Tippaporn

Come now, Sunmaster. That was me telling you the equivalent of the "What's better, being black or being gay?" joke. I'm ribbing you. Poking fun. Of course I don't think it's woo. I'm purposely poking fun to say 1) none of this is life or death serious and 2) lighten up and have fun. I posted that anecdote to illustrate an ideal relationship I had with another in that we were so loose with each other that nothing between us was ever taken too seriously, though we did talk about serious issues. But any disagreements we had over serious issues never even got close to producing heated arguments, with all of their accompanying ugly feelings. Bull and I could talk about anything. Anything at all and we would always maintain respect and love for each other. (No, we weren't gay.) Man, I would love to replicate that ideal again here. Edit: Just saw your above post. Hope I didn't jump the gun on the "sad" reaction to my quoted post. You're game, Sunmaster?

Sounds like a lot of woo to me.

Very, very clever, RP. I like it. I like it a lot. What's the old adage? "Laughter is the best medicine."

And I've never believed you. And you know that the feeling is mutual. You've taken a different route than I have but I can say that you know you're sh!t. Now here's a fun suggestion. To take our mutual appreciation to another, 'higher' level. True friendship! How to make that possible? Well, one way is via humour. I'll provide an example. Long ago I had a truly great friend. He was a humongous black fellow, about 6'2" [188 cm], built like a rock (an ex American football player - probably a fearsome linebacker) though he had put on some weight since his playing days, with a thick neck and trapezoids that ran right up to his skull. He was given the very fitting nick, Bull. But he was one of the most amiable and funny guys I have ever met. Since I've always been a funny guy (they called me Smilely in high school) we hit it off perfectly. We were like chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Now we both were disciples of the old and wise adage, "If you can't laugh at yourself then who can you laugh at." And believe you me the barbs exchanged and the ribbing between us was constant. I once came up to him and asked him straight faced, "Bull, what's better? Being black or being gay?" He gave a roll of his big black eyes, knowing I was setting him up, and dead panned, "Which?" I laid the punchline on him, "Being black. At least you don't have to tell your parents!" He didn't even turn his head as he was working and just said, "F you, Tippers." And we laughed and laughed. One more fine story about me and Bull. As I said, he was humongous and probably weighed in at 120+ kg. I had a slim build but solid as I've always been athletic. I was more than a few inches shorter than him. Now Bull was a stamping press operator. Metal stamping uses oil for lubrication. That oil eventually makes it's way to the floor and so we used something of the equivalent to kitty litter to absorb the oil. Anyway, one day I happened to be out at the press where Bull was running a job. We were bullsh!tting (pun intended) as usual and I can't recall what led to me having the idea to challenge Bull. I told him that I, being slim and shorter [61 kg], could pick him up off of his feet. Bull and everyone had a good laugh but I meant I was serious. So Bull takes me up on my challenge. I wrap my arms around him and with the best heave I had in me I raised him up off the floor. But, given his girth I had to bend backwards. And I bent just a little bit too far. To the point where I lost my balance and began to tip over, with my arms wrapped ever tighter around Bull's waist as that was the only thing I had to hang on to. I hit the floor flat with Bull's 120+ kg coming down right on top of me, and ground myself into the thin coating of kitty litter strewn all over the floor. Once down he rolled over laughing and the whole factory was in an uproarious laughter, including myself. For the rest of my time there I was never able to live it down. Anyway, as I see it the best way to alleviate any testiness about points we may disagree upon would be to remember 1) this ain't life or death therefore so what? and 2) "If you can't laugh at yourself then who can you laugh at." So do you want to go first or do you want me to? Since you're not around to answer (which means you lose ) then I'll take the first shot at ya. "Your ego wants a divorce due to abuse and lack of sex and asked if it could stay with me for awhile until it finds someone who can appreciate it." Your turn. Now don't hold back and hit as hard as you want. Now if I can take 120+ kg bearing down on me then anything you could throw at me shouldn't be a problem.

