|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 24, 2017 19:47:35 GMT -5
They're not? Maybe I need an enlightenment for dummies thread🙈 They're definitely related. A common distinction that folks make is that attention is focused awareness. This gets tricky because awareness is also used as a pointer to what is always here and now, changeless and eternal, and what you really are. In terms of meditation, what I find is that I can start with attention on attention, and sometimes that might take some concentration to maintain at first -- well, that's the way it used to be anyway.  Once the body/mind quiets there can be what feels like an opening, a relaxing and and expansion. Attention on attention flows into awareness of awareness. Yes I always have trouble with Awareness on awareness or attention on attention when Mooji or others talk about it. I seem to be better with the 'no me' approach and have some insights then. I will give it a go and what SDP said too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 20:39:52 GMT -5
They're definitely related. A common distinction that folks make is that attention is focused awareness. This gets tricky because awareness is also used as a pointer to what is always here and now, changeless and eternal, and what you really are. In terms of meditation, what I find is that I can start with attention on attention, and sometimes that might take some concentration to maintain at first -- well, that's the way it used to be anyway. Once the body/mind quiets there can be what feels like an opening, a relaxing and and expansion. Attention on attention flows into awareness of awareness. Yes I always have trouble with Awareness on awareness or attention on attention when Mooji or others talk about it. I seem to be better with the 'no me' approach and have some insights then. I will give it a go and what SDP said too. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2017 21:50:13 GMT -5
You're basically talking about becoming conscious, and consciousness of the ego structure is part of that. The irony is that Satch has always argued strongly against all of that, and now he's suddenly on board with it? The irony is further deepened in that he didn't even mean to say abide in ego. It was just a consequence of his idea that 'I am' and ego are the same. Further, it turns out that he has a completely different definition of ego from ours, and therefore his agreement is empty. His confusion continues. haha, the funny thing is that I talked about this for a good few weeks till peeps were sick of it . What's even funnier is that peeps are still not clear about I am . Before anyone throws up again with me mentioning it, the sense of I am existing in itself is different from I am that is in reflection of something . I think most would adopt the ego meaning to the I am something rather than I am aware of I am . I understand that there is a clear difference in the sense of I am or in the awareness of I am that or I am something in reflection of this or that .   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 22:13:27 GMT -5
You're basically talking about becoming conscious, and consciousness of the ego structure is part of that. The irony is that Satch has always argued strongly against all of that, and now he's suddenly on board with it? The irony is further deepened in that he didn't even mean to say abide in ego. It was just a consequence of his idea that 'I am' and ego are the same. Further, it turns out that he has a completely different definition of ego from ours, and therefore his agreement is empty. His confusion continues. haha, the funny thing is that I talked about this for a good few weeks till peeps were sick of it . What's even funnier is that peeps are still not clear about I am . Before anyone throws up again with me mentioning it, the sense of I am existing in itself is different from I am that is in reflection of something . I think most would adopt the ego meaning to the I am something rather than I am aware of I am . I understand that there is a clear difference in the sense of I am or in the awareness of I am that or I am something in reflection of this or that . I think we all understand the difference between the sense of I'ness alone and what the I identifies with as I am this or that or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 24, 2017 23:12:46 GMT -5
Yes I always have trouble with Awareness on awareness or attention on attention when Mooji or others talk about it. I seem to be better with the 'no me' approach and have some insights then. I will give it a go and what SDP said too. Thanks for the vid. I've watched it about 20 times before...I guess I need to keep at it. Visiting that place and not letting mind constantly win. My mind just says 'is that it?' 'Doesn't seem right?' 'Could I have it wrong?' And on and on... |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2017 7:33:38 GMT -5
