• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God cannot have Form?

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Sri Isopanisad, 12

WORD for WORD
andham--ignorance; tamah--darkness; pravisanti--enter into; ye--those who; asambhutim--demigods; upasate--worship; tatah--than that; bhuyah--still more; iva--like that; te--those; tamah--darkness; ye--who; u--also; sambhutyam--in the Absolute; ratah--engaged.

TRANSLATION
Those who are engaged in the worship of demigods enter into the darkest region of ignorance, and still more so do the worshipers of the impersonal Absolute.

Can you show from any dictionary that sambhUti means demigods? And asambhuti means absolute impersonal?

No other translator or no other guru teaches the way you translate -- by forcibly introducing 'demi gods' on one side and 'impersonal absolute' on the other.

Actually, you seem to have no comprehension that moola prakriti from which all manifest is itself unmanifest. The immortal truth is beyond the manifest world and beyond the unmanifest moola prakriti. But both needs to worshipped in order to transcend samsara.

Manifest Hirnaygarbha (brahmA-Universe) rests on unmanifest Moola Prakriti (Deep sleep-prajna). Moola Prakriti is but the manifest prajna of the immortal from where all take birth and die repeatedly. This is the understanding from all upanishads. Intetrpolation of 'demi gods' on one side and 'impersonal absolute' is specific to one school only.

There is no problem in a school following a particular interpretation and personally I have no problem in the essence of ISKCON translation. But it is another matter when ISKCON translation is thurst on others as the only correct understanding.
 
Last edited:

Paraprakrti

Custom User
The essence of ISKCON translation is that it constitutes the highest understanding. This isn't to say that other translations are incorrect. It just might mean that those translations are lacking because although those individuals understand how to translate each individual word, they don't actually understand what is being said and thus must default to a more impersonalist interpretation.

'Asambhutim' as "demigods" is very likely an extrapolation of sorts, as the term tends to refer to the "manifest" and the context of the verse pertains to worship. Hence, "demigods" is used here because that's what demigods are in our lingo--agents within (and with bodies consisting of) the manifest, material universe that are (or can be for some) objects of worship. Conversely, 'sambhutim' refers to that which is beyond this manifest material world. Hence, the so-called "standard" translation is something akin to "unmanifest" or "non-born." But as His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada hints at in the purport to Isopanisad verse 12, this sort of dry translation is a case of the following:

"All philosophers and great rsis, or mystics, try to distinguish the Absolute from the relative by their tiny brain power. This can only help them reach the point of negating relativity without realizing any positive trace of the Absolute. Definition of the Absolute by negation is not complete. Such negative definitions lead one to create a concept of his own; thus one imagines that the Absolute must be formless and without qualities. Negative qualities are simply the reversals of positive qualities and are therefore also relative. By conceiving of the Absolute in this way one can at the utmost reach the impersonal effulgence of God, known as Brahman, but he cannot make further progress to Bhagavan, the personality of Godhead."

The fact that every other translation you've come across is of this impersonalist nature just shows that they are all using the imperfect method of negation to try and "distinguish the Absolute from the relative."

Now if you go to verse 15, you'll see how others can mimic the flowery words, but they can't really explain what they mean. For instance, here is Sri Aurobindo's translation:

"The face of Truth is covered with a brilliant golden lid; that do thou remove, O Fosterer, for the law of the Truth, for sight."

That sounds pretty and all, but what is this "brilliant golden lid" that covers "the face of Truth"?

Srila Prabhupada provides the answer:

"O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Please remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee."

