Month: January 2020

The Name of God

Joseph Dewey

The Name of God

Reader Comment: What you have quoted from JJ Dewey is a derivation of the translations of M. Buber who suggested that “ehyeh aser ehyeh” should be translated as “I will be as I will be” and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance. However, when Moses addressed God, with some reluctance, he asked “When .. the children of Israel .. shall say What is his name ..”, “mah” is used to express “what” wheras in normal usage, the pronoun used is “mi”. The use of “mah” is to invite an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning “what” or substance of the name. It is in this context that the translation is accepted to be “I AM THAT I AM”, and He said “Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel I AM has sent me unto you”. By this, Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called “a name”; it is the inner meaning of the name Moses knew. What follows adds weight to this .. “Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever”. (Dr) Aiden O’Leary Onetime Lecturer in Ancient and Modern Hebrew.

JJ: If you are indeed an expert in ancient and modern Hebrew you will be aware that most scholars do not agree with what you say here. Whereas I AM THAT I AM is the traditional rendering most knowledgeable translators see this as a simplistic inaccurate wording.

You say The use of MAH is to invite an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning “what” or substance of the name.

I would say that since MAH invites a meaning with substance then the translation I AM BECOMING fills the bill much more than I AM.

Let us quote the verses using the Concordant Version which I deem to be the most accurate English translation available:

“Yet Moses said to the One, Elohim (God): Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should bring forth the sons of Israel from Egypt?

Then He said I shall come to be with you…” Ex 3:11-12

Some manuscripts use the word EHYEH here so this verse could read:

“Then he said I AM BECOMING with you…”

Now this is an interesting thought. God not only becomes that which he decides to become within his own being, but he is BECOMING with and through Moses.

In other words, Moses was told to not fear because part of God’s BECOMING was to take place through the oneness of Moses and God working together with one purpose as one being. This is also true for us. God works through each of us and BECOMES who He decides to be through us so long as we follow the Spirit of God within each of our inner selves.

Let us continue with the Concordant translation:

“Now Moses said to the One, Elohim: Behold! When I am coming to the sons of Israel, and I say to them, The Elohim of your fathers sends me to you, then they will say to me, What about His name? What shall I say to them?

“Then Elohim spoke to Moses: I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. And he said thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I-Shall-Come-to-Be has sent me to you.”

Then in the footnote alternative renderings are given. Let me quote:

“I shall come…coming to be. Literally: I AM BECOMING, or as traditionally rendered, I am that I am.”

Now to verse 15:

“And Elohim said further unto Moses: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, Yahweh, (Jehovah) the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac and the Elohim of Jacob, has sent me unto you. This is my name for the eon(age), and this the remembrance of Me for generation after generation.”

Scholars agree that Yahweh is a more correct rendering of the Tetragrammaton (YAV HE VAV HE) than is Jehovah. So keep in mind that Jehovah and Yahweh are one and the same.

Now when God says “this is my name,” was he talking about Yahweh or I AM BECOMING?

An interesting note here is that even though the name Yahweh (or Jehovah) seems to be a new revelation to Moses it is a fact that the name was mentioned over 160 times in the book of Genesis (before the birth of Moses) But then, the Bible seems to contradict itself in Exodus 6:3

“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.”

So why did God say this when Jehovah was written over 160 times in the book of Genesis?

Part of the reason for this is that I AM THAT I AM and JEHOVAH are essentially the same. Just like ISN’T is short for IS NOT, but the meaning is the same. JEHOVAH is short for I AM THAT I AM.

So why was this revelation of the name to Moses such a big deal when the Israelites already seemed to have the name?

The answer is that they did not have the meaning of the name which is also true of this generation, for the world today does not have the meaning either, for it takes a revelation to understand completely.

Perhaps this quote from my book will clarify:

John pulled out his old Bible again and opened it to Exodus chapter three and asked me to read verse 14. I read the words: And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

“This is pretty much the standard translation in most Bibles, but it is a very bad one and most honest Hebrew scholars know this. In the Hebrew it reads: I Am Becoming that which I Am Becoming. Go say to the children of Israel that He who Is Becoming has sent you.