That sounds pretty cool about contacting the spirit. With Maharaj, I mentioned I was meditating on I Am That for about 6 months prior to the spirit visiting me. I read this book on Mentalism, and made the decision one day, to contact the spirit world. I sat alone in my then house (where I was living alone like a true hermit), had the lights off, and asked if there are any spirits present, and if there are, make your presence known. I sat in silence for maybe 30 seconds, and BAM! There was a little box on a table in the room, and the sound was as if something lifted the lid and then slammed it shut. Needless to say, I almost wet myself, but didn't see the lid lift and close, so can't say for sure what it was. Then the Maharaj spirit shows up not but a week later. So it would make sense that was old Nizzy. I'm resonating a lot as I'm writing, so I could probably channel Niz at any point I want to. Ironically, with the house dream, and this is where I've come to believe in the idea of spirit repoir, I stumbled onto the site www.themystic.org . And from reading his writing I got the idea to attempt a spiritual healing. And it was perhaps the most selfless act I could have done from my state of consciousness, but this healing was nuts. My body lit up like a Christmas tree and after a certain period of time I had to stop the healing meditation because I got scared at how intense the energy was. I guess this is a kundalini experience, or whatever. Anyway, the person who I was attempting to heal had a tumor in her lung. She had a successful operation after receiving a bad prognosis. I can't say what effect the healing had on her (prior to the surgery), but the next time I saw her, she said, Jason, you always give the best hugs. I'd never hugged the woman in my life, but based on how I found the house, and the texture of the dream preceding the OBE, I notice a direct link to that event. Can a kundalini-bliss healing actually be a poltergeist possession? Did I remove the potergeist from her and invite it into my aura? I don't actually know. But hey, maybe I'll try channeling Niz one day. Thanks for the exchange Reefs. Seth talks a lot about channeling. Although he doesn't call it that. It's quite fascinating, actually and also practical in a way. Why work thru dozens of books when you could just ask that guy who created it directly? That's the question that occurred to me recently while looking at my rather long Seth reading list. About healing, Seth says that everything is constantly created or recreated every single moment. He also says that illness is some kind of miscreation, a creation with some errors. Said that, someone with a chronic illness is then chronically miscreating, i.e. doing that same mistake over and over again. If he could fix that bug in his creation process, then he could basically go from terminally ill to fully healthy in an instant. So in that sense, the phenomenon of instant healing isn't really a miracle but actually scientifically sound. And following the A-H logic, anything that is not working out smoothly for you is a sign of resistance present in you, i.e. asking for more than you are ready to allow/receive. A-H say a lot of healers and spiritual teachers have that kind of issue. Maybe that's what's behind your Christmas tree episode. That's why this topic of alignment is so important. Yeah, would be cool if we could finally settle this 'take an ax to the I AM' issue. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 25, 2017 8:47:22 GMT -5
Thanks for the vid. I've watched it about 20 times before...I guess I need to keep at it. Visiting that place and not letting mind constantly win. My mind just says 'is that it?' 'Doesn't seem right?' 'Could I have it wrong?' And on and on... That's the first time I've seen this video, and several thoughts came to mind. First of all, there is at least one meditation practice wherein one attends without attending to an object. It's one of the major Zen practices, and it's called "shikan taza." Another thought that came to mind is that whatever one does to focus attention, attain mental silence, or even rest in awareness requires some sort of intentional effort, particularly at first. The third thought that came to mind was a question--"Would it be easier to rest in awareness or focus upon an object or process for someone whose mind habitually chatters?" Adyashanti tells people to "be as you are," but this admonition might be just as frustrating to a seeker as Tony Parson's, "There's nothing you can do," or this fellow's admonition to "rest in awareness." I suspect that for most beginning seekers "monkey mind" (a mind that jumps like a monkey from limb to limb, subject to subject) is the rule rather than the exception. How does an unruly ADD-type mind most effectively, efficiently, and easily become calm or silent? I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that seekers would find it harder to "rest in awareness" than to repeat a mantra, count breaths, or pursue many other meditation practices specifically recommended for beginners. For someone whose mind is already silent, resting is awareness is easy because there's already a state of internal relaxation and effortless attention to "what is." For people with a monkey mind, it's probably a bridge too far. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 25, 2017 8:53:58 GMT -5
