tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post5444632829905237542..comments2023-10-16T13:06:42.360+01:00Comments on Happiness of Being: The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: ‘Observation without the observer’ and ‘choiceless awareness’: Why the teachings of J. Krishnamurti are diametrically opposed to those of Sri RamanaMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-24124671997647519572018-10-04T16:53:10.539+01:002018-10-04T16:53:10.539+01:00Aye, Aye Mr.Butler, which you are unable to becaus...Aye, Aye Mr.Butler, which you are unable to because that is not in your league. You have to be faithful to you master and pledge your unfailing loyalty no matter what.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-54011922574057463352018-10-04T16:20:56.975+01:002018-10-04T16:20:56.975+01:00...we too are quite happy that our most intelligen......we too are quite happy that our most intelligent and sincer commentator "Unknown" is obviously in the position to grasp even the highest philosophy...:-)anadi-anantahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08815024045988099944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-49007603213463812372018-10-04T11:10:03.499+01:002018-10-04T11:10:03.499+01:00I am quite surprised Michael James with all his in...I am quite surprised Michael James with all his intelligence cannot understand or grasp J.Krishanmurti's philosophy or psychology even though JK is not one of my favorite teachers.Asunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05375243105817283476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-82528844120123766802018-06-27T09:47:13.793+01:002018-06-27T09:47:13.793+01:00At least the anonymous posters here don't hide...At least the anonymous posters here don't hide behind lofty, phony names like Mouna and stick to the topic being discussed. Attempt to divert the discussion to whether Ramana walked or talked only reveals incapacity to dive into his teachings. Calling others egoistic is no substitute. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-51658514768478628182018-06-12T14:15:43.000+01:002018-06-12T14:15:43.000+01:00Very easy to hide behind an “anonymous” mask to cr...Very easy to hide behind an “anonymous” mask to criticize... the intention behind such fear of being recognized is clear, reminds one the “hit and run” phenomena in traffic accidents. It is a very common psychological feature in internet blogs, it really shows the thick levels of protection the egoic person will implement in order to continue being intact against the recognition by others or the judgement of his/her views. Fear. Fear of being oneself, exposed and judged. Someone once said that is Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt... undoubtedly, regardless of whatever opinion internet trolls may have on a topic that’s what underlies their comments: fear.<br /><br />Besides His teachings, fortunately our Sadguru Sri Ramana gave us the clear and utterly transparent example of what living by one’s words mean. He walked the talk... not talked the walk.Mounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02416580298727681711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-63350629572770855912018-06-12T09:22:23.966+01:002018-06-12T09:22:23.966+01:00Michael James and a lot of others here simply don&...Michael James and a lot of others here simply don't get it. They are stuck on a particular vocabulary or mode of teaching and are permanently enclosed there. It is true of authors of both Krishnamurti and Ramana. When Selvanayagam posed a question about Krishnamurti's teaching, Bhagawan agreed that "choiceless awareness is our true nature". He then went on to explain why it is not easy for everyone to attain that state and why initial practice and effort is required. Krishnamurti emphasized that "the word is not the thing". Unfortunately all I see here is needless quibbling over words and trying to somehow establish that one teaching/teacher is better than another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-76038505604889253082018-06-05T04:51:16.789+01:002018-06-05T04:51:16.789+01:00There can not be an observation without an observe...There can not be an observation without an observer. What a silly statement. <br /><br />Stop vomiting what Raman said and look openly at what JK said and you may get it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-77812103107662715542018-06-05T04:46:15.038+01:002018-06-05T04:46:15.038+01:00I am shocked to see that no one here is getting wh...I am shocked to see that no one here is getting what jk said������������<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-44562517873523822572017-08-05T22:00:38.966+01:002017-08-05T22:00:38.966+01:00Michael,
