Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 > A. 1st Saka era : > > Puranas state that it is 1500 years between King Pariskit and the start of > rule of nandas, We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and > hence, the rule of Nandas is dated to 1602 bce. Nandas have ruled for 100 > years i.e. till 1502 bce. After this, Nandas have ruled for 137 years, with > Brhdratha, the last king ruling for 7 years. ie till 1365 bce.Till here, > most of the Puranas agree. It is here that Matsya purana gives us extra > information. > > While Brhdratha was killed by his Sunga commander, his descandents have > ruled for 63 years more (since the purana states that it is 70 years > inclusive of brhdratha, we have taken 63 years, after deducating 7 years of > his rule) this will land us in 1302 bce. > > matsya purana declares that " after this, there is a king Saka who came by > and ruled for 26 years " Thus, we can take 1302 bce to be the first saka era. > > > Puranas also declare that Sakas have ruled for 380 years i.e. until 922 bce when the Yavanas came into the picture. They have ruled for 82 years i.e. until 840 bce. After this, Tusharas or Kushans have started their reign. While Kushans have ruled for 500 years or so, there are many dynasties such as Mundas (200 years), Mlecchas (300 years) and Purus (300 years) have ruled the North western parts of India. The rule of Mlecchas has started in 550 bce or so with Cyrus. The rule of Purus has come to an end in 327 bce, when Alexander has subdued them. After this, there are others who have ruled for more than 150 years till Kharavela (Vishwasphutika) has appeared on the scene in 188 bce or so. From the inscriptions of Kushans, Vima Taktoo or Vima Tushara was ruling around 270 Yavana Era.i.e. 922-270=652 bce. regards, Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 > A. 1st Saka era : > > Puranas state that it is 1500 years between King Pariskit and the start of > rule of nandas, We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and > hence, the rule of Nandas is dated to 1602 bce. Nandas have ruled for 100 > years i.e. till 1502 bce. After this, Nandas have ruled for 137 years, with > Brhdratha, the last king ruling for 7 years. ie till 1365 bce.Till here, > most of the Puranas agree. It is here that Matsya purana gives us extra > information. > > While Brhdratha was killed by his Sunga commander, his descandents have > ruled for 63 years more (since the purana states that it is 70 years > inclusive of brhdratha, we have taken 63 years, after deducating 7 years of > his rule) this will land us in 1302 bce. > > matsya purana declares that " after this, there is a king Saka who came by > and ruled for 26 years " Thus, we can take 1302 bce to be the first saka era. > > > Puranas also declare that Sakas have ruled for 380 years i.e. until 922 bce when the Yavanas came into the picture. They have ruled for 82 years i.e. until 840 bce. After this, Tusharas or Kushans have started their reign. While Kushans have ruled for 500 years or so, there are many dynasties such as Mundas (200 years), Mlecchas (300 years) and Purus (300 years) have ruled the North western parts of India. The rule of Mlecchas has started in 550 bce or so with Cyrus. The rule of Purus has come to an end in 327 bce, when Alexander has subdued them. After this, there are others who have ruled for more than 150 years till Kharavela (Vishwasphutika) has appeared on the scene in 188 bce or so. From the inscriptions of Kushans, Vima Taktoo or Vima Tushara was ruling around 270 Yavana Era.i.e. 922-270=652 bce. regards, Kishore patnaik The mainstream scholars as well as many Indian sympathizers loathe accepting a deep chronology in spite of the fact that it answers all the questions. Instead, they try to invent and reinvent answers to justify the shallower chronology which churns out more questions than answers. When I have first suggested that Kushans must be belonging to around 6th c. BCE, there was lots of ire on the professional forums. But truly speaking, where is the concrete evidence for the dating accepted today, that Kushans belonged to around 1st C CE? There is not a single irrefutable evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, if at all. The Chinese annals talk of some Chinese tribes who are equated to Kushans not because they ARE Kushans but because they belong to pre determined time frame. But did any one notice that there is no “ one to one” relationship between the kings mentioned in these annals and those of Kushans? In fact, Chinese go on to say that Kushans (or what we think them to be) did not rule India directly but placed them under a Commander, which is not at all true in case of Kushans. On the other hand, Puranic chronology fits greatly with the time frame of Kushans. It is Kushans who have spread the iconography of Indian gods, probably combined with Buddhism in Bactria and Iran. Vima taktoo ruled around 650 bce (922 bce -270= 652 bce)That spread of Buddhism in Iran is pre Zoraster has been amply documented by Al Beruni. That Kushans are prior to Zoraster is amply proved by the fact that Ahur Mazda was not given a prime place in the Iranian pantheon of deities struck on Kushan coins. Later