Thanks for the vid. I've watched it about 20 times before...I guess I need to keep at it. Visiting that place and not letting mind constantly win. My mind just says 'is that it?' 'Doesn't seem right?' 'Could I have it wrong?' And on and on... That's the first time I've seen this video, and several thoughts came to mind. First of all, there is at least one meditation practice wherein one attends without attending to an object. It's one of the major Zen practices, and it's called "shikan taza." Another thought that came to mind is that whatever one does to focus attention, attain mental silence, or even rest in awareness requires some sort of intentional effort, particularly at first. The third thought that came to mind was a question--"Would it be easier to rest in awareness or focus upon an object or process for someone whose mind habitually chatters?" Adyashanti tells people to "be as you are," but this admonition might be just as frustrating to a seeker as Tony Parson's, "There's nothing you can do," or this fellow's admonition to "rest in awareness." I suspect that for most beginning seekers "monkey mind" (a mind that jumps like a monkey from limb to limb, subject to subject) is the rule rather than the exception. How does an unruly ADD-type mind most effectively, efficiently, and easily become calm or silent? I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that seekers would find it harder to "rest in awareness" than to repeat a mantra, count breaths, or pursue many other meditation practices specifically recommended for beginners. For someone whose mind is already silent, resting is awareness is easy because there's already a state of internal relaxation and effortless attention to "what is." For people with a monkey mind, it's probably a bridge too far. Bingo! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 9:33:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the vid. I've watched it about 20 times before...I guess I need to keep at it. Visiting that place and not letting mind constantly win. My mind just says 'is that it?' 'Doesn't seem right?' 'Could I have it wrong?' And on and on... That's the first time I've seen this video, and several thoughts came to mind. First of all, there is at least one meditation practice wherein one attends without attending to an object. It's one of the major Zen practices, and it's called "shikan taza." Another thought that came to mind is that whatever one does to focus attention, attain mental silence, or even rest in awareness requires some sort of intentional effort, particularly at first. The third thought that came to mind was a question--"Would it be easier to rest in awareness or focus upon an object or process for someone whose mind habitually chatters?" Adyashanti tells people to "be as you are," but this admonition might be just as frustrating to a seeker as Tony Parson's, "There's nothing you can do," or this fellow's admonition to "rest in awareness." I suspect that for most beginning seekers "monkey mind" (a mind that jumps like a monkey from limb to limb, subject to subject) is the rule rather than the exception. How does an unruly ADD-type mind most effectively, efficiently, and easily become calm or silent? I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that seekers would find it harder to "rest in awareness" than to repeat a mantra, count breaths, or pursue many other meditation practices specifically recommended for beginners. For someone whose mind is already silent, resting is awareness is easy because there's already a state of internal relaxation and effortless attention to "what is." For people with a monkey mind, it's probably a bridge too far. Excellent post. What you may not be aware of is that Rupert practised TM for more than twenty years. It's mantra meditation as you know, so it's interesting that he refers to those kind of practices and compares them with what he is advocating in the video about relaxing into awareness or defocusing and not attending to an object. A mantra would be such an object. But as you beautifully point out in your last paragraph which is exactly the same thought I had, if your mind is already silent, and 20 years of TM will certainly do that, it is easy to tell someone to rest in awareness when you can do it so easily yourself. I also made the point in the past that using an object like a mantra is usually easier than trying to locate awareness directly. The end result is the same because thinking finer and finer levels of mantra leads to transcendence to awareness. You could argue it's less direct, but it's easier. So this is the slight flaw in a way in what Rupert is saying. Another example is Papaji who meditated for many years but continually said in his satsangs that there was nothing to practise. Osho was the same, he tried everything. But he did recommend practice. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 25, 2017 12:48:09 GMT -5
That's a pretty broad umbrella. What type of energy worker? Generally speaking, I would say level of consciousness is paramount regarding who you work with in life. I would also say clearing energy will ultimately not cure or heal the experience if the causal emotions are not addressed. So for example, while I may have cleared the poltergeist from the woman during a healing meditation, as the causal emotions were not addressed, her experience would then create a new poltergeist that would in turn bring disease to her form in some way. In this way, energy workers (this would include physical therapists) can actually create or develop a facade that relies on others' dependence on their work. Nobody gets healed, but everybody gets what they want for a little while, facade re-enforcement and feeling superior for the worker, and temporary relief for the one working. With all that said, I met a woman at an enlightenment meeting a long time ago. I