And again refer back to the purport of verse 12, where Prabhupada refers to the impersonal effulgence of God known as Brahman. That impersonal Brahman level of realization is where those other translators dwell.
The fact that this "brilliant golden lid" is mentioned immediately after those verses we were looking at provides very strong support for why Srila Prabhupada would translate those verses the way he did. Clearly there is more to what is being conveyed in the Isopanisad than these other translators realize.
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
And for good measure, here is Srila Prabhupada's purport for Isopanisad, verse 15:


In Bhagavad-gita, the Lord explains His personal rays (brahmajyoti), the dazzling effulgence of His personal form, in this way:

brahmano hi pratisthaham
amrtasyavyayasya ca
sasvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikantikasya ca


"And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal." (Bg. 14.27)

Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Brahman is the aspect most easily perceived by the beginner. Paramatma, the Supersoul, is realized by those who have further progressed, and Bhagavan realization is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita, where the Lord says that He is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth, the source of the brahmajyoti as well as the all-pervading Paramatma. In Bhagavad-gita Krishna says that He is the ultimate reservoir of the brahmajyoti, the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth, and that there is no need to explain His unlimited potencies.

atha va bahunaitena
kim jnatena tavarjuna
vistabhyaham idam krtsnam
ekamsena sthito jagat


"But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe." (Bg. 10.42) Thus by His one plenary expansion, the all-pervading Paramatma, the Lord maintains the complete material cosmic creation. He also maintains all manifestations in the spiritual world as well; therefore in the sruti mantra of Sri Isopanisad, the Lord is addressed as pusan, the ultimate maintainer.

The personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, is always in transcendental bliss (anandamayo 'bhyasat). When He was present at Vrndavana in India 5,000 years ago, He always remained in transcendental bliss, even from the beginning of His childhood pastimes. The killing of varieties of demons--such as Agha, Baka, Putana and Pralamba--were but pleasure excursions for Him. In the village of Vrndavana He enjoyed Himself with His mother, brother and friends, and when He played the role of a naughty butter thief, all His associates enjoyed celestial bliss by His stealing. The Lord's fame as a butter thief is not reproachable, for by stealing butter the Lord gave pleasure to His pure devotees. Everything that was performed by the Lord at Vrndavana was performed for the pleasure of His associates there. The Lord created these pastimes to attract the dry speculators and the acrobats of the so-called hatha-yoga system who had come to find the Absolute Truth.

Of the childhood play between the Lord and His playmates, the cowherd boys, Sukadeva Gosvami said in Srimad-Bhagavatam:

ittham satam brahma-sukhanubhutya
dasyam gatanam para-daivatena
mayasritanam nara-darakena
sakam vijahruh krta-punya-punjah


"The Personality of Godhead, who is perceived as the impersonal, blissful Brahman, who is worshiped as the Supreme Lord by the devotees, and who is considered an ordinary human being by the mundane, played with the cowherd boys, who had attained their position after accumulating many pious activities." (SB. 10.12.11)

Thus the Lord is always engaged in transcendental loving activities with His spiritual associates in the various relationships of santa (neutrality), dasya (servitorship), sakhya (friendship), vatsalya (paternal affection), and madhurya (conjugal love).

Since it is said that the Lord never leaves Vrndavana-dhama, one may ask how He manages the affairs of the creation. This is answered in Bhagavad-gita (Bg. 13.14): The Lord pervades the entire material creation by His plenary part known as the purusa incarnation. Although the Lord personally has nothing to do with material creation, maintenance and destruction, He causes all these things to be done by His plenary expansion, the Paramatma or Supersoul. Every living entity is known as atma, soul, and the principal atma who controls them all is Paramatma, the Supersoul.

This system of God realization is a great science. The materialists can only analyze and meditate on the twenty-four factors of the material creation, for they have very little information of the purusa, the Lord. The impersonal transcendentalists are simply bewildered by the glaring effulgence of the brahmajyoti. If one wants to see the Absolute Truth in full, he has to penetrate beyond the twenty-four material elements and the glaring effulgence as well. Sri Isopanisad points towards this direction, praying for the removal of the hiranmaya-patra, the dazzling covering. Unless this covering is removed so one can perceive the personality of Godhead as He is, factual realization of the Absolute Truth can never be attained.