I am familiar with both J.Krishnamurti&#...Michael,<br /><br />I am familiar with both J.Krishnamurti's teachings and Ramana's teachings. If you see any contradiction, it is just because both had different teaching methods.. It looks like there is a confusion between absolute and relative view in this article..<br /><br />'Choiceless awareness' just means witnessing our thoughts, emotions, feelings, mental states, the sense of doer etc without any judgement. The observer here is not an entity but the Self itself.. We just switch position from being an ego to being the eternal Witness, the Self. This practice actually develops viveka and vairagya and finally ends in the cessation of the ego. It is my own experience. You can read my story here: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/the-journey-of-a-seeker-my-story/<br /><br />It is true that there are no two entities and all that exists is self. But it is not experientially realized until the dawn of self-realization. Ramana's teaching of inquiring each thought as it arises and finding out to whom it occurs, Buddha's teachings of mindfulness and J.Ks teachings are essentially the same. All these require detachment and discrimination. If a person is identified with his thoughts, he can neither do self-inquiry nor be choicelessly aware. The moment you inquire who you are, you actually take the position of a witness and practice choiceless awareness. <br /><br />It is very important to know that realizing the Self is one thing; coming up with a teaching method is another thing. A person who followed a particular method or sadhana and realized the Self may not see how effective a different method or Sadhana is..Each master advocates the method which worked for him. Choiceless awareness works and my own life is the proof for me. <br /><br />It is not the ego which observes the thoughts in the practice of choiceless awareness; the ego is also observed. If one thinks otherwise, then he obviously did not get it and practicing it the wrong way. If he practices it in the right way, he should soon notice gaps between two thoughts. As he sees one thought passing away and waits for the next thought to come, he gets a glimpse of the non-dual reality in that gap. It is not correct to say that 'he gets the glimpse of it' because there is no triad of observer and observed there..It is not easy to put it in language because the language itself is non-dual.<br /><br />You are analyzing the whole thing with logic and within the domain of language... If you ask someone who had truly practiced choiceless awareness, you will get a different answer. Choiceless awareness is not even a 'doing', because the doer itself is observed. In fact, the only way to practice neti neti, is to be choicelessly aware, to take the position of the witness.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-5230530624724376852016-08-01T11:27:04.184+01:002016-08-01T11:27:04.184+01:00Zubin, I have replied to your comment in a separat...Zubin, I have replied to your <a href="#c7291812913395585791" rel="nofollow">comment</a> in a separate article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-observer-is-observed-only-when-we.html" rel="nofollow">The observer is the observed only when we observe ourself alone</a>.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-72918129133955857912016-07-31T00:34:36.208+01:002016-07-31T00:34:36.208+01:00I read a lot of Krishnamurti when younger, and I d...I read a lot of Krishnamurti when younger, and I do agree that his approach may have been unnecessarily complicated.<br /><br />Krishnamurti focused on self-exploration of one's mind. If you are angry, dissect it to find out what is deeper than it, etc. In effect, you would be looking at all the little adjuncts of the ego to see each one as false.<br /><br />But ultimately, Krishnamurti's main theme was "The Observer is the Observed", which he repeated frequently.<br /><br />So, in that sense, there is no difference in Krishnamurti's ultimate teaching and Ramana's. When you do self-enquiry you are Self looking at Self. When you are looking at the feeling of I AM, the looker is also that same I AM feeling, or, in other words, the observer is the observed.<br /><br />Zubinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02219788084356971947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-3930675716911654582015-05-29T00:41:16.301+01:002015-05-29T00:41:16.301+01:00Oh Michael,
many thanks indeed.