Kushans were perhaps made to restrain themselves , to Gandhara in specific, during early 5th century and this gap has given a chance for cultural upheavals to rise against these Indian elements in Persia. Consequently, a religious revolution was brought about by Zoraster perhaps in early 5th century who has brought Ahur Mazda into the forefront of the Iranian deities, probably in accordance with early Persian Texts. He was followed by Xerxes I of Persia ( r. 485 – 465 bce) who proudly proclaimed over his destruction of daivas: ”Among these countries (that submitted to him) was (one) where previously daivas were worshipped. Then, by the favour of Ahura Mazda, I destroyed that daiva place, and I had proclaimed, the daivas shall not be worshipped. Where previously the daivas were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahura Mazda properly with the Law (arta). “ There is no doubt in identifying these daivas as Indo Aryan Gods. There is another support for our hypothesis. If Yavana era has started in 922 bce, Avaca kings have to be ruling Swat area sometime around 700 bce. The numismatic sequence shows that the Avaca kings are followed by one Sasa or Sasi, who is not otherwise identified. However, we know that the kingdom of Aswikas was destroyed by Alexander who has imposed Sasi gupta on the Aswika people. Thus, the Sasa of these coins is none other than the commander of Alexander, who perhaps declared independence in post Alexandran times. Hope this helps, Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 how is it that the puranas have no mention of Alexander's invasion although they refer to the consecutive rule of Nandas? Nor do they refer to Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka--would that be because one turned Jain and the other Buddhist? Nor is there any mention of foreign invading chiefs except Kalayavana who remains unidentified. Only the Bhavishya Purana mentions what can be construed as a Muslim attack led by "Mahamada". Pradip Bhattacharya kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 ; Kushanas ; indiaarchaeology <IndiaArchaeology >Monday, 30 March, 2009 15:13:37Re: Re: Matsya purana on Saka era > A. 1st Saka era :> > Puranas state that it is 1500 years between King Pariskit and the start of> rule of nandas, We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and> hence, the rule of Nandas is dated to 1602 bce. Nandas have ruled for 100> years i.e. till 1502 bce. After this, Nandas have ruled for 137 years, with> Brhdratha, the last king ruling for 7 years. ie till 1365 bce.Till here,> most of the Puranas agree. It is here that Matsya purana gives us extra> information.> > While Brhdratha was killed by his Sunga commander, his descandents have> ruled for 63 years more (since the purana states that it is 70 years> inclusive of brhdratha, we have taken 63 years, after deducating 7 years of> his rule) this will land us in 1302 bce.> > matsya purana declares that " after this, there is a king Saka who came by> and ruled for 26 years" Thus, we can take 1302 bce to be the first saka era.> > > Puranas also declare that Sakas have ruled for 380 years i.e. until 922 bce when the Yavanas came into the picture. They have ruled for 82 years i.e. until 840 bce. After this, Tusharas or Kushans have started their reign. While Kushans have ruled for 500 years or so, there are many dynasties such as Mundas (200 years), Mlecchas (300 years) and Purus (300 years) have ruled the North western parts of India. The rule of Mlecchas has started in 550 bce or so with Cyrus. The rule of Purus has come to an end in 327 bce, when Alexander has subdued them. After this, there are others who have ruled for more than 150 years till Kharavela (Vishwasphutika) has appeared on the scene in 188 bce or so. From the inscriptions of Kushans, Vima Taktoo or Vima Tushara was ruling around 270 Yavana Era.i.e. 922-270=652 bce. regards, Kishore patnaik The mainstream scholars as well as many Indian sympathizers loathe accepting a deep chronology in spite of the fact that it answers all the questions. Instead, they try to invent and reinvent answers to justify the shallower chronology which churns out more questions than answers. When I have first suggested that Kushans must be belonging to around 6th c. BCE, there was lots of ire on the professional forums. But truly speaking, where is the concrete evidence for the dating accepted today, that Kushans belonged to around 1st C CE? There is not a single irrefutable evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, if at all. The Chinese annals talk of some Chinese tribes who are equated to Kushans not because they ARE Kushans but because they belong to pre determined time frame. But did any one notice that there is no “ one to one†relationship between the kings mentioned in these annals and those of Kushans? In fact, Chinese go on to say that Kushans (or what we think them to be) did not rule India directly but placed them under a Commander, which is not at all true in case of Kushans. On the other hand, Puranic chronology fits greatly with the time frame of Kushans. It is Kushans who have spread the iconography of Indian gods, probably combined with Buddhism in Bactria and