The Paramatma feature of the Personality of Godhead is one of three plenary expansions, collectively called visnu-tattva. The visnu-tattva within the universe (one of the three principal deities--Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) is known as the Ksirodakasayi Vishnu. He is the all-pervading Paramatma in each and every individual living entity. The Garbhodakasayi Vishnu is the collective Supersoul within all living entities. Beyond these two is the Karanodakasayi Vishnu lying in the causal ocean. He is the creator of all universes. The yoga system teaches the serious student to meet the visnu-tattvas after overcoming the twenty-four material elements of the cosmic creation. The culture of empiric philosophy helps one realize the impersonal brahmajyoti, which is the glaring effulgence of the transcendental body of Lord Sri Krishna. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (Bg. 14.27) as well as Brahma-samhita (5.40):

yasya prabha prabhavato jagad-anda-koti-
kotisv asesa-vasudhadi vibhuti-bhinnam
tad brahma niskalam anantam asesa-bhutam
govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami


"In the millions and millions of universes, there are innumerable planets, and each and every one of them is different from the others by its cosmic constitution. All of these planets are situated in a corner of the brahmajyoti. This brahmajyoti is but the personal rays of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whom I worship." This mantra from Brahma-samhita is spoken from the platform of factual realization of the Absolute Truth, and the sruti mantra of Sri Isopanisad confirms this mantra as a process of realization. It is a simple prayer to the Lord to remove the brahmajyoti so that one can see His real face.

Perfect knowledge means knowing Krishna as the root of Brahman. The root of Brahman is Lord Sri Krishna, and in scriptures such as Srimad-Bhagavatam the science of Krishna is perfectly elaborated. In Srimad-Bhagavatam, the author, Srila Vyasadeva, has established that the Supreme Truth is described as Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan according to one's realization of Him. Srila Vyasadeva never states that the Supreme Truth is a jiva, an ordinary living entity. The living entity should never be considered the all-powerful Supreme Truth. If he were, there would be no need for the living entity to pray to the Lord to remove His dazzling cover so that the living entity can see His real form.

The conclusion is that in the absence of spiritually potent manifestations of the Supreme Truth, the impersonal Brahman is realized. Similarly, when one realizes the material potencies of the Lord, having little or no information of the spiritual potency, he attains Paramatma realization. Thus both Brahman and Paramatma realization of the Absolute Truth are partial realizations. However, when one realizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, in full potency after the removal of the hiranmaya-patra, he realizes vasudevah sarvam iti: Lord Sri Krishna, known as Vasudeva, is everything--Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. He is Bhagavan, the root, and Brahman and Paramatma are His branches.

In Bhagavad-gita there is a comparative analysis of the three types of transcendentalists, the worshipers of the impersonal Brahman (jnanis), the worshipers of the Paramatma feature (yogis), and the devotees of Lord Sri Krishna (bhaktas). It is stated in Bhagavad-gita (Bg. 6.46-47) that amongst all types of transcendentalists, he who is a jnani, who has cultivated Vedic knowledge, is supreme. Yet the yogis are still greater than the jnanis and far superior to fruitive workers as well. And amongst all yogis, he who constantly serves the Lord with all his energies is the topmost. In summary, a philosopher is better than a laboring man, and a mystic is superior to a philosopher. And of all the mystic yogis, he who follows bhakti-yoga, constantly engaged in the service of the Lord, is the highest. Sri Isopanisad directs us toward this perfection.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The essence of ISKCON translation is that it constitutes the highest understanding. .

That is your view. As has been shown above, there is no sense in interpolating words like 'demi gods' and 'impersonal effulgence'. The verse is also not about Shri Krishna. To me ISkCON translation is the only wrong one that does not adhere to sruti.

I merely asked you to show from a standard dictionary that sambhUti means demi-gods. Instead of doing that you are doing so much cut-paste from Bhagavatam and other sources. If you wish you may show me another translation from another rishi that matches with Prabhupada's translation. You cannot just say that all other translations are wrong and/or inferior to Prabhupada translation, which is evidently not true to the verse.