Well, that's it, Fritz, for today. My wife needs wants desires is looking for me at the moment. I don't like to disappoint. Your turn.

Yes and no. I don't meditate in the traditional eastern religion way. Never sat in a Lotus position with my arms resting on my knees. hands upraised with index fingers and thumbs touching each other. But I do meditate on questions or finding solutions to problems. But the method I use there in quieting my thoughts can be something a simple as petting a pussy cat or distracting my focus elsewhere for an interval. I go to sleep. It's funny but it's the honest to God truth. If the purpose of meditation is to connect with the rest of our self then I have to say I connect with the rest of my self often in daily life. Information flows in both directions and I do receive that flow from my inner self often. (My ego works GREAT!! I luvs it!! ) The thoughts are different and that's the tell for me. But it's nothing special and it happens to everyone. Have a problem? The solution always comes from within. There are multiple ways to connect with other portions of your self, and to different degrees. I've had some rather intense experiences which weren't the result of meditation but were undeniably valid, intimate, and intensely strong connections. Now I do understand what you're getting at, Sunmaster. At least I think I do. Which is to allow your consciousness to explore other realities, including your inner one, whilst maintaining your body here. Consciousness is, after all, mobile. Now at the risk of repeating myself, any such disassociation of your consciousness to connect or explore is for the purpose of enhancing your present, corporeal experience. It is not for the purpose of escape. I know you'll object to that statement and say, once again, that you're intention is not to escape this physical self. But sometimes your writings don't seem to match up with that denial. I do note that you put 'escape' in quotation marks. ". . . thus making the circle of physical birth and death redundant." Now that doesn't appear to be a match to the purpose of this physical existence as I understand it to be. "Being reborn again and again is only necessary as long as there is ignorance regarding your true identity." Is that all that physical existence is about? Shedding your ignorance regarding your "true" identity and thereby making your physical existences redundant? Here's where I see distortions. Distortions regarding the very purpose of experiencing an existence in physical reality.

Truth is a squirrely thing. There can be more than one. And oftentimes there is. Most believe in only a single truth for everything. I can't help but using the word 'truth' when I speak or write about these things as it's the word that most use to frame things. But rather I prefer my own quote: Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is and how it functions. -- Tippaporn It provides a different framework for me. It's not so much truth that I'm after as much as it is to know what is and how it works. Hey, I'm a mechanical engineer/designer by trade so my interest extends to my profession in the most practical way. Design something which does not comport with "how things work" and you've got one helluva disaster on your hands. Boys can be girls and girls can be boys type of ideas just aren't gonna cut it. And quit interrupting me. Do you want your answers or dontcha?

Now here's an instance where a reply is not so easy and quick to make. The question of free will is a simple one. The answer, however, is deeply complex. I'll pass for the time on a deeper answer and opt for an insufficient and unsatisfying simple answer. Freedom is the basis of all existence. The extent of free will, however, is dependent upon the system of reality in which you find yourself. You cannot, for instance, regenerate a lost limb in this existence. Your free will does in this reality, as in others, have it's boundaries. You can, however, experience having that lost limb back in a dream. Of course the rules there are different. The main point, though, is, again, freedom is the basis of all existence. And the short, short answer is that you are never without freedom, therefore you are never without free will. All ideas to the contrary are distortions. Whether you choose to not accept that then I would quote from the wisdom of "iIlusions:" Argue for your limitations and they are yours.

