can establish reincarnation as a phenomenon and not hearsay, then you have made a case that consciousness is probably not a process, but requires an agent that is independent of the instrument providing the stratum for computation. Again, I admit this is no where close to even approaching Jiva - Brahma Aikyam. The pramana for that is indeed shruti. However, if this were to be the nature of the jiva, we cannot say that the shruti is necessarily the only way to discover it. It is certainly the most methodical way to do it and certainly, I consider it the most useful way to acquire the vision. Regards Gopinath Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 Namaste Dennisji and Sunderji and Gopinathji I feel that scientists are consistently confusing mind with consciousness. Gopinathji I read an interview of Dr. Ramachandran, published in Indian Express (http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php? content_id=78455&spf=true ) where he describes his book "Phantoms of the Brain". His philosophy is not different from what we have been discussing in the past few days. He says : <quote> "If you go back to ancient Indian philosophy, people talk about aham Brahma asmi and all of that. But now we can actually get to the physical basis of consciousness, self-awareness, what it means to be human. Ultimately all your joys, your sorrows, your hopes, your fears, your ambition, even what you think of as your own private self, is basically just the neurochemical activity of those one hundred billion little wisps of jelly in your head which we call neurons. That's what it all is, that's what reality is — the activity of neurons. ". <end quote> His book describes a mind-body map: "It turns out that there's a complete map of the body surface on the surface of the brain. " Now the mind-body map has been also very exhaustively described by Antonio Damasio who is head of the department of neurology at the University of Iowa Medical Center in his book Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0151005575/103-2854444- 7053424?v=glance). I had the read this book quite a while ago and he seems to be saying the same things as Dr. Ramachandran about there being a map in the mind of all body parts. <quote> A Salk Institute professor and head of the department of neurology at the University of Iowa Medical Center, Damasio makes a useful distinction between emotions, which are publicly observable body states, and feelings, which are mental events observable only to the person having them. Based on neuroscience research he and others have done, Damasio argues that an episode of emoting begins with an emotionally "competent" stimulus (such as an attractive person or a scary house) that the organism automatically appraises as conducive to survival or well-being (a good thing) or not conducive (bad). This appraisal takes the form of a complex array of physiological reactions (e.g., quickening heartbeat, tensing facial muscles), which is mapped in the brain.From that map, a feeling arises as "an idea of the body when it is perturbed by the emoting process." Because they "bear witness to the state of life deep within," feelings are a vital guide to decision-making. <end quote> The Western Position ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There appears to be a confusion between mind and consciousness amongst scientists and the confusion arises from the mind/body distinction inherent in western philosophy. The western position that mind (hence thought) was separate from matter started with Spinoza's work "Ethics". In this work, Spinoza maintained that there was an primal Substance (like our Brahman): "By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, that is, that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed" This Substance has two Attributes : Thought and Extension (ie matter). These attributes than became the more grosser "Modes" of mind or matter: -All thoughts,ideas,emotions and mental activities evolved from the Thought Attribute: -All matter (body etc) evolved from the Extension Attribute. Thus he maintained that thought and matter were two different things. Now the problem arose, in our body we have the mind and body somehow knotted together. How do you explain that?. This was when the mind- body map theory was developed. In very simple terms it was maintained that the body is an "idea" of the mind. All the parts of the body have a corresponding map in the mind. And that is how they are co- joined (maintains Spinoza in the year 1632). I provide the following url for your reference. Please look under 4.a "The Mind as the Idea of the Body" http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spinoza.htm "The human mind, as an expression of that body in the domain of thought, mirrors the body in being a highly complex composite of many simple ideas and is thus possessed of perceptual capacities exceeding those of other, non-human minds. Only a mind that corresponds to a body of complexity comparable to that of the human body can have perceptual abilities comparable to those of the human mind. " Now the work of Dr. Ramachandran and Antonio Damasio is based on this fundamental mind-body map theory which was developed in 1632, so again it is nothing new. The Indian position ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am reluctant to present a position on this as there are people much more knowledgeable than me in this group. This position is as per my understanding of Vivakanandas Complete Works. His complete works are available at the url: http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info. I will try to quote him as far as possible. Please feel free to correct me on this. Also this position is based on the Sankhya system and I am not sure of the Advaita position. As I understand, Advaita accepts the basic tenants on Sankhya and so this position should be similar to the Advaita position. 