This thread is also not about proving that Shri Krishna is the supreme Lord etc. or who among the different types of aspirants is the greatest.
 
Last edited:

Paraprakrti

Custom User
That is your view. As has been shown above, there is no sense in interpolating words like 'demi gods' and 'impersonal effulgence'. Brahman is not the imprsonal effulgence. Effulgence is a product of Brahman and not Brahman. To me ISkCON translation is the only wrong one that does not adhere sruti.

I do not know why you are doing so much cut-paste from Bhagavatam and other sources when I am here for the limited purpose of showing how the verse of Isavasya is wrongly translated. If you wish you may show me another translation from another rishi that matches with Prabhupada's translation. You cannot just say that all other translations are wrong and/or inferior to Prabhupada translation, which is evidently not true to the verse.

Prabhupada's guru and his guru's guru and his guru's guru's guru, etc, etc, etc. are all saying the same thing. You are free to study the Parampara to determine this if you like. And, simply put, you're not going to find another translator similar to Prabhupada unless he is also part of the same Sampradaya or, at least, belongs to a similar bhakti tradition. For, obviously, whoever is saying the same thing is surely part of that tradition, by definition. You seem to have the mistaken idea that there is some neutral or standard, general consensus viewpoint against which we must weigh all propositions. If all other translators are mental speculators, then what value is there in their majority? People don't argue Veda based on what the masses are saying. They argue philosophy; They utilize various Vedic sources.

It has been shown why "interpolating" those words makes perfect sense. I just explained it, and I fail to see any rebuttal on your part in that regard.

In so far as "Brahman" refers to the more-or-less nondescript concept of the Absolute, it is referring to the impersonal effulgence. If and when Brahman is being described as something personal, then it is parabrahman. Parabrahman is the source of the impersonal Brahman effulgence. Parabrahman is Bhagavan.

The Bhagavatam and other sources are necessary to provide the greater context for understanding what the Isopanisad is pointing toward. Otherwise, you're left with dry speculation and philosophy by negation, both of which are inferior to bhakti conclusions, as per Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita. All the tools are there to understand this. If you choose to try and understand this one verse in isolation, then what is the value? You remain stuck on the platform of jnani mental speculator.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Prabhupada's guru and his guru's guru and his guru's guru's guru, etc, etc, etc. are all saying the same thing. You are free to study the Parampara to determine this if you like.

Surely not, since I find it all wrong. No offence intended.

It has been shown why "interpolating" those words makes perfect sense. I just explained it, and I fail to see any rebuttal on your part in that regard.

Be happy with your assertions. Any one who is truthful and impartial will not find Prabhupada's translation true to the verse in respect of Isha Up. verse No. 12. No dictionary says that sambhUti means demigods. No dictionary says that asambhUti means impersonal brahman effulgence. And no other parampara has translated the verse in that fashion. Prabhupada translation/ purport is sectrarian and created to fit a particular view.

I said I do not have any problem with the particular view. I have problem when some one asserts that the wrong translation is the best translation.

And, simply put, you're not going to find another translator similar to Prabhupada. unless he is also part of the same Sampradaya or, at least, belongs to a similar bhakti tradition.
That's it. Even other bhakti traditions, such as Ramanuja's school, do not have such translations. It is Prabhupada's truth alone.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The Bhagavatam and other sources are necessary to provide the greater context for understanding what the Isopanisad is pointing toward.

No such thing is necessary. Isha Upanishad is clear in itself.

Isha Up.
6. He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.

7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?
If for understanding the above you require Bhagavatam, go ahead. But why assert it as requirement for all?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Sri Isopanisad, 12

WORD for WORD
andham--ignorance; tamah--darkness; pravisanti--enter into; ye--those who; asambhutim--demigods; upasate--worship; tatah--than that; bhuyah--still more; iva--like that; te--those; tamah--darkness; ye--who; u--also; sambhutyam--in the Absolute; ratah--engaged.