Yes and no. Yes, if you consider the ego's current state of development, which hinges on your beliefs. If your beliefs are that exploring inner reality is dangerous then you will command your ego to block any such explorations. So then you turn around and blame the ego for preventing you from doing so. It's only following your goddamned commands, fer Christ's sake. No, if you adopt much healthier beliefs which then allow your ego to function as it was meant to function. Yes, the function of the ego is to be the outer most portion of your self which deals directly with the camouflage reality you happen to be in. But it also has the function to receive communication from your inner ego. It's your beliefs which cut off that two way communication. The animals don't do that. Or do you suppose they are without an ego? They, too, have a portion of their self which deals most directly with outer reality. But that is purely my supposition from a sensical point of view. Just as people believe that animals are without souls then I would think people would see them without egos as well. The point that I believe you're missing here, Sunmaster, is that the ego's function is to look inward as well as outward. As Seth says, the ego sits on the window sill looking both outside and inside. Perhaps I'm interpreting you wrongly here but you seem to think it's job is to only look outward. Again, you create your reality using ideas. A belief being an idea accepted as "true." And so it is your beliefs which determine how well your ego functions. If you have further questions then I can only repeat the same answer as above but perhaps endlessly reframing it.

BTW, I'm sure you've noticed by now that I'm making separate posts for each of my answers. Answering many questions and/or discussing many points in a single post makes the post lengths unbearable. I can't believe I just said that!!! It's just dawned on me, too, that it's much more practical as now you can respond to individual points much easier and quicker. I admit to feeling a great deal of resistance knowing that in order to reply to a lengthy post and cover all of it's questions and points would require me to sit for a good stretch of time and too often I don't have that huge block of time to commit. Working it this way then if I don't have the required chunk of time available that I feel is necessary to produce a quality reply then I can break it up and reply to the extent that I have time available. What's the old adage? Divide and conquer! I credit you with bringing that inspiration to me this morning, Sunmaster. Take a well deserved bow now. "Sounds like something our atheist friends would say. 555" I cannot describe the feeling of utter contempt for the insult being heaped upon me by comparing me to an atheist. What's the "555" supposed to mean anyway? You know I'm having fun with you now. Anyway, no cop out. As I mentioned above, I insist on always providing a quality reply. My replies are often lengthy because I have much to say - too much to say. And then there's the issue of time required for the quality reply I insist on. Then sometimes I'll spend a day or two mulling over the great many thoughts which a particular post elicits. I can't very well express them all and some aren't worthy of expressing after deeper thinking. Sorry, but not sorry , that I give myself the time I need. And yes, it also happens that the lapse in time between the post and my reply becomes so great that it just gets buried forever amongst pages of new chatter.

Short answer? Absolutely yes.

I cannot find the passage but Seth had remarked once about westerners rejecting the western religion upon which they were raised and so went searching elsewhere Only to settle on eastern religion as it appeared more exotic. I'm not offering my opinion here, simply relaying one of Seth's sentiments. But given that I agree that all religions contain distortions to varying degrees then I must say I can see his point.

You are perceptive here, Sunmaster. It certainly can be. Be careful. Very careful.

Oh, geez, Sunmaster. Please don't interrupt me now as I'm trying to answer ALL of your unanswered questions. I woke up extra early this morning to do just that.

Is there a law against putting all of your eggs in one basket? Or is it unwise? As I've stated many times on this thread: Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is and how it functions. -- Tippaporn That is an original quote of mine so I'm not ashamed to take credit for it. I'm actually quite proud of it. What we are and what reality is can be found scattered about in many baskets. Or even in a single basket.

But you will defend what you believe to be true.

That's fine, Sunmaster. You have your preference based on your ideas. I, though, will continue to post lengthy paragraphs since I don't share your ideas and have my own. Thus my preference is to post them whenever and wherever I see them to be fitting and practically useful. I hope it's not annoying to you. I'll also continue to make prolific use of emoticons to convey my sense of humour.