could pontificate on consciousness with anybody, but I was still in the presence of a fairly dense albeit mostly dormant pain body. We walked off after a meeting and got to chatting, and she said something was off with my energy. I was tilted (possessed). I opened my energy to her for a distance healing and credit her with opening a gateway into the most fruitful relationship of my life. I have no idea how she did it. I'm certainly not crediting her with my healing, but she did something that helped, and I appreciate that. So anyway, if it smells like bull, it probably is. Beware of the potential to be cloaked. Be aware that the person working on you may not even be conscious of how they are cloaking people. They might just think they're helping. Bring up the word 'causal emotion'. If they don't know what that is, I'd steer clear. Thanks for that P. I'll need to read through your posts tonunderstand the word 'cloak' but think I have an idea, and in that case I'll steer clear. I don't have anything I want work on, was just intrigued. The lady who worked on me was Korean. She was the apprentice of a Reiki master. At the time, I didn't have any interest in listening about Reiki or this idea of being an apprentice to a master. I was an enlightenment guy above and beyond need for energy work, albeit completely cloaked by unconscious forces. But her character was so genuine and light that when she offered to clear I said, yea sure sounds dope. I stay connected with her to this day (energetically). Cloaking. Hmmm. Welp lemme think of a simple example. You become conscious of cloaks by seeing the forces that hold up the facade. So, if one is living entirely through the facade, de-cloaking isn't going to happen. There has to be some discontent with the facade identity. The facade identity, is created as a compensation for our blockages. Shame is the most common energy that allows facade construction and maintenance to unfold. Some people would rather die than experience their shame. And because of that, this fear of shame creeps up from the shadows. Whatever one feels ashamed about, is then compensated for through facade construction. If I'm ashamed of being abandoned, then one dynamic of my facade will be preventing a feeling of abandonment from surfacing. 'Clinging', the belief that I am invincible or can't be hurt, are one dynamic and belief that would make up the facade. Making the belief and dynamic conscious, can begin the deconstruction of the facade. The spiritual energy holding the facade together will run in opposition to this deconstruction. This is where addictions come in. Addictions, as I mention them here, are split mind tendencies. Meaning, something you want to stop but want to continue, and that's an indication that there's some spiritual energy cloaking the facade trying to maintain its hold on the mind. Spirits can drop thoughts in your mind through dreams, and 'cause' you to self seek through images and confirmations you may receive throughout the day. Some people are completely unconscious of how spirits are programming the subconscious during sleep. And others think that dark spirits perpetuating addictive behaviors are actually guides and guardians, when in truth it points closer to say the spirits are using the mind and body, they are cloaking and enjoying the addictions through degrading the person. Many of these addictions are facade addictions. Addiction to being validated, needed, desired, and in some cases victimized, hurt, or abandoned. The vibrational sequencing of the facade often perpetuates (actually always perpetuates) the unconscious energy holding the facade together. Meaning, the facade is an effective short term solution with no long term answer to the problems of life. The facade itself is the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jun 25, 2017 12:55:15 GMT -5
That sounds pretty cool about contacting the spirit. With Maharaj, I mentioned I was meditating on I Am That for about 6 months prior to the spirit visiting me. I read this book on Mentalism, and made the decision one day, to contact the spirit world. I sat alone in my then house (where I was living alone like a true hermit), had the lights off, and asked if there are any spirits present, and if there are, make your presence known. I sat in silence for maybe 30 seconds, and BAM! There was a little box on a table in the room, and the sound was as if something lifted the lid and then slammed it shut. Needless to say, I almost wet myself, but didn't see the lid lift and close, so can't say for sure what it was. Then the Maharaj spirit shows up not but a week later. So it would make sense that was old Nizzy. I'm resonating a lot as I'm writing, so I could probably channel Niz at any point I want to. Ironically, with the house dream, and this is where I've come to believe in the idea of spirit repoir, I stumbled onto the site www.themystic.org . And from reading his writing I got the idea to attempt a spiritual healing. And it was perhaps the most selfless act I could have done from my state of consciousness, but this healing was nuts. My body lit up like a Christmas tree and after a certain period of time I had to stop the healing meditation because I got scared at how intense the energy was. I guess this is a kundalini experience, or whatever. Anyway, the person who I was attempting to heal had a tumor in her lung. She had a