“The ancient Hebrew is much different from the English you are used to. It always had gaps in it that were to be filled by either the obvious or by the intuition. Now let me tell you plainly the answer that Moses heard. As you remember, Moses asked God what His name was. To this question God said: You ask for my name so you will know who or what I am. This I cannot give you because I Am Becoming that which I decide to Become. Go tell the children of Israel that He who is Becoming has sent you. John paused a moment. “Now tell me how you think Moses understood this answer.”

“I think you’ve turned on a light in my head,” I said excitedly. “Here’s the way I see it. As you said, in that age, a name revealed the core essence of who the individual was and Moses was expecting an answer like this from God. In other words, he thought he might get an answer like I am the great and powerful one, or something like that. Instead, God told him that He cannot give Moses a standard name because He is in the process of becoming whatever it is that He wants to become. Thus any name given to Him at one time may not apply at a future time.” From The Immortal

I AM BECOMING THAT WHICH I DECIDE TO BECOME (EHYEH ASER EHYEH) was a long name and considered sacred and beyond the understanding of many so it was shortened to Yahweh, Jehovah or YHWY.

Now it is true that the word “decide” is not literally in the Hebrew as we know it but this meaning is implied in numerous ways. Many scholars see the implication of cause in the sacred name. In other words, the Hebrew indicates that something is creating causation or initiating. Those who see this would translate it as something like “I will cause to be that which will be.”

Now consider this – is there any cause without decision? No. Decision is cause – BE-CAUSE.

God told Moses that he would BECOME in him and cause a deliverance for the Israelites. Essentially God BECOMING in His servants to create cause is God causing to be that which he decides to be.

It is written that “ye are gods” and we are in the “image of God.” If this is true and we are true to our destiny then we should wisely make decisions and cause them to come into being. In other words – become an initiate. This thought is also in very close alignment with the Greek word for faith (PISTIS).

No wonder it is written: “For without faith it is impossible to please God.” Faith brings decision into being and through faith we manifest the name of God becoming in

Question: “I just recently read the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ by Levi and found myself contemplating on several versus. One of them has to do with God’s name. You mentioned that a more accurate translation from the Hebrew writings regarding the name of God is: I AM BECOMING THAT WHICH I DECIDE TO BECOME (EHYEH ASER EHYEH). I understand this but what did Levi mean in 96:17 “The name of God man may not speak with carnal lips; with Holy Breath alone can man pronounce the name.”

Also, it is mentioned several times within the book that Jesus always spoke “the Word” before he performed a healing/miracle. In this book, Jesus mentions that the “Word” is only revealed to those who are one with the Holy Breath. Is this “Word” the name of God?

JJ: You cannot pronounce the name of God by merely being taught the letters or normal sounds that you commit to memory and repeat.

The name of God must be spoken on four levels. These levels are the physical, emotional, mental and the soul, or spiritual.

The essence of the name is realized when the speaker understands that he is to BECOME as he decides to become when that decision is in harmony with the will of God. If we are one with God then all decisions will align automatically with that Will for our vision of the perfected future will be seen through eyes of higher understanding.

The name of God includes more than your own becoming for in the end all souls are one. Becoming, or evolving toward ultimate perfection within the various spheres, is the destiny of all the sons and daughters of mankind. Therefore, when you see a brother in need and you see him as becoming perfect with you, you are speaking the name.

The four levels it must be spoken are as follows:

(1) The physical.

This has been physically represented in a number of different ways – Yahweh, Jesus Christ, Allah, Krishna etc. In addition to this there have been special sounds given to initiates and methods of intoning them. But there is another way to physically sound the name of God. In the midst of healing you will be given a mystic phrase corresponding to the BECOMING that is to transpire. This phrase is usually spoken and communicated by the healer to the mind and soul of the person for whom it is intended.