Yes, indeed. It's not so funny, or coincidental, that I mentioned it because I did it on purpose. I sense it in your writing and in the seriousness of your approach. Evidenced, as a single instance of many, by your questioning of my smiley emoticons. As if they were somehow inappropriate or given as my mocking you. As I said, life is supposed to be fun. I like to have fun. I joke constantly and laugh boisterously throughout my day. Ask my daughter. She'll tell ya. So I thought it best to broach the subject and address it head on. For we both know how pissing contests end. People ultimately walk away from each other as there can be no winner. What is a pissing contest anyway? It's two people with differing views, each claiming their view to be the correct one. And neither willing to see or agree with another's point of view. Or to concede on any point of view. That applies to any subject matter - simply browse the rest of this forum for evidence, including ours. The Seth material is not identical to eastern religion, nor any other religion. The others are not a perfect match. Else Seth would have come through and pointed his readers to some religion or another. He would not have written the books he did for his message would have simply been a one liner: "<insert religion> has all the answers you seek." But he didn't do that because his viewpoint and religion's were not the same. Common sense alone 'enlightens' you to see that. Now I've said that every religion contains great truths. But every religion has it's share of distortions as well. That, to me, is not at all difficult to see. And accept. And why shouldn't I accept it? I'm pnly interested in knowing who and what we are and what our reality is as it exists apart from our beliefs about it. I have no undying loyalty to any religion and therefore feel no need to defend it on all counts. Defend it I will, with vigor, whenever it is representative of truth. But not when it is distortive. And here I am not suggesting, Sunmaster, that you defend yours on all counts. As you said, your views come from many different places. You've mixed and matched and derived your truths by picking them out singly from various sources. So I want to make that clear lest I'm accused of accusing you of staunchly defending any religion. I've experienced others who have come from different backgrounds asking the same questions I've been asking myself, and with perhaps the same amount of vigor. It's only then natural that we engage in conversation and share our views. They tell me what they've learned and where they've received their information from and I do likewise. This is not the first time that I've encountered another who, after listening to my views and agreeing on some points or others, then remarks, "Hey, Seth is saying the same thing that I've learned from my source. They're the same!" But as I listen to the views of the other and as his views clash with Seth's on important points, and when I respond that they're not the same I inevitably hear, "Oh, yeah they are." I then lower my head and frown, knowing that things are not going to proceed smoothly. This is, in my estimation, where you and I are at the moment. You wish to believe that your views are in complete alignment with Seth's. But they are not. The Seth material and your views are not identical. And where they differ that then creates points of friction. Take the ego, for example. Your views are very much different than Seth's. Granted, there are similarities. There is agreement on points. But there are very important, and irreconcilable, differences as well. Getting back to my analogy of the immense object, I see what you see and I see also that there is more. But you do not see what I see. And until you step back you won't see what I see. But in order for you to be able to step back you would need to suspend your current ideas of what the ego is first. As long as you step back whilst bringing your ideas along with you then you will do little more than compare and contrast the two vies. You cannot attempt an objective understanding to occur for bringing your ideas along with you those ideas will then act filtering mechanism creating bias. Now we could continue to focus on the differences of our views but that will only lead to a pissing contest. You'll dig your heels in on what you believe to be true and as your truth is different than mine then I'll dig in mine. You'll become more serious and I'll, well, I'll be smiling to myself. I'll be smiling because I understand this is not at all serious. And no, this emoticon does NOT mean that I am laughing in your face. I'll pick and choose some more of your post to respond to . . .

@Sunmaster Just one other point. Now Seth said that all religions contain distortions. I tend to believe him. I certainly see both the truths and the distortions within Christian religions. Heading to the other side of the globe we have Hinduism, Buddhism, and a host of others. Let's take Hinduism. How many different schools of Hinduism are there? If there were no distortions there would be only a single school. Just as if Christianity was without distortions you would not see so many different sects. The only reason I'm making this point is so that you can understand why I agree with Seth. And I'm not making the point to bash any eastern religion. But just as I would argue for the legitimate truths of Christian theology I would not hesitate to point out it's distortions. Same with eastern religion.