successful operation after receiving a bad prognosis. I can't say what effect the healing had on her (prior to the surgery), but the next time I saw her, she said, Jason, you always give the best hugs. I'd never hugged the woman in my life, but based on how I found the house, and the texture of the dream preceding the OBE, I notice a direct link to that event. Can a kundalini-bliss healing actually be a poltergeist possession? Did I remove the potergeist from her and invite it into my aura? I don't actually know. But hey, maybe I'll try channeling Niz one day. Thanks for the exchange Reefs. Seth talks a lot about channeling. Although he doesn't call it that. It's quite fascinating, actually and also practical in a way. Why work thru dozens of books when you could just ask that guy who created it directly? That's the question that occurred to me recently while looking at my rather long Seth reading list. About healing, Seth says that everything is constantly created or recreated every single moment. He also says that illness is some kind of miscreation, a creation with some errors. Said that, someone with a chronic illness is then chronically miscreating, i.e. doing that same mistake over and over again. If he could fix that bug in his creation process, then he could basically go from terminally ill to fully healthy in an instant. So in that sense, the phenomenon of instant healing isn't really a miracle but actually scientifically sound. And following the A-H logic, anything that is not working out smoothly for you is a sign of resistance present in you, i.e. asking for more than you are ready to allow/receive. A-H say a lot of healers and spiritual teachers have that kind of issue. Maybe that's what's behind your Christmas tree episode. That's why this topic of alignment is so important. Yeah, would be cool if we could finally settle this 'take an ax to the I AM' issue. On miscreation, I agree that there is a logic to healing identification. Reverse compartmentalizing solves everything. But it isn't something the individual does, but path of least resistance allows. As far as Niz, I had a free moment the other day when I was cooking eggs, and asked, Niz, why are you with me? He said, "To eat eggs". |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 25, 2017 12:55:52 GMT -5
That's the first time I've seen this video, and several thoughts came to mind. First of all, there is at least one meditation practice wherein one attends without attending to an object. It's one of the major Zen practices, and it's called "shikan taza." Another thought that came to mind is that whatever one does to focus attention, attain mental silence, or even rest in awareness requires some sort of intentional effort, particularly at first. The third thought that came to mind was a question--"Would it be easier to rest in awareness or focus upon an object or process for someone whose mind habitually chatters?" Adyashanti tells people to "be as you are," but this admonition might be just as frustrating to a seeker as Tony Parson's, "There's nothing you can do," or this fellow's admonition to "rest in awareness." I suspect that for most beginning seekers "monkey mind" (a mind that jumps like a monkey from limb to limb, subject to subject) is the rule rather than the exception. How does an unruly ADD-type mind most effectively, efficiently, and easily become calm or silent? I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that seekers would find it harder to "rest in awareness" than to repeat a mantra, count breaths, or pursue many other meditation practices specifically recommended for beginners. For someone whose mind is already silent, resting is awareness is easy because there's already a state of internal relaxation and effortless attention to "what is." For people with a monkey mind, it's probably a bridge too far. Excellent post. What you may not be aware of is that Rupert practised TM for more than twenty years. It's mantra meditation as you know, so it's interesting that he refers to those kind of practices and compares them with what he is advocating in the video about relaxing into awareness or defocusing and not attending to an object. A mantra would be such an object. But as you beautifully point out in your last paragraph which is exactly the same thought I had, if your mind is already silent, and 20 years of TM will certainly do that, it is easy to tell someone to rest in awareness when you can do it so easily yourself. I also made the point in the past that using an object like a mantra is usually easier than trying to locate awareness directly. The end result is the same because thinking finer and finer levels of mantra leads to transcendence to awareness. You could argue it's less direct, but it's easier. So this is the slight flaw in a way in what Rupert is saying. Another example is Papaji who meditated for many years but continually said in his satsangs that there was nothing to practise. Osho was the same, he tried everything. But he did recommend practice. Yes. I think that many people have objected to the word "practice" because they know that it's impossible to practice your way to being what you already are. For that reason I generally emphasize that meditation is an "activity" that increases mental silence, and mental silence increases the likelihood that the obvious will become obvious. We don't meditate to get somewhere as much as we meditate to see clearly what's already here and now--to penetrate illusions created by thought. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 25, 2017 13:28:59 GMT -5