Iran. Vima taktoo ruled around 650 bce (922 bce -270= 652 bce)That spread of Buddhism in Iran is pre Zoraster has been amply documented by Al Beruni. That Kushans are prior to Zoraster is amply proved by the fact that Ahur Mazda was not given a prime place in the Iranian pantheon of deities struck on Kushan coins. Later Kushans were perhaps made to restrain themselves , to Gandhara in specific, during early 5th century and this gap has given a chance for cultural upheavals to rise against these Indian elements in Persia. Consequently, a religious revolution was brought about by Zoraster perhaps in early 5th century who has brought Ahur Mazda into the forefront of the Iranian deities, probably in accordance with early Persian Texts. He was followed by Xerxes I of Persia ( r. 485 – 465 bce) who proudly proclaimed over his destruction of daivas: â€Among these countries (that submitted to him) was (one) where previously daivas were worshipped. Then, by the favour of Ahura Mazda, I destroyed that daiva place, and I had proclaimed, the daivas shall not be worshipped. Where previously the daivas were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahura Mazda properly with the Law (arta). “ There is no doubt in identifying these daivas as Indo Aryan Gods. There is another support for our hypothesis. If Yavana era has started in 922 bce, Avaca kings have to be ruling Swat area sometime around 700 bce. The numismatic sequence shows that the Avaca kings are followed by one Sasa or Sasi, who is not otherwise identified. However, we know that the kingdom of Aswikas was destroyed by Alexander who has imposed Sasi gupta on the Aswika people. Thus, the Sasa of these coins is none other than the commander of Alexander, who perhaps declared independence in post Alexandran times. Hope this helps, Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 how is it that the puranas have no mention of Alexander's invasion although they refer to the consecutive rule of Nandas? Nor do they refer to Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka--would that be because one turned Jain and the other Buddhist? Nor is there any mention of foreign invading chiefs except Kalayavana who remains unidentified. Only the Bhavishya Purana mentions what can be construed as a Muslim attack led by " Mahamada " . Pradip BhattacharyaThere is absolutely no information with regard to Alexander. It is also to be seen that there is no information about Gupta kings. Nanda kings is not consecutive to Alexander's invasion. Similarly, it is wrong to think Puranas did not mention CGM or Asoka. They have very much mentioned these names along with their regnal periods. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 This is the first time I am hearing that the Puranas do not mention the Mauryas. It is clearly mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana in Book 12. I beleive there is a very similar list in the Vishnu Purana. The other 2 Puranas that are reputed to contain the dynastic lists are the Matsya Purana and the Vayu Purana. And then there is the Bhavishya Purana whihch may be a later rescension. What the puranas do not mention is the name Pataliputra . apparently the capital was still called Girivraaja (or Rajagriha)at that time.Pataliputra is a fairly recent incarnation of the capitl of the Magadha Empire. I have not aseen some of the other Puranas such as the Markandeya Purana.The literature is so vast that it is almost impossible to make a statement such as 'the puranas make no mention of the Mauryas> I have set up a strawman chronology (that you can throw rockas at and challenge). itis availbale in scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/12762350/Proposed-skeleton-of-Chronology-of-the-Indic-\ Civilization , Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip wrote: > > how is it that the puranas have no mention of Alexander's invasion although they refer to the consecutive rule of Nandas? Nor do they refer to Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka--would that be because one turned Jain and the other Buddhist? Nor is there any mention of foreign invading chiefs except Kalayavana who remains unidentified. Only the Bhavishya Purana mentions what can be construed as a Muslim attack led by " Mahamada " . >  > Pradip Bhattacharya > > > > ________________________________ > kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 > ; Kushanas ; indiaarchaeology <IndiaArchaeology > > Monday, 30 March, 2009 15:13:37 > Re: Re: Matsya purana on Saka era > > >  > A. 1st Saka era : > > > > Puranas state that it is 1500 years between King Pariskit and the start of > > rule of nandas, We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and > > hence, the rule of Nandas is dated to 1602 bce. Nandas have ruled for 100 > > years i.e. till 1502 bce. After this, Nandas have ruled for 137 years, with > > Brhdratha, the last king ruling for 7 years. ie till 1365 bce.Till here, > > most of the Puranas agree. It is here that Matsya purana gives us extra > > information. > > > > While Brhdratha was killed by his Sunga commander, his descandents have > > ruled for 63 years more (since the purana states that it is 70 years > > inclusive of brhdratha, we have