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different. These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root. Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions - All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good. That observing point of view is one which is based on ideas of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. What are probable selves? Are those not our consciousness flowering out in all directions? in this case probable directions in which each choice we make is explored in either our reality or another? The same with reincarnational selves, though those are also probable selves but within a historical context. Do they exist on different levels? Parallel levels? Don't get me wrong, Sunmaster. I'm not being argumentative with you. I'm merely asking you questions as to how you would place these on levels. The very framework of the statement implies a progression which Seth is explaining doesn't exist. It implies that we are working towards becoming a realized being. And a 'realized being; implies a more advanced being just as an 'unrealized being' implies less advanced. But what is a 'realized being'? An identity which is aware that it is part of a greater identity, of which it already is? It appears to me that you think that the Sunmaster identity needs to be it's greater identity. Yet your Sunmaster identity is that already. There's no becoming it in that sense. You already are it. What is your idea of the meaning of gestalt consciousness? As long as you believe that higher or lower states exist then you will have trouble understanding much of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is outside of that framework. You wish to remain inside of it. If you wish to not be distracted by all of the hindrances of your lower impulses so that you can be in pursuit of exploring your inner self then why not become a hermit on top of a mountain? Leave all the hindrances behind and beyond the temptation of your no good ego? If getting drunk and chasing tails is fulfilling then I would say that is the very definition of practicisng spirituality. By God, I've certainly done my share in my life and I would not reject any of it in favour of meditation that demands some sort of purity of the self. We are on very different pages here. My use of importance here refers to lower and higher states of being. Or less advanced and more advanced states of being. It was taken from your statement: "The first part just means not to become a slave of the body's demands for temporary pleasures. Indulging in excessive food, drink, sex only satisfies the lowest aspects of our being and tend to distract from the more important ones." Indulging in pleasure represents satisfying the 'lower' aspects of being. To distract from the more important ones, where 'important' equates to 'higher' aspects of being. Important can be used in the context of 'higher' or it can be used in the context of preference. Your quote above uses it in the latter context. My question uses the word 'important' in the former context. The smiley emojis I use are 1) my way of keeping the topic light - as in humourous and 2) as an impish grin because I know the questions will start the gears turning in your head. Nothing sinister or snide about it. This topic isn't deadly serious sh!t and so I attempt to keep it from sliding in that direction. Show some humour! Life is supposed to be fun. Anyway, getting back to, ahem, dead seriousness my question is meant to lead you to consider the eternity of Sunmaster. Since our understanding of identity is limited and we tend, quite naturally of course, to think linearly, then most believe in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development. Yet all time exists now. Which means that body, your car, your house do enjoy eternal existence. Not an iota of existence is ever erased. It only all disappears as you change your focus elsewhere. Yet you can always return your focus. Seth had mentioned that he is particular fond of his 14th (I think) century study and often enjoys returning. Our existence is bound by time only in the sense that our experience of it, our organization of it, is agreed upon to be in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development. And yet our existence can be experienced differently by organizing it differently. One such way would be organizing it via association. You've done that, as has everyone. You may think of something which reminds you of something else which then reminds you of something other etc. All of your thoughts have a cohesiveness yet the thoughts are structured associatively in an out of time sequence. Creativity is unlimited and there are an infinite number of ways of organization. A single event can be experienced to last a thousand years but not in the sense that time is stretched. Ah, there's so much more. "Of course my ideas are based on my limited perception of reality, which is still bound by consecutive time." My ideas of development, specifically linear development, have developed (pun intended ) to where I'm standing further back from the immense object. But yes, as long as I'm physical I will be adhering to the experience of consecutive nows, one after the other. I went a couple of rounds with mauGR1 on hierarchies. Yes, they exist but only within a certain framework. Just as gravity exists in this framework but no in the non physical. I said what I did because it is only logical. For a physical individual to have Seth's perspective and knowledge he would most likely have graduated out of the reincarnational cycle. But even accessing that knowledge, which is nonverbal, he would have to translate it into our terms. Hey, distortions happen. Seth had said that any information anyone receives then becomes new as the holder of the information automatically changes it to a degree. There have been lots of people who have traveled to other realities and when they came back interpreted their experience using their beliefs as a filter. Hence tales of people having extrasensory experiences and upon return telling tales of encountering demons and such. Seth covers so much information, from animal consciousness to past civilizations and so much more that you would have to admit that so much of what Seth covers is nowhere to be found in any religion. It just is what it is. This not a pissing contest and it is not, never was, and never will be one for me. I'm simply giving you my honest opinions and views. No judgement. Sorry, but I have limited time. What's the old saying, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Change that to, "The spirit is willing but the time is short."