TRANSLATION
Those who are engaged in the worship of demigods enter into the darkest region of ignorance, and still more so do the worshipers of the impersonal Absolute.

Paraprakrti

I request that Instead of resorting to voluminouus non-sruti scripture, you kindly address the following two points only:

1. Show from a dictionary that sambhUti means 'demi-gods' and sambhutyam means 'in the Absolute'.

2. Assuming that Shri Prabhupada assigned correct meanings to above two words, show from Gita or any other scripture that a worshipper of the 'Absolute' enters the darkest of realms.
 
Last edited:

Paraprakrti

Custom User
If a text in another language has a word that directly translates to "writing utensil" and another text related to that one indicates a pencil. Then is isn't unreasonable to simply translate the first text as "pencil."

In this context, sambhutim refers to that which is "born" or "manifest" and is sometimes seen as the object of worship. This is what we call demigods. Plain and simple. The word might not directly mean demigods on its own, but this is a perfectly reasonable extrapolation. You are really making a fuss about nothing here. There is nothing sectarian about this translation. It is simply making a clarification where otherwise unneeded speculation might occur.
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
2. Assuming that Shri Prabhupada assigned correct meanings to above two words, show from Gita or any other scripture that a worshipper of the 'Absolute' enters the darkest of realms.

Read Srila Prabhupada's purport on that verse.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Read Srila Prabhupada's purport on that verse.

Prabhupada translation proves Prabhupada purport and Prabhupada purport proves Prabhupada translation?:rolleyes:

I asked where in Gita and in Sruti it is said that a worshipper of the 'Absolute' enters the darkest of realms?
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
Prabhupada translation proves Prabhupada purport and Prabhupada purport proves Prabhupada translation?:rolleyes:

No. Not as a proof. As an explanation.

I asked where in Gita and in Sruti it is said that a worshipper of the 'Absolute' enters the darkest of realms?

This isn't what Srila Prabhupada is saying in the Sri Isopanisad. What is being said is that those who worship the impersonal aspect of the Absolute are entering the darkest region. And the explanation for this is given in the purport for verse 12. This type of worshiper's ultimate liberation constitutes the extinguishing of the individual capacity as a result of merging into the Absolute. This whole prospect of merging is considered the darkest region because it is detrimental to bhakti. If you want a quote from Bhagavad-gita, then read the entire portion where Sri Krishna explains how bhakti is superior to karma and jnani yogas.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
No. Not as a proof. As an explanation.

---This isn't what Srila Prabhupada is saying in the Sri Isopanisad. What is being said is that those who worship the impersonal aspect of the Absolute are entering the darkest region.

Friend, this is my last resposnse to this. I think Prabhupada explanation brings out his bias and does nothing more. Does any sruti support explanation given by Prabhupada? If you have any support then give that.

I do not require explanation of Prabhupada or you.
 
Last edited:

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
The god of the scientific pantheist has form in one way but totally formless in another. It has form in a sense if one described God and the unconscious natural universe as a whole as being synonymous then is does have some form in the form of the galaxies in their filaments along string like structures in the cosmos. There is not any conscious entity driving them, they are just part of the laws of nature to led to our existence. Formless! in being the just the personifation of the laws of physics and the fundmament constants which led to us. That is just an algorithm or sorts and it has no form whatsoever.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The immortal Self is timeless and actionless and is seated in heart of every being. It cannot be worshipped. It sees both the manifest (that which has come into being) and unmanifest (the neither a being nor a non being causal base of the manifest world and which is the deep sleep -- primeval nature). The manifest and the unmanifest do not have their own being but subsist only because of the Self. In Gita three equivalent terms of sambhutim, asambhutim, and amratam are used to depict these three:
1. sambhutim=vaykta=manifest bhuta= equates to the dream and waking worlds

2. asambhutim=avaykta=unmanifest prakriti= equates to the deep sleep world

3.akshara avaykta=avyayam= Imperishable unmanifest=Immutable Atman=Immortal
The goal is akshara avaykta, the immortal Self and not the vaykta (manifest) nor the avaykta (the unmanifest).