Now I have to bury...Oh Michael,<br />many thanks indeed.<br />Now I have to bury myself in the given long new article.<br />There is no doubt that I have to carry out studies into that theme.Hatschepsutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-36091606872884149962015-05-28T13:58:02.446+01:002015-05-28T13:58:02.446+01:00Hatschepsut, as I promised in my interim reply, I ...Hatschepsut, as I promised in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1432308256032#c6087442759688965006" rel="nofollow">my interim reply</a>, I have now replied to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1431808897923#c543948673052693067" rel="nofollow">your question</a> in a new article, <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-ego-is-essentially-formless-and.html" rel="nofollow">The ego is essentially a formless and hence featureless phantom</a>. As you can see, it is a long and detailed reply, so I hope it makes your wait for it worthwhile.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-68967566976279638242015-05-23T15:36:27.343+01:002015-05-23T15:36:27.343+01:00Michael,
the lucidity of your last reply drives aw...Michael,<br />the lucidity of your last reply drives away my doubts about the ambiguity of the ego's appearance.<br />So I hope the inessential adjuncts<br />will grin and bear it and join in the game. For good the suitable most effective treatment of arising spoilsport should be no stumbling block.Nefertarinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-73983661800396858262015-05-23T12:59:09.077+01:002015-05-23T12:59:09.077+01:00Nefertari, the essence of our ego is pure self-awa...Nefertari, the essence of our ego is pure self-awareness, which is what we really are, so we cannot deny that. When we deny our ego by trying to be aware of ourself alone, we are not denying our essential self-awareness, but are denying all the inessential adjuncts, which are what makes this ego seem to be something other than what we really are.<br /><br />Stripped of all its adjuncts, our ego is no longer an ego as such, but is only pure self-awareness, which is what alone is real.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-55856557658294959572015-05-23T12:56:09.638+01:002015-05-23T12:56:09.638+01:00Thank you Sir Michael James for your substantial a...Thank you Sir Michael James for your substantial and plausible reply about the fundamental significance of diligent self-investigation.<br />To experience what we actually/really are I agree that we have to leave behind all rational analysis and should try instead to experience ourself alone.Orontesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-37884465550271205512015-05-23T12:36:31.102+01:002015-05-23T12:36:31.102+01:00Thanks Michael,
isolation only of ourself as pure ...Thanks Michael,<br />isolation only of ourself as pure self-awareness from all the other things that we seem to be aware of - that I can now understand easily. So I am able to go home with my mind set at ease.<br />But to deny our same ego whose essence is pure self-awareness - that racks my brains.Nefertarinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-65013583167307977522015-05-23T12:15:16.989+01:002015-05-23T12:15:16.989+01:00Thank you Michael,
the questions of Samsari are ca...Thank you Michael,<br />the questions of Samsari are cast in the same mould.<br />So your answer in your reply to Samsari about the supposedly paradox is quite enough.<br />According your more exact analysis the seeming wrong statement is now indicating a higher truth.Bujumburanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-59744536329465455212015-05-22T22:50:34.210+01:002015-05-22T22:50:34.210+01:00‘Does anything that this ego experiences exist ind...‘Does anything that this ego experiences exist independent of it?’<br /><br />No, I would infer - from the understanding of Bhagavan's teachings I gained from Sri Nochur Venkataraman, Sri David Godman, and Sri Michael James: We do not experience other things in deep sleep when mind is absent (or the ego or the 'I'-thought); any expeirence either in dream or upon waking results due to existence of or rise of ego. <br /><br />Sri Nochur Venkataraman would often state that one loves to lose everything one 'gains' or 'can gain' during waking state - by wanting to go to sleep wherein you are just not what you were in waking (in terms of status or position, gender, place.. etc.)R Viswanathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/18066293987969833262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-1824821068661918622015-05-22T21:56:57.840+01:002015-05-22T21:56:57.840+01:00Bujumbura, I hope I have adequately answered your ...Bujumbura, I hope I have adequately answered <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1431898775151#c6008851825306359966" rel="nofollow">your comment</a> about how we as the ego can get rid of this ego in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1432304446166#c7112300620989476045" rel="nofollow">the first half of my reply to Samsari</a>, particularly in the two paragraphs in which I wrote:<br /><br />Though it may seem paradoxical to say that the ego is seeking to free itself from the ego [...], it would perhaps seem less paradoxical if we were to express the idea more precisely by saying that we as the ego that we now seem to be are seeking to free ourself from the illusion that this ego is what we actually are. We obviously cannot free ourself from what we actually are, but we can free ourself from what we seem to be.<br /><br />Since what we really are is never bound by the illusion that we are this ego, the ‘ourself’ whom we seek to free from this ego is again only ourself as this ego that we now seem to be. Because we now seem to be bound by the illusion that we are this ego, we seek to be free from this illusion, and we can free ourself from it by experiencing ourself as we really are.