Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > > > > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > > > > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but as > > > > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > > > > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > > > > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > > > > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > > > > vegetables. :-() > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). > > > > A little nonvolitional Michael Jackson homage? > > Actually it's from that prison break comedy with Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor (forgot the name). Stir Crazy? Stir crazy after all these years? (That's from Paul Simon.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > > > > > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > > > > > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but as > > > > > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > > > > > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > > > > > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > > > > > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > > > > > vegetables. :-() > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Ok, Geo... yer bad, yer bad... (meaning 'good') ;-). > > > > > > A little nonvolitional Michael Jackson homage? > > > > Actually it's from that prison break comedy with Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor (forgot the name). > > Stir Crazy? > > Stir crazy after all these years? > > (That's from Paul Simon.) Yup, that's it... " That's right, we bad, we bad " ... Richard Pryor. Of course, Michael Jackson also did his part in helping to make badness, good ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > dan330033 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:27 PM > Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > Yes. Timebound and timless, limited and unlimited. No word will work to > > describe/point to this " kind of relation " . > > The world is being lived, space, time by the clock, things, objects...but > > as > > the timeless is present, the unbounded is present, the unknown is > > present....there is a sense of transcedence. The one " thing " that is NOT > > present is the sense of separateness. That is impossible.....unless one > > practices being separate from the universe three times a day eating > > vegetables. :-() > > -geo- > > Yes, there is no actual division anywhere. > > The dream-experience of a life unfolding over time, is not divided, is not > volitioned - even as it unfolds with all its myriads of choices. > > Although it seems to involve time, its actuality is timeless. So, the > transcendence of time is right there as time unfolds, seemingly, through the > dream-experience. There is no need to get rid of anything or make anything > different. > > Its beginning and end are the same dimensionless point. > > All points are one point, all dreams are included in each, all beings in > each. > > Hence " me " and " you " can be applied in conversation and through dream > actions - yet no " me " or " you " is ever the case, anywhere. > > Even the dream that attempts to revolve around an imagined I-center, arises > nonvolitionally and returns to the same non-point. It never has its own > center, although the appearance of attempting to have a center unfolded > nonvolitionally through that dream-experience. > > Nothing is exempt from nondivision - nothing is left out or excluded. > > - D - > > Yes, and perhaps one feels no need to inquire further, but I like > it....perhaps my predilection. So I ask myself: among all possible infinite > dreams why this one - of so called human? The nature of this dream is not > being established by just one human being. How do I know that? The answer is > that although there is only my world, a quick glance tells me there are > other human beings dreaming similar dreams. A quantum place has been > established as " the human world " ....a groove, a mark of humanity... So even > when the fragmentation ends, the human world sort of continues through its > empty patterns. How do I know this? Because amongst all infinite possible > empty patternings this is the one that goes on for a few moments more.... > Nothing more to say....just wondering... > -ggo- Hi Geo - Yes, this human dream is reflected as us, as a human. And who knows of an ant dream? Or the dream of an electric wave riding through space? And none of it divided, all through awareness, through nothing. You can't help wondering about the human world, because that feeling of wondering is what arose for you nonvolitionally this moment in this dream sequence. Just as I can't help but type this response, which arises here, at this moment in this dream sequence. ... and we type back and forth like this without division of dreams, giving name and form to an experience, calling it " human. " What an ant calls an ant dream and communicates to other ants, can only be guessed. ;-) This is just what is arising here, now, in the moment of this dream sequence. And it could be violence, hunger, could be anything arising at any moment -- and everything is arising at all possible moments. So, however it unfolds, it unfolds. Moments a million years in the future are included in this moment without division. Yet, seemingly experienced as a sequence of events, including thoughts about the events ... Never really commented upon, in spite of these seeming comments arising and going back and forth. -- D -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > Imagine that continuity is considered as reality, and that the sense of self-continuity is the basis for viewing life and experience as continuing. > > > > > > > > > > Imagine that the pain resulting from attempted continuity is attributed to others who want to interfere with my continuity. > > > > > > > > > > How often then will investment in continuity arise again? > > > > > > > > > > How often will there be manipulations, deceit, and violence in the service of " my continuity " and " what I want to get and have " ? > > > > > > > > > > Imagine that the dissolution of continuity ends the imagined sense of reality. > > > > > > > > > > How often will one relax one's effort to continue, and thus dissolve? > > > > > > > > > > (Once is all that is necessary to understand the fiction of continuity.) > > > > > > > > > > Imagine one has no investment in believing in continuity. > > > > > > > > > > One now does not see, experience, or inhabit a continuously existing world. One now does not see, experience or relate to continuously existing beings, or self-senses, or things. > > > > > > > > > > One can operate in the apparently continuing world, without being continuous, and without regarding the world as continuous (one's being and world now not separate). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > > > > > > > Since longer I stopped reading you, to cpmlicated, to intedllectual and there is missnig any simplicity. In short, I simply don't understand you. > > > > > > > > If you could write in a very simple way, that would be fine because besides not understanding you I believe you could have something to offer. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > Okay, here's something simple then, related to what I wrote above: > > > > > > Discontinuity. > > > > > > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense. > > > > > > The " I-sense " reappears in spite of pain associated with it. It reappears because of investment in continuity. The pain associated with its conflicts is attributed to what others are doing. Therefore, the pain isn't understood as the result of an attempt to continue as I. > > > > > > - Dan > > > > > > > > > Hm, I still don't understand you. I think it are those authoritative stances your post is full of. Just take that singele rather authoritative sentence: > > > " > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense " . > > > > 1) Investment ? Who is the investor and in what is he investing. I can't see any investment nor can I see any inverstor. > > > 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > 3) World-sense ? Same as above. I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > Alone that single sentence has to get discussed by length and I am not interested in longer discussions. Or to be more precise I feel no motivation to discuss somtething just for the sake of discussion. > > > > As long as you can't write in a very simple way, Dan, which needs to sacrifice your intellectual pride, we cannot meet. I am not interested to share that pride nor to support it. > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > As you said, you don't seem able to understand what I'm saying, or is it that you're not wanting to? Whichever it is, we don't seem to be communicating well. > > I can tell you that I speak sincerely, but as you characterize my words as too intellectual and prideful for " you " , it appears that your characterizations of a " me " on " my side " of the communication lead us to an impasse. This strikes me as somewhat ironic given what you said about the sense of I causing pain. It appears that you believe that the sense of I you detect out there, in someone else, is what is causing the impasse for you. > > I notice that you say above: > > > 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > Yet, in the letter you previously wrote and to which I responded, you wrote: > > > Imagine whenever that separative will which is causing the sense of I does arise it will cause immense pain. > > > How often then will it arise again ? > > Clearly, you had some idea of the I-sense, because you wrote that separative will is causing the sense of I. > Ah Dan, now I see, I-sense for you meant what I call the sense of I. And so in a similar way I suppose with world-sense you meant sense of the world. So here we met, fine. Thanks for clarification. Werner > I'm not sure how to communicate with someone who says something, to which I respond directly using the same term, who then claims not to know the term. Probably, there is nowhere for this communication to proceed, and that's simply how it is. > > You raise many questions, of an intellectual nature, to almost every sentence I write, then say you don't want to discuss at length. This also strikes me as somewhat ironic, and certainly not simple. > > If you want simplicity, you could consider keeping things simple. Just a thought. > > I agree with you that we aren't communicating. > > And I'm fine to leave it there, unless at some point you do want to understand and communicate, and feel able to do so, in which case I will do my best to reciprocate if possible. > > - Dan -- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Hi Geo - > > Yes, this human dream is reflected as us, as a human. > > And who knows of an ant dream? Or the dream of an electric wave > riding through space? The ant and electric wave are in 'our' dream. So indeed... who knows? ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Hm, I still don't understand you. I think it are those authoritative stances your post is full of. Just take that singele rather authoritative sentence: > > > > > " > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense " . > > > > > > 1) Investment ? Who is the investor and in what is he investing. I can't see any investment nor can I see any inverstor. > > > > > 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > > > 3) World-sense ? Same as above. I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > > > Alone that single sentence has to get discussed by length and I am not interested in longer discussions. Or to be more precise I feel no motivation to discuss somtething just for the sake of discussion. > > > > > > As long as you can't write in a very simple way, Dan, which needs to sacrifice your intellectual pride, we cannot meet. I am not interested to share that pride nor to support it. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > As you said, you don't seem able to understand what I'm saying, or > is it that you're not wanting to? Whichever it is, we don't seem > > to be communicating well. > > As usual, swap the " you's " and " me's " :-p. Makes more sense then. > That's a very simple concept, Tim, which you often are using but this concept is wrong because there is no me and there is no you. Consciousness is all there is. 