taken 63 years, after deducating 7 years of > > his rule) this will land us in 1302 bce. > > > > matsya purana declares that " after this, there is a king Saka who came by > > and ruled for 26 years " Thus, we can take 1302 bce to be the first saka era. > > > > > > > > Puranas also declare that Sakas have ruled for 380 years i.e. until 922 bce when the Yavanas came into the picture. They have ruled for 82 years i.e. until 840 bce. After this, Tusharas or Kushans have started their reign. While Kushans have ruled for 500 years or so, there are many dynasties such as Mundas (200 years), Mlecchas (300 years) and Purus (300 years) have ruled the North western parts of India. > > The rule of Mlecchas has started in 550 bce or so with Cyrus. The rule of Purus has come to an end in 327 bce, when Alexander has subdued them. > > After this, there are others who have ruled for more than 150 years till Kharavela (Vishwasphutika) has appeared on the scene in 188 bce or so. > > From the inscriptions of Kushans, Vima Taktoo or Vima Tushara was ruling around 270 Yavana Era.i.e. 922-270=652 bce. > > regards, > > Kishore patnaik > > > > The mainstream scholars as well as many Indian sympathizers loathe accepting a deep chronology in spite of the fact that it answers all the questions. Instead, they try to invent and reinvent answers to justify the shallower chronology which churns out more questions than answers. > > When I have first suggested that Kushans must be belonging to around 6th c. BCE, there was lots of ire on the professional forums.  But truly speaking, where is the concrete evidence for the dating accepted today, that Kushans belonged to around 1st C CE? There is not a single irrefutable evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, if at all. > > The Chinese annals talk of some Chinese tribes who are equated to Kushans not because they ARE Kushans but because they belong to pre determined time frame. But did any one notice that there is no “ one to one†relationship between the kings mentioned in these annals and those of Kushans? In fact, Chinese go on to say that Kushans (or what we think them to be) did not rule India directly but placed them under a Commander, which is not at all true in case of Kushans. > > On the other hand, Puranic chronology fits greatly with the time frame of Kushans. > > It is Kushans who have spread the iconography of Indian gods, probably combined with Buddhism  in Bactria and Iran. Vima taktoo ruled around 650 bce (922 bce -270= 652 bce)That spread of Buddhism in Iran  is pre Zoraster has been amply documented by Al Beruni. > That Kushans are prior to Zoraster is amply proved by the fact that Ahur Mazda was not given a prime place in the Iranian pantheon of deities struck on Kushan coins. > > Later Kushans were perhaps made to restrain themselves , to Gandhara in specific,   during early 5th century and this gap has given a chance for cultural upheavals to rise against these Indian elements in Persia. > > Consequently, a religious revolution was brought about by Zoraster perhaps in early 5th century who has brought Ahur Mazda into the forefront of the Iranian deities, probably in accordance with early Persian Texts. He was followed by Xerxes I of Persia ( r. 485 †" 465 bce) who proudly proclaimed over his destruction of daivas: >  > > â€Among these countries (that submitted to him) was (one) where previously daivas were worshipped. Then, by the favour of Ahura Mazda, I destroyed that daiva place, and I had proclaimed, the daivas shall not be worshipped. Where previously the daivas were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahura Mazda properly with the Law (arta). “ >  > There is no doubt in identifying these daivas as Indo Aryan Gods. >  >  >  > There is another support for our hypothesis. If Yavana era has started in 922 bce, Avaca kings have to be ruling Swat area sometime around 700 bce. The numismatic sequence shows that the Avaca kings are followed by one Sasa or Sasi, who is not otherwise identified. However, we know that the kingdom of Aswikas was destroyed by Alexander who has imposed Sasi gupta on the Aswika people. Thus, the Sasa of these coins is none other than the commander of Alexander, who perhaps declared independence in post Alexandran times. > Hope this helps, >  > Kishore patnaik  > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 What the puranas do not mention is the name Pataliputra . apparently the capital was still called Girivraaja (or Rajagriha)at that time.Pataliputra is a fairly recent incarnation of the capitl of the Magadha Empire.If true, this statement has a very wide ramifications. Even a king as late as Kharavela talks of Rajagriha and not Pataliputra. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Dear Kishore,Pataliputra and Rajagrha are two different places. Were you stating that they were the same, or that the capitalwas moved from R to P?KathieOn Mar 31, 2009, at 2:16 AM, kishore patnaik wrote:What the puranas do not mention is the name Pataliputra . apparently the capital was still called Girivraaja (or Rajagriha)at that time.Pataliputra is a fairly recent incarnation of the capitl of the Magadha Empire.If true, this statement has a very wide ramifications. Even a king as late as Kharavela talks of Rajagriha and not Pataliputra. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The problems created by western historiographers dealing with Indology pertain to chronology. Most of these scholars who depend upon external data such as vulgate traditions and linguistic data come to an obvious faulty conclusion of shallow chronology. The Indian traditionalists on the other hand depend upon Puranic sources and point out that the chronology must be much deeper than presently accepted. The shifting of capital from Rajagriha to Pataliputra seem to be mostly mentioned in Buddhist literature and in fact, scene for most of the important events are fixed in Pataliputra. If Puranas did not mention about such a shift, it means that Puranas were written much earlier than the Buddhist literature in question and more importantly, it also means construction of Pataliputra is a much later development than being thought now. I hope I am clear, regards, Kishore patnaik On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Katherine Brobeck <sivadasi wrote: Dear Kishore,Pataliputra and Rajagrha are two different places. Were you stating that they were the same, or that the capitalwas moved from R to P?Kathie On Mar 31, 2009, at 2:16 AM, kishore patnaik wrote: What the puranas do not mention is the name Pataliputra . apparently the capital was still called Girivraaja (or Rajagriha)at that time.Pataliputra is a fairly recent incarnation of the capitl of the Magadha Empire. If true, this statement has a very wide ramifications. Even a king as late as Kharavela talks of Rajagriha and not Pataliputra. Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yes Rajgrha and Pataliputra are not the same. Neither are Palimbothra( Paribhadra) and Pataliputra, which are assumed to be the same by William Jones. But i understand Girivrja and Rajgriha are the same.All this misinterpretation has resulted partly from the inability or unwillingness on th part pf the Occidental to learn and pronounce Sanskrit words correctly. When they put their mind to it they can jolly well pronounce any name they wish to, as is evidenced by Niicholas Kazanas, Robert Goldman, David Frawley,, and a number of others whom i have personally heard. Itis a combinaton of hubris and intellectual laziness that prevents them from doing so.. Napoleon,s dictum is at work here again when he says , do not attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence. Kishore's remarks are right on the button as to chronology.On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:55 AM, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: The problems  created by western historiographers dealing with Indology pertain to chronology. Most of these scholars who depend upon external data such as vulgate traditions and linguistic data come to an obvious faulty conclusion of shallow chronology. The Indian traditionalists on the other hand depend upon Puranic sources and point out that the chronology must be much deeper than presently accepted. The shifting of capital from Rajagriha to Pataliputra seem to be mostly mentioned in Buddhist literature and in fact, scene for most of the important events are fixed in Pataliputra. If Puranas did not mention about such a shift, it means that Puranas were written much earlier than the Buddhist literature in question and more importantly, it also means construction of Pataliputra is a much later development than being thought now. I hope I am clear, regards, Kishore patnaik On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Katherine Brobeck <sivadasi wrote: Dear Kishore,Pataliputra and Rajagrha are two different places. Were you stating that they were the same, or that the capitalwas moved from R to P?Kathie On Mar 31, 2009, at 2:16 AM, kishore patnaik wrote: What the puranas do not mention is the name Pataliputra . apparently the capital was still called Girivraaja (or Rajagriha)at that time.Pataliputra is a fairly recent incarnation of the capitl of the Magadha Empire. If true, this statement has a very wide ramifications. Even a king as late as Kharavela talks of Rajagriha and not Pataliputra. Kishore patnaik -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! -- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_conf webmaster925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Two different places. See Historical Atlas of India. published by National Thematic Mapping Organisation -NATMO db - Katherine Brobeck Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:08 PM Re: Re: Matsya purana on Saka era Dear Kishore, Pataliputra and Rajagrha are two different places. Were you stating that they were the same, or that the capital was moved from R to P? Kathie On Mar 31, 2009, at 2:16 AM, kishore patnaik wrote: What the puranas do not mention is the name Pataliputra . apparently the capital was still called Girivraaja (or Rajagriha)at that time.Pataliputra is a fairly recent incarnation of the capitl of the Magadha Empire. If true, this statement has a very wide ramifications. Even a king as late as Kharavela talks of Rajagriha and not Pataliputra. Kishore patnaik 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.