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/118573-isha-upanishad.html#post2537192
 
Last edited:

Onkara

Well-Known Member
The immortal Self is timeless and actionless and is seated in heart of every being. It cannot be worshipped. It sees both the manifest (that which has come into being) and unmanifest (the neither a being nor a non being causal base of the manifest world and which is the deep sleep -- primeval nature). The manifest and the unmanifest do not have their own being but subsist only because of the Self. In Gita three equivalent terms of sambhutim, asambhutim, and amratam are used to depict these three:
1. sambhutim=vaykta=manifest bhuta= equates to the dream and waking worlds

2. asambhutim=avaykta=unmanifest prakriti= equates to the deep sleep world

3.akshara avaykta=avyayam= Imperishable unmanifest=Immutable Atman=Immortal
The goal is akshara avaykta, the immortal Self and not the vaykta (manifest) nor the avaykta (the unmanifest).

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/118573-isha-upanishad.html#post2537192
:)
Surely it can be worshipped, but to what avail?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
:D
:)
Surely it can be worshipped, but to what avail?

See, you are wrong. You can worship the body -- or specifically, you can adore and worship an erect organ. But how can you adore the adorer?

Now seriously, how can worship of the subject itself take place, when the subject is actionless? One can only worship an object and that leaves the subject in the cold.
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
:D
For Vedanta, yes the subject can be known as actionless. Especially in Samkhya philosophy. Even still we need to explain action and the world around us. We can explain it as illusion or maya, but to maintain the world is simply maya is stopping short, or premature ;), in my personal opinion.

Here is Adi Shankara in the Shiva Manasa Pooja to give us something to chew on:

Aathma thwam Girija Mathi sahacharaa, prana sarreram gruham,
Pooja theey vishayopa bhoga rachana, nidhra samadhi sthithi,
Sanchara padayo pradakshina vidhi, , sthothrani sarva giraa,
Yadyath karma karomi thathad akhilam, shambho thavaradhanam.

My soul is your temple my lord,
My activities are thine attendants,
My body is thine home,
My acts to please my senses are thine worship,
My act of sleep is the deep meditation on thee,
All my walks with my feet are thine perambulations,
What ever falls from my mouth are thine prayers,
Oh Lord, everything I say and do are thine forms of worship.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
:D
For Vedanta, yes the subject can be known as actionless. Especially in Samkhya philosophy. Even still we need to explain action and the world around us. We can explain it as illusion or maya, but to maintain the world is simply maya is stopping short, or premature ;), in my personal opinion.

Here is Adi Shankara in the Shiva Manasa Pooja to give us something to chew on:

Aathma thwam Girija Mathi sahacharaa, prana sarreram gruham,
Pooja theey vishayopa bhoga rachana, nidhra samadhi sthithi,
Sanchara padayo pradakshina vidhi, , sthothrani sarva giraa,
Yadyath karma karomi thathad akhilam, shambho thavaradhanam.

My soul is your temple my lord,
My activities are thine attendants,
My body is thine home,
My acts to please my senses are thine worship,
My act of sleep is the deep meditation on thee,
All my walks with my feet are thine perambulations,
What ever falls from my mouth are thine prayers,
Oh Lord, everything I say and do are thine forms of worship.

Thanks Onkara

This was the point I was making. Thine and Mine are still object and subject. Worship is possible here. But when the subject alone is who will worship whom?

That is why I said that worshipping the akAla Self is not possible. I hope the point makes a point.:)
 

Onkara

Well-Known Member
Thanks Onkara

This was the point I was making. Thine and Mine are still object and subject. Worship is possible here. But when the subject alone is who will worship whom?

That is why I said that worshipping the akAla Self is not possible. I hope the point makes a point.:)
Perhaps I should start a thread on "non-dual worship" and we explore this further if it is of interest to you or anyone? :)
 
Last edited:
Top