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-26996332907828898262015-05-22T21:30:10.842+01:002015-05-22T21:30:10.842+01:00Nefertari, in answer to your first comment, the is...Nefertari, in answer to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1431815386144#c8662421986621704965" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, the isolation that Bhagavan talks about is not merely isolation of ourself as a person from all the other people in our society, but is only isolation of ourself as pure self-awareness from all the other things that we seem to be aware of. So long as we are aware of anything other than ourself, we are not aware of ourself as we really are, because according to Bhagavan nothing other than what we really are actually exists.<br /><br />This isolation of our essential self from everything else is not an ego trip, because our ego rises and seems to exist only by grasping in its awareness things other than itself. Therefore when we grasp or attend to anything other than ourself, we are thereby feeding and nourishing our ego, whereas when we try to be aware of ourself alone, we are thereby denying our ego, so this is the very antithesis of an ego trip.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-2681070485354389502015-05-22T21:03:06.541+01:002015-05-22T21:03:06.541+01:00Orontes, in reply to your questions, though we nee...Orontes, in reply to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1431813237629#c7030707267793801742" rel="nofollow">your questions</a>, though we need to find the correct answers to metaphysical questions, doing so is not easy, and even if we cannot at present find a correct or certain answer to each of them, such questions are nevertheless of great value because they show us that many things that we normally take for granted are not actually as certain as we assume them to be. Take for example the simple question: who am I? We normally assume that we know who we are, but when we consider this question carefully it becomes clear that we do not actually know what we really are, and when we understand this it becomes obvious that we need to investigate ourself in order to experience ourself as we actually are.<br /><br />Regarding the first of the two metaphysical questions you refer to, ‘What is it that appears as this ego?’, this is one that we can answer at least to some extent, because it is obvious that it is ourself that appears as this ego. However, it is not obvious what we ourself are, so the real meaning of this question is: what am I, who now seem to be this ego? This is not such a simple question to answer, because at present our experience of ourself is mixed and confused with our experience of other things. By rational analysis we can understand what we are not, but to experience what we actually are we have to leave all rational analysis behind and try instead to experience ourself alone, in complete isolation from all the other things that we now mistake to be ourself.<br /><br />Regarding the second metaphysical question you refer to, ‘Does anything that this ego experiences exist independent of it?’, this is one that no amount of rational analysis or logical deliberation can answer, except to say that we simply do not know, and hence this is a question that (in one form or another) philosophers have been debating for thousands of years without coming to any convincing conclusion. According to the testimony of Bhagavan, nothing that this ego experiences exists independent of it, and the only means by which we can verify this for ourself is by investigating and experiencing what we ourself are.<br /><br />Other things seem to exist only when we experience ourself as this ego, so their seeming existence cannot be any more real that the ego to whom they seem to exist. If this ego is an illusion, everything that it experiences must also be an illusion, so to determine whether other things are real or illusory, we must first investigate our ego to see whether it is real. According to Bhagavan, if we investigate it we will find that it does not actually exist, and hence whatever it seemed to experience likewise does not actually exist.<br /><br />However, merely believing Bhagavan’s words is not sufficient, because our belief is just a superficial idea in our mind — one among numerous such ideas. Merely replacing the idea that the world is real with the alternative idea that it is unreal does not actually change our experience, so this is why Bhagavan insisted that we each need to investigate ourself in order to experience for ourself what we actually are.<br /><br />Metaphysical questions can point us in the right direction — towards ourself and the need for us to investigate ourself — but they can take us no further than that. Once we have understood that the only way to find the correct and certain answer to any metaphysical question is for us to investigate what we ourself are, we have to apply ourself diligently to investigating ourself.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-60874427596889650062015-05-22T16:24:16.032+01:002015-05-22T16:24:16.032+01:00Hatschepsut, I will reply to your question in a se...Hatschepsut, I will reply to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1431808897923#c543948673052693067" rel="nofollow">your question</a> in a separate article, which I hope to complete and post here within the next few days.