'You' and 'me' are introduced by the categorizing thought. And thus they get alloted and used for discrimination within this world. All these categories have their value within comuninication and orientation in this world. Tell your grandma that she is you and you are her and she no longer will respect you. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hm, I still don't understand you. I think it are those authoritative stances your post is full of. Just take that singele rather authoritative sentence: > > > > > > > " > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense " . > > > > > > > > 1) Investment ? Who is the investor and in what is he investing. I can't see any investment nor can I see any inverstor. > > > > > > > 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > > > > > 3) World-sense ? Same as above. I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > > > > > Alone that single sentence has to get discussed by length and I am not interested in longer discussions. Or to be more precise I feel no motivation to discuss somtething just for the sake of discussion. > > > > > > > > As long as you can't write in a very simple way, Dan, which needs to sacrifice your intellectual pride, we cannot meet. I am not interested to share that pride nor to support it. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > As you said, you don't seem able to understand what I'm saying, or > is it that you're not wanting to? Whichever it is, we don't seem > > > to be communicating well. > > > > As usual, swap the " you's " and " me's " :-p. Makes more sense then. > > > > > That's a very simple concept, Tim, which you often are using but > this concept is wrong because there is no me and there is no you. That's why they get reversed when talking to 'others'. The illusory 'me' and illusory 'you' are within each/every poster (or not). > Tell your grandma that she is you and you are her and she no longer > will respect you. > > > > Werner Don't be silly :-). I tell folks who are interested in 'verbal advaita'. If she's interested, I'll tell her. Not that it makes any difference one way or another, as all concepts are false and misleading. The " me " is itself a concept, a false center around which conceptuality is " held " or clung to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hm, I still don't understand you. I think it are those authoritative stances your post is full of. Just take that singele rather authoritative sentence: > > > > > > > > > " > Discontinuity ends the investment in a continuing I-sense, and also with a continuing world-sense " . > > > > > > > > > > 1) Investment ? Who is the investor and in what is he investing. I can't see any investment nor can I see any inverstor. > > > > > > > > > 2) I-sense ? I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > > > > > > > 3) World-sense ? Same as above. I have no idea what that is and where it is and how to be conscious of it. > > > > > > > > > > Alone that single sentence has to get discussed by length and I am not interested in longer discussions. Or to be more precise I feel no motivation to discuss somtething just for the sake of discussion. > > > > > > > > > > As long as you can't write in a very simple way, Dan, which needs to sacrifice your intellectual pride, we cannot meet. I am not interested to share that pride nor to support it. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > > > As you said, you don't seem able to understand what I'm saying, or > is it that you're not wanting to? Whichever it is, we don't seem > > > > to be communicating well. > > > > > > As usual, swap the " you's " and " me's " :-p. Makes more sense then. > > > > > > > > > That's a very simple concept, Tim, which you often are using but > > this concept is wrong because there is no me and there is no you. > > That's why they get reversed when talking to 'others'. The illusory 'me' and illusory 'you' are within each/every poster (or not). > > > Tell your grandma that she is you and you are her and she no longer > will respect you. > > > > > > > > Werner > > Don't be silly :-). I tell folks who are interested in 'verbal advaita'. If she's interested, I'll tell her. Not that it makes any difference one way or another, as all concepts are false and misleading. The " me " is itself a concept, a false center around which conceptuality is " held " or clung to. > Because according to your concept we are interchangable and so you are the silly one (just joking). You say all concepts are false which again is wrong. Concepts are neither true nor false. They are concepts and are very neccessary and useful for orientation and communication. This non-dual nihilism is just a comfortable philosophy for sluggish minds but the world and life is much more complex and you can't escape that complexíty through verbal advaita. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Because according to your concept we are interchangable and so you are the silly one (just joking). > > You say all concepts are false which again is wrong. Concepts are neither true nor false. Well then how is it that saying all concepts are false is " wrong " , if concepts are neither true nor false? " You " contradict yourself ;-). > They are concepts and are very neccessary and useful for > orientation and communication. They are useful for communication, but make for a very poor " way of being " (the named person). > This non-dual nihilism is just a comfortable philosophy for > sluggish minds but the world and life is much more complex and you > can't escape that complexíty through verbal advaita. The complexity is all in the mind. If this isn't clear, have a look at the mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Because according to your concept we are interchangable and so you are the silly one (just joking). > > > > You say all concepts are false which again is wrong. Concepts are neither true nor false. > > Well then how is it that saying all concepts are false is " wrong " , if concepts are neither true nor false? " You " contradict yourself ;-). Oh my God, Tim, you are so powerful logical ! You got me and I no longer can escape. > > > They are concepts and are very neccessary and useful for > > orientation and communication. > > They are useful for communication, but make for a very poor " way of being " (the named person). > > > This non-dual nihilism is just a comfortable philosophy for > > sluggish minds but the world and life is much more complex and you > can't escape that complexíty through verbal advaita. > > The complexity is all in the mind. If this isn't clear, have a look at the mind. > Surely, the complexity is all in the mind. So, take a knife and cut out your mind and that bad, oh so bad complexity is gone. Isn't that wonderful ? Happiness has kissed you. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Because according to your concept we are interchangable and so you are the silly one (just joking). > > > > > > You say all concepts are false which again is wrong. Concepts are neither true nor false. > > > > Well then how is it that saying all concepts are false is " wrong " , if concepts are neither true nor false? " You " contradict yourself ;-). > > > Oh my God, Tim, you are so powerful logical ! > > You got me and I no longer can escape. > > > > > > They are concepts and are very neccessary and useful for > > > orientation and communication. > > > > They are useful for communication, but make for a very poor " way of being " (the named person). > > > > > This non-dual nihilism is just a comfortable philosophy for > > > sluggish minds but the world and life is much more complex and you > can't escape that complexíty through verbal advaita. > > > > The complexity is all in the mind. If this isn't clear, have a look at the mind. > > > > > Surely, the complexity is all in the mind. So, take a knife and cut out your mind and that bad, oh so bad complexity is gone. > > Isn't that wonderful ? Happiness has kissed you. > > Werner > Hi Werner darling, There's nothing but mind, call it the Mind of God, the deluded mind, the ego, the vanishing point, it has been called everything and anything under the sun. Just never mind the mind, and throw kisses at the moon. (Winking back) Simplify, never objectify. ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 - anabebe57 Nisargadatta Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:17 AM Re: Nisargadatta - Dealing with the sense of " I " Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Because according to your concept we are interchangable and so you are > > > the silly one (just joking). > > > > > > You say all concepts are false which again is wrong. Concepts are > > > neither true nor false. > > > > Well then how is it that saying all concepts are false is " wrong " , if > > concepts are neither true nor false? " You " contradict yourself ;-). > > > Oh my God, Tim, you are so powerful logical ! > > You got me and I no longer can escape. > > > > > > They are concepts and are very neccessary and useful for > > > orientation and communication. > > > > They are useful for communication, but make for a very poor " way of > > being " (the named person). > > > > > This non-dual nihilism is just a comfortable philosophy for > > > sluggish minds but the world and life is much more complex and you > > > > can't escape that complexíty through verbal advaita. > > > > The complexity is all in the mind. If this isn't clear, have a look at > > the mind. > > > > > Surely, the complexity is all in the mind. So, take a knife and cut out > your mind and that bad, oh so bad complexity is gone. > > Isn't that wonderful ? Happiness has kissed you. > > Werner > Hi Werner darling, There's nothing but mind, call it the Mind of God, the deluded mind, the ego, the vanishing point, it has been called everything and anything under the sun. Just never mind the mind, and throw kisses at the moon. (Winking back) Simplify, never objectify. ~A Ane, I dont see it that way. The world can be called a mind - mind of mankind. But this mind is not tnescessarily the deluded mind but the natural way the universe unfolds as humanity. Within this mind of humanity flows a river of delusion. It is our localized mind that joins that current of illusion and projects the separate inner observer. Once the illusion is seen through...the mind of mankind does not vanish although it sufferes a radical change in perception, till the body dies. To imagine a " parabrhaman " without some " world-mind " ......well.......only IT can " tell " what that would be.. :>() -geoji- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Because according to your concept we are interchangable and so you are the silly one (just joking). > > > > > > > > You say all concepts are false which again is wrong. Concepts are neither true nor false. > > > > > > Well then how is it that saying all concepts are false is " wrong " , if concepts are neither true nor false? " You " contradict yourself ;-). > > > > > > Oh my God, Tim, you are so powerful logical ! > > > > You got me and I no longer can escape. > > > > > > > > > They are concepts and are very neccessary and useful for > > > > orientation and communication. > > > > > > They are useful for communication, but make for a very poor " way of being " (the named person). > > > > > > > This non-dual nihilism is just a comfortable philosophy for > > > > sluggish minds but the world and life is much more complex and you > can't escape that complexíty through verbal advaita. > > > > > > The complexity is all in the mind. If this isn't clear, have a look at the mind. > > > > > > > > > Surely, the complexity is all in the mind. So, take a knife and cut out your mind and that bad, oh so bad complexity is gone. > > > > Isn't that wonderful ? Happiness has kissed you. > > > > Werner > > > > Hi Werner darling, > > There's nothing but mind, call it the Mind of God, the deluded mind, > the ego, the vanishing point, it has been called everything and anything under the sun. > > Just never mind the mind, and throw kisses at the moon. (Winking back) > > Simplify, never objectify. > > ~A > Namaste, And that mind is an appearance that never happened....Tony. 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.