haha, the funny thing is that I talked about this for a good few weeks till peeps were sick of it . What's even funnier is that peeps are still not clear about I am . Before anyone throws up again with me mentioning it, the sense of I am existing in itself is different from I am that is in reflection of something . I think most would adopt the ego meaning to the I am something rather than I am aware of I am . I understand that there is a clear difference in the sense of I am or in the awareness of I am that or I am something in reflection of this or that . I think we all understand the difference between the sense of I'ness alone and what the I identifies with as I am this or that or whatever. If peeps understood the difference then they would understand that there is no ego for the I'ness until I'ness believes it is something . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2017 14:49:10 GMT -5
That's the first time I've seen this video, and several thoughts came to mind. First of all, there is at least one meditation practice wherein one attends without attending to an object. It's one of the major Zen practices, and it's called "shikan taza." Another thought that came to mind is that whatever one does to focus attention, attain mental silence, or even rest in awareness requires some sort of intentional effort, particularly at first. The third thought that came to mind was a question--"Would it be easier to rest in awareness or focus upon an object or process for someone whose mind habitually chatters?" Adyashanti tells people to "be as you are," but this admonition might be just as frustrating to a seeker as Tony Parson's, "There's nothing you can do," or this fellow's admonition to "rest in awareness." I suspect that for most beginning seekers "monkey mind" (a mind that jumps like a monkey from limb to limb, subject to subject) is the rule rather than the exception. How does an unruly ADD-type mind most effectively, efficiently, and easily become calm or silent? I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that seekers would find it harder to "rest in awareness" than to repeat a mantra, count breaths, or pursue many other meditation practices specifically recommended for beginners. For someone whose mind is already silent, resting is awareness is easy because there's already a state of internal relaxation and effortless attention to "what is." For people with a monkey mind, it's probably a bridge too far. Bingo! self honesty? What the 'pilgrim wrote was an excellent particular example of the distinction between attention and awareness. But notice that his use of "awareness" is subtly different from the awareness that Rupert is inviting you to rest in/as. This distinction isn't important if it seems confusing, but can be an interesting one to explore. Some folks like to distinguish between the two by calling what Rupert was speaking about "awareness", and what the 'pilgrim was referring to as "consciousness". The natural state of our consciousness is fragmented into a multitasking of different concurrent segments of attention. We most often have some primary focus of attention, like when we're driving or balancing a checkbook. Awareness abhors a vacuum, so if the task at hand doesn't need our complete attention, our consciousness naturally divides into various threads. There is a process that scans all the different threads of thought in our mind at any given time for the interests to amplify and demand more attention. This is how we suddenly become cognizant of how we forgot to mail the electric bill last week. This process is subconscious, and has evolved to be very efficient at detecting threats and identifying opportunities. Tolle's prescription to "watch the thinker" is all about becoming conscious of the content of our interests, and the process of how those interests play out, and Tolle tells us that we can find what Rupert was referring to as that object-free "Presence of Awareness" in the silent still space between thoughts. As Ramana would have said ... who is it that asks the question: "is that it?". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2017 15:24:31 GMT -5
I think we all understand the difference between the sense of I'ness alone and what the I identifies with as I am this or that or whatever. If peeps understood the difference then they would understand that there is no ego for the I'ness until I'ness believes it is something . Stating it as an intellectual construct is easy. If simply explaining this to someone was the same as an embodied understanding of it there would be no self-realization industry. My guess is that the only peeps interested in that construct likely have some sort of experiential reference for the distinction. But they might not be conscious of what it is that they've experienced, or how, precisely, that experience relates to the belief that they are something. Nizzy's "I am concept" is only one possible concept for the mind to rest on. Others are God, "Source", "Awareness/Consciousness", "The Universe", "the witnessing presence" etc.. This resting, this identity, is happening subconsciously, and in such a way as to deliberately and very cleverly disguise itself. |
|