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-17830659848326549642015-05-22T15:24:58.308+01:002015-05-22T15:24:58.308+01:00In continuation of my previous comment in reply to...In continuation of <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1432304446166#c7112300620989476045" rel="nofollow">my previous comment</a> in reply to Samsari:<br /><br />Returning to what you were asking about, it does not matter whether we consider the ‘ourself’ whom we must investigate to be ourself as we really are or ourself as we seem to be, because we are only one self, and hence we ourself are the only self we can investigate. From one perspective we can say that this ‘ourself’ whom we must investigate is ourself as the ego that we now seem to be, because the ‘we’ who are investigating ourself are what now seems to be this ego. However, from another perspective we can say that this ‘ourself’ whom we must investigate is ourself as we really are, because we can investigate ourself only by trying to experience ourself as we really are.<br /><br />When we mistake a rope to be a snake, we must look at it carefully to see what it really is, but what is that ‘it’ that we must look at carefully? Whether we consider it to be the rope or the snake, what we are looking at carefully is in either case the same thing, because the rope and the snake are not two different things. Likewise, whether we consider the ‘ourself’ whom we must investigate to be ourself as we really are or ourself as the ego that we now seem to be, what we are investigating is in either case the same thing, because in spite of what it seems to be our ego is not actually anything other than ourself as we really are. That is, it is just ourself as we really are seeming to be something other than what we really are. Therefore if we look sufficiently carefully at this ego that we now seem to be, we will see that what we are actually looking at is only ourself as we really are.<br /><br />Therefore though the ‘ourself alone’ whom we are now trying to attend to may seem to be this ego, when we actually experience it in complete isolation from everything else, we will discover that it not actually the ego that we seemed to be till then but is only what we always really are, because ourself as we really are is the only thing that actually exists.Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7345918888953765241.post-71123006209894760452015-05-22T15:20:46.166+01:002015-05-22T15:20:46.166+01:00Samsari, in reply to your first comment, we are al...Samsari, in reply to <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1431788025447#c43599100465071132" rel="nofollow">your first comment</a>, we are always one, so each of the words you ask about refer to essentially the same thing. However, though we are essentially one, there is a distinction between ourself as we actually are and ourself as we seem to be (in the same sense that there is a distinction between a rope as it actually is and the same rope as the snake that it seems to be).<br /><br />The ego is not ourself as we actually are but only ourself as we seem to be. It is not a different self or a different ‘we’ (or ‘I’), but is only our same self appearing as if it were something that it is not. Therefore, though the ego is not ourself as we actually are, it is not actually anything other than ourself as we actually are (just as though the snake is not the rope as it actually is, it is not actually anything other than that rope).<br /><br />Regarding the particular part of a sentence that you are asking about, ‘the only means by which we can dissolve and free ourself from this ego and all its baggage is to investigate ourself by trying to attend to and experience ourself alone, in complete isolation from everything else’, the ‘we’ who seek to ‘dissolve and free ourself from this ego and all its baggage’ is not ourself as we actually are (because as we actually are we are unaffected by this ego, its baggage or anything else), but is only ourself as the ego that we now seem to be.<br /><br />Though it may seem paradoxical to say that the ego is seeking to free itself from the ego (as you mentioned in <a href="http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2015/05/observation-without-observer-and.html?showComment=1431804424180#c722588130112397735" rel="nofollow">your second comment</a>), it would perhaps seem less paradoxical if we were to express the idea more precisely by saying that we as the ego that we now seem to be are seeking to free ourself from the illusion that this ego is what we actually are. We obviously cannot free ourself from what we actually are, but we can free ourself from what we seem to be.<br /><br />Since what we really are is never bound by the illusion that we are this ego, the ‘ourself’ whom we seek to free from this ego is again only ourself as this ego that we now seem to be. Because we now seem to be bound by the illusion that we are this ego, we seek to be free from this illusion, and we can free ourself from it by experiencing ourself as we really are.<br /><br />However, when we experience ourself as we really are, we will discover that we have never actually been bound by this ego, and hence we will remain free from all ideas about bondage and liberation (as Bhagavan indicates in both verse 39 of <i>Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu</i> and verse 29 of <i>Upadēśa Undiyār</i>). Freedom or liberation seems to be necessary only so long as we seem to be in bondage, so it will become a meaningless idea once we experience ourself as we really are, because we have never actually been bound by anything.<br /><br />However until then we do need to seek to free ourself from this illusory ego, so Bhagavan has explained the means to do so in very simple terms in the <a href="http://www.happinessofbeing.com/nan_yar.html#para16" rel="nofollow">sixteenth paragraph of <i>Nāṉ Yār?</i></a>:<br /><br />[…] பந்தத்தி லிருக்கும் தான் யாரென்று விசாரித்து தன் யதார்த்த சொரூபத்தைத் தெரிந்துகொள்வதே முக்தி. […]<br /><br />[…] bandhattil irukkum tāṉ yār eṉḏṟu vicārittu taṉ yathārtha sorūpattai-t terindu-koḷvadē mukti. […]<br /><br />[…] Knowing one’s own actual self [by] investigating who is oneself who is in bondage, alone is liberation. […]<br /><br />(I will continue this reply in my next comment.)Michael Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03460943269122289281noreply@blogger.com