One (of many) of these phrases spoken by Jesus, for example, was: “thy sins are forgiven you.”

This was what this person needed to hear to BECOME well.

This was given through the soul, at this particular time, to Jesus as a name of God to be spoken as intoned by the Holy Spirit.

(2) The Emotional.

The name the initiate speaks must be sent forth with a fullness of feeling and love as it is understood on the emotional plane.

(3) The Mind

The mind must see the name BECOMING perfectly manifest. If a healing is being performed then the vision of wholeness (holiness) must be seen.

“Perfection brings imperfection to the surface. Good drives evil from the form of man in time and space.” Djwhal Khul

(4) The Spiritual

The key word here is understanding. The name of God must go forward with understanding. You understand that you are a sower of seeds and the seed is the name (word) of God and you are planting this seed in your brother who is in need. You understand that if there is interplay on all four levels then nothing can prevent the BECOMING of the seed and the manifestation of healing and wholeness.

What I present here is only a seed thought in the direction of understanding the name of God, but if one allows the seed to be planted, nurtured and grown to fruition then such a one will go forward and do “even greater works” than did Jesus as he predicted.

Jan 13, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

 

Soul Contact and Illusion

Joseph Dewey

Soul Contact and Illusion

A lot has been said about psychic attacks. Some seem to think that a religious thought, an angry thought or even a disagreeable thought is an attack. Others see an attack as a consciously directed thought. Still others feel there are some occult means available to hurt others.

But let me submit this thought to you. Harming people with mere thought is much more difficult than one might surmise.

Where is my proof?

Just look at the last presidential election in the United States. During the conflict in Florida there were millions of hard core supporters on both sides of the aisle sending about as negative of thoughts and feelings as can be conjured up by humanity. And who were they sent at?

The main targets were Bush and Gore. (Note: Hillary and Trump after 2016 are even better examples)

And how are Bush and Gore faring now that they have both endured millions of nasty thoughts projected their way?

I have seen them both on television during the past week and they both look fine. Gore may be a little down emotionally because he didn’t capture the White House, but outside of this it appears that these millions of “psychic attacks” had little effect.

Now if Bush and Gore are able to withstand millions of negative emotions sent their way you would think that us relative unknowns could deal with anything that comes at us from fellow members in this group, who by and large are very peaceable folk.

Unless one is dealing directly with the Dark Brothers, which is rare, 99.9% of perceived psychic attacks owe its cause to a flaw opened from within oneself and if we live a reasonable stable life, as Bush and Gore seem to, then there is little to worry about in this area.

The Question: Just what is it that will encourage the establishment and increase of soul contact? Is there anything we can do to encourage the process? What forces or conditions support soul contact?

It is such a good question I am tempted to answer it, but I do not want to spoil your fun in learning and sharing.

Our contrarian member is still accusing us of using the wrong definition of intuition.

The word intuition is the closest we have in English to the principle we are exploring so instead of creating a new word we refine the use of this one.

If you open the dictionary you will find that many words have six or more meanings and when you teach you have to define the meaning you are using, if the meaning may not be obvious from the context.

Actually one of the definitions in my dictionary is very close. It calls the intuition “an impression.”

This is headed the direction of our class definition but not all impressions are through intuition, therefore we needed to clarify.

I know that some on the fringe see a teacher as being a big bad dictator if he defines a word for a class and tells the class that “this is the meaning we will use for the class.” They who are so black and white see the teacher as saying:

“My definition is the only right definition.”

Such is far from the case and to come to such a conclusion a person must be possessed with a spirit of contention.

The motive for defining terms, at least for this class, is so we can all speak the same language and understand each other.

Let me illustrate.

If we were giving a class on apples and Bob calls apples carrots, Sue calls then peas and Jim calls them rocks what is the teacher to do? He is to show a picture of an apple so all can understand what it looks like, and instruct the class to use the word “apple” when describing this particular fruit. When this is done teaching and communication can then proceed.