Just having some innocent fun.

Does the amoeba aspire to be a cell? Does the cell aspire to be an ant? Does the ant aspire to be a plant? Dies the plant aspire to be a fish? Does the fish aspire to be an ape? Does the ape aspire to be a man? Or do they all aspire to escape their physical prison by shedding their ignorance and becoming their "true" identity? End of the line? What does your "true" identity aspire to be?

There are lower aspects to our being? Some realities are more important than others? What happened to "time doesn't exist" and eternity? Only some things enjoy eternal existence? I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different. These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root. Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions - All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good. Levels? Are you sure these levels exist? Or is it simply an interpretation resulting from a limited understanding of identity and erroneous ideas of progression through time? ********** The units (of consciousness) form themselves into the various systems that they have themselves initiated. They transform themselves, therefore, into the structured reality that they then become. Ruburt is quite correct in his supposition of what he calls "multipersonhood" in Adventures. You think of one I-self (spelled) (he's referring to the physical self) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a greater identity in which they have their being. Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself. The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth. ********** Does that not give you a visual of Russian Matryoshka dolls? It does for me. If you haven't read Unknown Reality Vol. 1 then you're probably not familiar with Seth's definition of consciousness units. So here's his explanation of what they are. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated. It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but awareized. It is therefore the source of all other. kinds of consciousness, and the varieties of its activity are infinite. It combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness - as, mentioned often, atoms and molecules combine. I've put into my own words before on this thread, in a reply to Hummin, that consciousness is infinitely creative and attempts to experience itself in an infinite number of ways. Such as a human being, for example. As it does so it experiences growth, or expansion, as it experiences itself differently and then knows itself in a different way. Hence no one expression is better or less than the other, higher or lower, and so there are no levels to 'climb'. So I am again here putting into my own words the meaning of Seth's quote between the ******s. The idea that there are progressive states, the idea that one is more important than another . . . those ideas "are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul." This is why I asked you the two questions 10 days ago. Your answers would be revealing as they would expose your beliefs since you would naturally need to express them in order to answer the questions. I'm a tricky son-of-a-b!tch, so my sincere apologies. Now I guarantee you that no eastern religion has traveled that far into consciousness to be able to elucidate on the existence of consciousness units. I say that because if they had they'd have written or talked about it. Perhaps I'm in error but I doubt it. Which is why I'm into Seth, and others like him, and not into anything else. As I had mentioned long before, I doubt there exist any mortals, despite their exploratory journeys into inner reality, who have the advantage of Seth's much, much vaster perspective and can match his ability to travel to different realities. I don't say that with any intention of having a pissing contest, claiming that "My source is better than your source, nah na, nah na na." I made my choice by simply using my intellect and intuitions. It was a no brainer for me as to which source I would use as a guide for my own explorations. Unknown Reality Vol. 1 was perhaps one of my favourite books. But not until years later. I wasn't ready for it at first. But, boy, was it a doozy after I connected with what he was explaining. Talk about bringing the larger picture into clearer focus. Not absolute focus, obviously. I haven't learned that much yet. But here's my response to that book. Would that material strike you similarly? I don't know. But I did have the idea to walk through that portion which had perhaps the greatest eye opening effect for me and see if it's helpful or valuable to you. Now I just need to focus myself.

First part? Second part?

It's enjoyable but not great reggae. Well, there's certainly some rock that isn't made for dancing. More tapping the feet or fingers or moving your body or slapping your thighs.