1) We maintain that there is no difference in mind and matter except in degree. <Quote from Vivakananda: A Study of Sankhya Philosophy:> 1) "*There is no difference between matter and mind, except in degree. The substance is the same in finer or grosser form; one changes into the other, and this exactly coincides with the conclusions of modern physiological research. By believing in the teaching that the mind is not separate from the brain, you will be saved from much fighting and struggling. *" 2) "*According to the philosophers of India, the whole universe is composed of two materials, one of which they call Âkâsha (the other is Prana). (Akasha) is the omnipresent, all-penetrating existence. It is the Prana that is manifesting as motion; it is the Prana that is manifesting as gravitation, as magnetism. It is the Prana that is manifesting as the actions of the body, as the nerve currents, as thought force. From thought down to the lowest force, everything is but the manifestation of Prana. The sum total of all forces in the universe, mental or physical, when resolved back to their original state, is called Prana. At the end of a cycle the energies now displayed in the universe quiet down and become potential. At the beginning of the next cycle they start up, strike upon the Akasha, and out of the Akasha evolve these various forms, and as the Akasha changes, this Prana changes also into all these manifestations of energy. *" <end quote> All force, all energy is thus a manifestation of Prana. That matter is also a manifestation of Prana is stated in his lecture "The Real Nature of Man" <Quote> "* It (matter) is only a certain state of force. Solidity, hardness, or any other state of matter can be proved to be the result of motion. Increase of vortex motion imparted to fluids gives them the force of solids. A mass of air in vortex motion, as in a tornado, becomes solid-like and by its impact breaks or cuts through solids. A thread of a spider's web, if it could be moved at almost infinite velocity, would be as strong as an iron chain and would cut through an oak tree. Looking at it in this way, it would be easier to prove that what we call matter does not exist. But the other way cannot be proved.*" <end quote> Advantages of the India position ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1) We do not have to separate mind and body into two compartments and then come up with a theory like mind-body mapping to link them together. 2) synaesthesia. <snippet> This is a condition where there is a cross talk going on in the circuits in the brain that handle individual sense perception. An example is of people who see specific color associated with certain numbers, in one case. An extreme case of synaesthesia has been studied where the subject had not two senses, vision and hearing but all five sense circuits doing this. <end snippet> The Indian yogi says that the sense organs are organs within the mind (and not the mind itself). An advanced yogi can easily use one sense organ to do the work of another. This is due to the ability of the yogi to control his prana as described by Vivakananda <quote : Complete-Works / Volume 1 / Raja-Yoga / Vivekananda> "*Sometimes in your own body the supply of Prana gravitates more or less to one part; the balance is disturbed, and when the balance of Prana is disturbed, what we call disease is produced. To take away the superfluous Prana, or to supply the Prana that is wanting, will be curing the disease. That again is Pranayama — to learn when there is more or less Prana in one part of the body than there should be. The feelings will become so subtle that the mind will feel that there is less Prana in the toe or the finger than there should be, and will possess the power to supply it. These are among the various functions of Pranayama. They have to be learned slowly and gradually, and as you see, the whole scope of Raja-Yoga is really to teach the control and direction in different planes of the Prana. When a man has concentrated his energies, he masters the Prana that is in his body. When a man is meditating, he is also concentrating the Prana.*" In recent years this has been demonstrated by Swami Ram to the scientific community in the US (Menninger Foundation). Here are some references: http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/Rama.html http://swamij.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=9 Finally Gopinathji you want proof of reincarnation to accept that consciousness is not a process: <snippet> I feel if you can establish reincarnation as a phenomenon and not hearsay,then you have made a case that consciousness is probably not a process, but requires an agent that is independent of the instrument providing the stratum for computation. <end snippet> I feel that science has failed at the very start of the debate and we do not even have to consider reincarnation as the debate has ended before it even started. I quote Shri Chittranjans excellent article on SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE which was posted recently: "Science violates the first law of logic – that a thing is identical to itself. " The basic assumption on which scientists are building their model is wrong. A thing is indeed the same as itself. I am me. Mind and Matter is one. In the past few posts I have pointed many of the illogical conclusions that arise from the scientists viewpoint. We do not