A reader states: “Soul contact: A unification of the body and the spirit. A oneness, a clarity where each of the two components are equal partners in bringing the will of God into this physical plane.”

JJ: The union of matter and spirit makes soul possible, but Soul itself is the interplay of body and spirit rather than the union, and that interplay is within us all no matter what our degree of evolution. Soul contact happens when we tune into that interplay. Thus tuning into the interplay opens the door to soul and Spirit. This is the first major step we all make at one time or another.

The group has been discussing I AM verses I AM BECOMING.

Let me add some clarification.

The I AM of itself is not wrong or evil for it is a description of BEING which is the foundation of life for us all. Where the problem comes in our evolution is when we become lazy and cease to become and try to just “be,” which is to say relax and do nothing.

In our current reality we either go forward in spiritual evolution or we go backward. We never stand still. If we try and just stand still and “just be” as many new agers teach then the person will go backwards on the path. (Do not confuse this stillness with the stillness of thought necessary for some types of meditation – which is actually part of our becoming process.)

We only go forward on the path by amplifying our power to decide in harmony with the Will of God and then bring that decision into reality through BECOMING.

Question: Is a ‘light bulb moment’ the same as ‘soul contact’?

The light bulb moment is more like intuition as we define it in the group, but there are two types of light bulb moments.

(1) You study a problem, do research, think about it and suddenly the pieces come together in a logical manner and you see the solution through your own mental powers.

This is not intuition but a bringing together of a whole picture through the use of mind.

(2) You study a problem, do research, think about it but no matter how much you try to figure it out you seem to reach a dead end, but you continue to pursue the solution. Then finally at an unexpected time a flash of light seems to turn on in your mind and you see the principle that answers all your questions. The answer is beyond anything that your mind could have come up with by itself and you have a sense that you owe a debt to an intelligence higher than yourself.

This is intuition and only comes after a degree of soul contact has been achieved.

Imagine that you are a young female and have just had the seed of a baby – a tiny life – planted in you. This life is so small that you cannot see it with the naked eye, but it is life nevertheless. Now imagine that the life is so tiny that if you were not paying attention you would have missed the planting entirely. Not only that but if you are not careful you will miss months of its growth.

Now let us suppose you are that young woman and decide that you are not going to miss the planting of the life nor its initial growth. Now be still and imagine the tiny life being planted in you. You must be absolutely still. The new life is so small that you must pay full attention to feel it, but you do pay attention and you do feel it.

You feel a slight movement – so slight you think you may be imagining that a life is within you, but you also feel a warmth and a comforting feeling from the life. You want to believe that your feeling is real, but you have doubts. “It’s too good to be true that I could be a vessel for a wonderful new life” you are tempted to think, but then you resist that temptation and think another thought:

“God is good and through Him nothing is too good to be true.”

Just thinking this thought seems to increase your sensitivity and you seem to have more communication with the tiny life. It is now real enough that you decide you want it to grow in you and you nurture it. As you nurture the life the time soon comes that the evidence that you will give birth to something wonderful will be undeniable to you. You have moved from hope to belief to knowing.

Jan 4, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Handwriting Analysis of Bush and Gore

Joseph Dewey

Handwriting Analysis of Bush and Gore

Since everyone is getting a smile out of the fake Nostradamus prediction I thought I would make some comments about it. Let me quote:

“Come the millennium, month 12,
In the home of greatest power,
The village idiot will come forth
To be acclaimed the leader.”

First of all, the fact that Bush is attacked with a fake prediction scores him two points off the bat in my book. Nine times out of ten it is the person who is closest to the truth who has the most fabrication created against him.

But putting that aside it seems that many have attempted to make a Dan Quayle out of the guy so I thought I would look at the handwriting samples of both Bush and Gore to see who would have been the brighter president.

I speak with some authority here having 40 years experience in this art.

As I look at their handwriting samples I see that both men are above average in intelligence, but their intelligence is guided in different directions.

Al Gore is quite intelligent in the way he projects his thoughts and personality. He has good people skills, but has a loner consciousness and appears stiff because he has to force himself to perform, but when he finally decides how he is to project and the course he is to follow he is able to proceed quite intelligently.

He is a quick thinker, but not a perceptive one. His brain activity is quick, but his thoughts are not deep. He sees the answers in what is the obvious and is able to project that solution with credibility in the eyes of many.

When he makes a decision he is able to pursue it aggressively. This in itself is a sign of intelligence.

Even though he is a good debater he does not like conflict and seeks to avoid it.

He has good organizational abilities – another sign of intelligence.

His thought process is very quick and never lacks for a vocal expression.

One surprise is that he lacks self esteem and that it varies quite a bit with the situation. This is probably why he hired a consultant to tell him how to dress during the campaign.

Three things would concern me if he were President – and keep in mind this is from handwriting alone, putting politics aside.

(1) He seeks for surface answers and is good at selling them.

(2) He suppresses emotion. This would make his actions unpredictable in an intense situation. It would be possible that he could take us to war on an impulse.

(3) He is very secretive. As president there would be many things going on behind the scene that most would be unaware of. He is also deceptive when the pressure is on.

BUSH

Overall the intelligence of Bush and Gore is quite comparable, but while Gore directs his intelligence to the projection of image and ideas. Bush directs his more internally. He is perceptive and when his interest is aroused he will look below the surface to dig up the facts or the truth. He is much harder to fool that is Gore. When talking with him in person he will perceive your point quickly and likes to cut through the BS and get to the point.

He is fairly intuitive. Although he does not like to take risk without calculation he does trust his instincts.

He has a strong consistency to himself. We will not be seeing two Bushes. He has a mental focus of attention on this consistency and dependability, and this is one of the areas where his intelligence is directed.

He is aggressive similar to Gore.

He sets high goals for himself and has a strong sense of purpose and drive to reach them. He also has a strong self image and is confident in himself.

About the only reason I can see that Bush may be accused of lacking intelligence is that when he is under pressure he has some difficulty in sorting out his thoughts and may go on automatic pilot for a short time.

He has a handful of secrets which he doesn’t want to tell anyone (such as his DUI arrest) but aside from some items that he feels strongly about he is quite open with his thoughts. Under normal circumstances he will be quite open with the American people and he is above average in honesty.

He has no suppression of emotion, even though he has very strong feelings and is quite sensitive. When he gets angry he will let the offender have a piece of his mind and that will be the end of it.

The most positive note for him is he is willing to look below the surface and obtain all possible facts when solving a problem. This characteristic is lacking in too many politicians.

Does the handwriting reveal any warning signs about him?

No real obvious ones as I saw in Gore, but this does not mean he will not have problems or that he will not make some blunders.

Here are some possible red flags:

(1) He is emotionally sensitive and has a critical thought process. He is likely to offend a number of people during his term, especially when he feels attacked or under pressure.

(2) He is likely to get overconfident at times and let is guard down.

(3) Even though he has a practical side he is likely to bite off more can he can chew at times diminishing his chances for success.

All the presidents since Kennedy have been of similar intelligence, but have expressed it differently – and this includes Bush.

Overall we should be able to trust him to make reasonably intelligent decisions. He seems to be surrounding himself with intelligent people and this is a good sign.

As far as intelligence goes (again using handwriting) John Kennedy was the most intelligent president of this century – a very impressive thinker and extremely quick mental processes. He would have been a fun person to have had in this group.

Jan 3, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Intuition, Truth and Light

Joseph Dewey

Intuition, Truth and Light

A reader keeps trying to convince us that we should be using his definition of the word “intuition,” rather than that espoused in the Ancient Wisdom.

There are many words in the dictionary which have a half dozen different uses and when this is the case the teacher must define his terms and make the students aware of the definition he is using and clearly represent how the word is to be used. Then there are other times that there may not be a current word that clearly represents his thought so he uses the best word available and redefines it for his students. When this is the case it merely becomes a distraction for a student to insist on examining the other definitions.