have to go any further. Just stop at the starting point and based on normal logical arguments, prove those criticisms wrong. The attitude of the scientists reminds me of the story of the man cutting the branch of the tree he is sitting on. He is sure to fall. Regards Hersh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 Namaste, advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote: > The western position that mind (hence thought) was separate > from matter started with Spinoza's work "Ethics". In this > work, Spinoza maintained that there was an primal Substance > (like our Brahman): > > "By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived > through itself, that is, that whose concept does not require > the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed" > > This Substance has two Attributes : Thought and Extension > (ie matter). These attributes than became the more grosser > "Modes" of mind or matter: This is a complete mis-representation of Spinoza's philosophy. It was Spinoza among all Western Philosophers who actually resolved the mind- body dualism. Please read the following excerpts carefully (all four of them) from the 'Ethics', Part II - 'Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind': Proposition 7: The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things. Proposition 11: That which constitutes the actual being of the human mind is basically nothing else but the idea of an individual actually existing thing. Proposition 12: Whatever happens in the object of the idea constituting the human mind is bound to be perceived by the human mind i.e. the idea of that thing will necessarily be in the human mind. That is to say, if the object of the idea constituting the human mind is a body, nothing can happen in that body without its being perceived by the mind. Proposition 13: The object of the idea constituting the human mind is the body - i.e. a definite mode of extension actually existing, and nothing else. There is no parallalism in Spinoza because there is no duality between mind and matter. Spinoza himself says in the Scholium of Proposition 7 (Part II): "Consequently, thinking substance and extended substance are one and the same substance, comprehended now under this attribute, now under that. So too, a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing, expressed in two ways. This truth seems to have been glimpsed by some of the Hebrews, who hold that God, God's intellect and the things understood by God are one and the same. For example, a circle existing in nature, and the idea of the existing circle - which is also in God - are one and the same thing, explicated through different attributes." Spinoza's philosophy is not what people normally understand it to be. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 Namaste Chittaranjan You were right in pointing out that the mind/matter debate did not start with Spinoza. I think it was with Descartes. Spinoza did say that Thought and Extension derived from the same substance and he provided a means of reconciling the two. My central position was that Spinoza tries to reconcile mind and matter and the the way he does this is by saying that the body is an idea of the mind. <quote> In very simple terms it was maintained that the body is an "idea" of the mind. All the parts of the body have a corresponding map in the mind. And that is how they are co-joined (maintains Spinoza in the year 1632). <end quote> Spinoza is not merely saying that the mind springs fully formed from substance on equal footing with the body. He is assuming a machanism wherby the equal footing can be realized. When I say that that the body is an idea of the mind, I do not see how I am misrepresenting his philosophy. You yourself quote Scholium of Proposition 7 (Part II): "For example, a circle existing in nature, and the idea of the existing circle - which is also in God - are one and the same thing,explicated through different attributes." I interpret this as meaning that just as the thought of a physical circle in an abstraction of the physical circle , the body's represention in mind is an abstraction (or an idea) of the body conceived in the mind. Spinozas advanced the notion of the human mind which he defines transparently as consisting the idea of the human body. Spinoza uses "idea" as a synonym for image or mental representation or component of thought. Prop 13 of Part II: "The object of the idea constituting the human Mind is the Body" This statement is reworded and elaborated in other propositions. -For example proof of Prop. 19, Spinoza says " The human mind is the very idea or knowledge of the human body." -Prop. 23 states " The mind does not have the capacity to perceive .. except so far as it perceives the ideas or modicications of the body." -Prop 15: "the human mind is capable of perceiving a great number of things and is so in proportion as its body is capable of receiving a great number of impressions" Now this is the interpretation taken of Spinoza reconcilation of mind matter taken by the neurologist Antonio Damasio in his book "Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain" <quote> >From my current perspective , to say that our mind is made up of ideas of one's body is equivalent to saying that our mind is made up of images, representations or thoughts of our own parts of our body <end quote> regards Hersh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 Namasta ChittaranjanJi In my previous post I left out the suffix "JI". Sorry did not mean to be disrespectful. I was trying in a hurry. Please overlook the lapse. Thanks Hersh 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.