I have clearly defined the class use of the word “intuition.” If this does not fit in with how you have used the word in your past this is perfectly understandable. When you teach a class then you can use a definition which fits in with your belief system.

The definition I use does harmonize with Djwhal Khul who uses sources sometimes millions of years old, ancient wisdom indeed.

Definition of Intuition for this class (not found in any standard dictionary)

“The reception by the mind, as a result of a point of tension reached through contemplation, of a principle which leads to a “flashing forth” of understanding, which leads to unlimited knowledge.”

Note that the intuition leads to comprehension of a principle which leads to knowledge and not knowledge or facts only.

If a person obtains knowledge outside the normal realm of learning this does not mean he has used the intuition. A child does not use intuition as we have defined it here. A child’s mind is not equipped to do the type of contemplation needed.

As far as the relative verses absolute truth I find it interesting that the Buddha very strongly stressed absolute truth as well as Jesus.

Here are some quotes from the words of Buddha:

Truth is the correct comprehension of things; it is the permanent and everlasting, the real in all existence, the bliss of righteousness.

Free your mind of ignorance and be anxious to learn the truth, especially in the one thing that is needful, lest you fall a prey either to skepticism or to errors. Skepticism will make you indifferent and errors will lead you astray, so that you shall not find the noble path that leads to life

eternal.”

Those who imagine they find truth in untruth, and see untruth in truth, will never arrive at truth, but follow vain desires. They who know truth in truth, and untruth in untruth, arrive at truth, and follow true desires.

Some form their Dharma arbitrarily and fabricate it artificially; they advance complex speculations and imagine that good results are attainable only by the acceptance of their theories; yet the truth is but one; there are not different truths in the world.

The truth, however, is not temporary. The truth is not arbitrary nor a matter of opinion, but can be investigated, and he who earnestly searches for the truth will find it. The truth is hidden to the blind, but he who has the mental eye sees the truth. The truth is Buddha’s essence, and the truth will remain the ultimate standard. Let us, then, revere the truth; let us inquire into the truth and state it, and let us obey the truth.

I particularly like the definition by the Buddha that “Truth is … the real in all existence.”

This is why even a child knows what is true within its ring-pass-not because he knows the real to the extent that he’s aware if he is telling a lie or not. It takes adults to extend the idea of truth to the unreal so no clear definition can be had among them.

I am sitting in this chair typing on this computer at this moment in time and space. That is the real. This is a point of truth and nothing else is true in contradiction to this..

Those who regard

non-essence as essence

and see essence as non-,

don’t get to the essence,

ranging about in wrong resolves.

But those who know

essence as essence,

and non-essence as non-,

get to the essence,

ranging about in right resolves.

The Buddha

Let Your Light Shine

Each of us is a light to the world in some way and as a light to the world we must see ourselves in the symbol of a candle. Where we lack light we share in the light received by another and we are then filled with light. Consider the image of one candle lighting another candle. Unlike sharing as is done in the world there is no loss in the sharing of light. When one candle lights another and the flame is full, both shine with the same brightness. All the light of the first is given to the second and none is lost neither diminished.

One candle can light two, two can light four, four, eight and so on until after a few generations millions of candles can be lit by the one and none suffer any loss through the sharing, but the light of the whole is increased many fold.

If I have done my job here then I should have lit some candles and whether I am here or not there should be lights in your midst burning bright.

The key now is to work together and blend your light. If each of you center on the subject at hand, contemplate it and write your thoughts whether you feel inspired or not, your group blending can create a light which will satisfy the soul and those coming aboard will indeed be comforted by the fact of many lights becoming one light.

The words of Jesus ever come to mind:

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Mat 5:14-16

So my friends, what good is it if we have light but keep it under a bushel? The bushel is composed of fear, inertia, ego, lack of confidence and dependence on unjust authority. Let us remove the covering of the light and keep this a land of the ever present sun, in season and out of season.

Dec 29, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE