The Monk’s Podcast 32 with Bhakti Rasamrita Maharaj – Sensitivity in presenting spiritual wisdom

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
We’re happy to be there. Thank you, Maharaj, for joining today for this Monks Podcast.
It’s a pleasure to have you here. Yes. So, I thought today we could discuss about the subject of sensitivity in presenting spiritual wisdom.
In today’s culture, quite often offensive words are equated with violence. In fact, they’re considered more serious than violence. And especially in the West, people, the word uses they’re canceled because they made some politically incorrect comments or some of the comments that are considered offensive.
So, I’ve seen two different attitudes. One is the word is at one level thing that because people will get offended, let us not speak anything which will offend them. And the other is that, you know, we have to speak what we have to speak.
And whether people get offended or not, that is their problem. So, how do we have a balance between the two? Maybe we could discuss something about that. Yeah, I think really it’s a question of judgment.
It’s a question of wisdom. It’s also a question of one’s own nature, you know, wisdom in terms of determining what is the best way to speak at a particular time in a particular place for a certain set of people and in circumstances, you know, yes. And then also there is the nature of the person.
That’s a good perspective. Yeah. Some people will just be what they are.
Yes, some people are naturally very outspoken. And they, as they say, they say it like it is. Yeah.
Really not like that. So, you know, different strokes for different folks. So, different people will have different approaches.
So, I think that cannot be negated. It’s always going to be there. So, I guess wisdom is what, you know, incorporates the judgment and takes into account the understanding of how to say it, where to say it, when to say it, what to say.
Yes, I think Prabhupada defines in the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, intelligence means to see things in their proper perspective. So that is also something similar or Desikala Patra as we have discussed earlier also. So now I think most of our talk will focus on intelligence.
Now with respect to nature, there is at one level, if somebody is known to speak, maybe a little brusque, known to speak in a particular way, and then people get used to that. So, and some people feel that we are just, so the problem is, I won’t say so much that if somebody has a particular nature, but when they start thinking this is the right thing to do for everyone, that is when the problem comes up. That means what I’m speaking is the right way to speak and everybody else is, is not courageous enough to speak the way I speak.
Then it may happen that others may get a, either start doubting whether this is the way I’m meant to speak or may artificially start imitating. And generally, if, if we are with a person for some time, then we just get to know their nature. And then we know which words are spoken with real anger or which is spoken just because of nature.
So there is a adequate need to acknowledge nature, but then to consider one’s nature to be a virtue, that is where it becomes a problem, I feel. It also depends on other factors, like what kind of relationship you have with the person you’re speaking to. You know, if, if you have a very old relationship with the person, the understanding is good, the other person knows you very well, understands you for what you are, then you can speak so many things and the person will not take offense or will not misunderstand.
On the other hand, if you just met someone for the first time, when you say something, then that person may take offense because there is no relationship there. So that’s another factor, the relationship. Another factor could be, let’s say, age, you know, an elderly person can get away with saying certain things, or small children can get away by saying certain things, but people in between may not be able to get away so easily.
So that’s a good way. What Prabhupada could say, you know, others may not be able to say and get away with it. Another has to be the level of one’s spiritual advancement.
The more advanced one is maybe it will be accepted and maybe for others it won’t, you know. And also, you know, it depends because just as the speakers have different natures, the listeners also have different natures. Now I know, I’m sure we all know, different devotees or different individuals, even if they’re not devotees, who have different ways of presenting their opinions.
Some are very brusque, very blunt, to the point of being harsh, sometimes, you know, being offensive even. And they have their takers. I mean, there are people who really like that.
Some people like to hear such speakers. And there are others who may get completely turned away from such speakers. And they prefer others who are probably softer, you know, like that.
So it really depends. I remember one time there was a devotee and he’s still there, of course. And he was well known for being very brash in his speaking.
And sometimes, sitting in the class, I would cringe a little bit. Oh, he’s speaking in a certain way like this. And, you know, and several others would be like me who would cringe sometimes a little bit.
But there were some others who really relished it. And they found it, you know, very nice. And they got attracted to Krishna Consciousness.
They, you know, became good devotees. Some others maybe got turned away because of that. So it’s a very kind of subjective thing.
You know, but yes, as you said, we have to keep in mind different strokes for different folks. And different speakers will have their own natures. And it’s not possible to expect that everybody will speak exactly the same way.
So we have to accommodate that. Yes, Maharaj. I’m just echoing your point.
I remember one devotee had invited me to he was doing village preaching, and he invited me to his village for speaking. And then I have normally a very analytical way of presenting. And people were okay, they passively hearing, but then after I finished, he spoke a few minutes.
And he was like, making fun of how foolish this thing is. And we should do this, we should not do that. And I saw people were enjoying that.
So I realized that they didn’t need an analytical kind of presentation. They needed a more something which stirs things up. So I would say that maybe I was just trying to think of a visual.
There are four factors that the speaker, there is the, there is the content of the speech, then there’s the context of the speech. And then there’s a hero. So I, the context and the hero can be the same, but they can be different also.
Like somebody might want to hear, I thought maybe okay hearing some harsh words about oneself being spoken in private, but not in public. So if you consider this four things, speaker, content, context, and audience, or hearer, then on one side, from our perspective, if we are speakers, we can try to sensitize ourselves to the context of the audience. But another side, as you rightly said that different people have different natures.
So then maybe it is a hero’s responsibility to find out who are the speakers they can connect with, who they can be inspired by. And then, so it’s a more of a two-way responsibility. At one level, the speakers have to moderate the way they speak, but we can also say the hearers need to moderate who they hear from.
Yeah, that is there. You know, in a situation where we have Bhagavatam classes in the temple, let’s say, and the devotees attend, and there are different speakers almost every day. So the hearer may be able to relate to some speakers and may be able to not relate to some other speakers.
But so long as the speaker is speaking information or knowledge or presenting things from the scripture in an authorized way, he’s not concocting something, he’s not creating a new philosophy, he’s not misrepresenting it, or he’s not really, you know, causing some major offense or something like that. I think one should hear. And keeping in mind that there are different styles of presentation, and ultimately, because it is the spiritual wisdom which is authentic, one should hear.
Yes, Maharaj. The problem comes up when the listener feels that the speaker is not speaking something that is authorized, that the speaker is deviating from the philosophy or something like that. That is when the little issue may come up.
And there could be different, you know, understandings of that also. Yeah. So just that is at one level, if somebody is a, as you mentioned, the context of somebody that regularly coming for classes, then even if somebody gets disturbed by hearing something, they have the regular connections with devotees where they can seek clarification.
And then they can get things resolved. Now, the problem, especially in today’s world is that most of the content is available online. And online at one level, we don’t know who all are hearing, and especially something’s preserved online.
So something which, say in a closed environment, would seem just like a good joke, can, in a different setting seem like a horrible insult. So, so the in one sense, the context has changed significantly today. And it’s almost like every word is, we have to weigh it to consider how different people will perceive it.
And that makes things much tougher. So, yes, this is these are the perils of speaking via the internet. Yeah.
We expand the reach, but we expand the danger also. So when asked to speak in a measured way, but of course, if one is speaking with sensitivity with one is speaking the truth, but properly, sensitively, then I think that’s not really such a problem. It’s not that such things happen so frequently, they may happen sometimes.
But if we are careful about how we present things, in any case, one should be careful whether it’s on the internet or not. If one is speaking on a public platform, then one should be careful anyway. One should see that one is presenting things in the right manner.
One is speaking the right philosophy, one is, you know, being sensitive to certain concerns. Yes, so there is, it was going back to these four points of the speaker, the content, the context and the hearer. So to some extent, there is a purpose for speaking.
At one level, we could say the purpose is simply to glorify Krishna. And whoever hears the glorification of Krishna does become purified by that. At the same time, we have to see for a particular audience, whether they are being attracted toward Krishna or not, or are they getting alienated toward Krishna.
At a subconscious level, somebody might be purified by hearing about Krishna, but at a conscious level, they might get alienated. So if we consider, say, Bakhtisaraj Thakur would rate articles based on how many times the word Krishna would come, and then he would publish them in the Harmonist. Now, one of the early books that Shri Prabhupada wrote was the Ishopanishad.
And in the Ishopanishad, Prabhupada doesn’t use the word Krishna much at all. He uses the word God or the Supreme. And Krishna is used very sparsely.
And one understanding I got is that Ishopanishad was meant more for people coming from an impersonal background. So Prabhupada doesn’t use the personal address too much over there. So we see here, Prabhupada is not compromising on the message.
He does point out the deficiencies of the impersonal understanding and it is considered the ultimate understanding within the content of what he’s speaking, but he’s regulating the word that he uses. Similarly, when Prabhupada is presenting in Easy Journey to Other Planets, he’s very respectful to scientists. He says, I will present this for the consideration of our esteemed readers, the scientists.
And then he uses the word antimatter to refer to spirit. So I was making this point that as a speaker, how important is it for us to consider what is the effect of what I’m speaking? Can I just say that this is what has been spoken and this is what I’m going to speak. But what is the effect of that? How much should that determine what I speak? I think because your question was, why are we speaking the truth? Right? Yes.
So I mean, it is a given that we have to speak the truth. Yes. We cannot speak the wrong philosophy.
We cannot speak. Yeah. We cannot misrepresent.
But what is the purpose of doing that? So very succinctly, if one were to explain the purpose of speaking Satyam, it is Hitam, which is for the benefit and welfare of everyone. Okay. That’s the sum and substance of any form of communication.
You know, whether it’s verbal communication, written communication or communication through gestures or whatever. The purpose ultimately should always be Hitam, which means for the benefit of everybody. You know, this is one of my favorite verses, favorite in the sense that I quote it often because it is of great practical value.
You know, from the seventh chapter of the 17th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita when Krishna speaks about austerity of speech, body and mind. And in austerity of speech, he says, Anudvega Karam Dakshinam, Satyam Priyahitam Jigna, Anjaya Dhasanam Selva, Anmayam Tapo Jaya. So he speaks, includes different characteristics of our speech.
And one is that the Vakyam or our sentences or our speech should not be Udvega Karam. Udvega means to cause agitation or disturbance. It should be Anudvega Karam.
So the first quality of speech in the mode of goodness is that it doesn’t agitate others unnecessarily. Yes. The second is Satyam, which is the truth.
Third is Priyah, which is it should be pleasing. Fourth is Hitam, which means it is beneficial. And the fifth is Swadhyaya Dhasanam.
So one should recite, you know, the Vedic literature, the holy books. So this is austerity of the voice or austerity of speech. So of all these categories, you know, all these elements that are mentioned here.
Obviously, it is important to speak Satyam because we can’t speak a false one. By Satyam, in various conversations and letters, Shrila Prabhupada refers to Satyam as being spiritual wisdom. So when you, especially when you’re discussing scripture or spiritual knowledge, then Satyam is very important.
At the same time, what is the purpose of that Satyam? It is Hitam, as mentioned in this verse of the Bhagavad Gita. So, I mean, there is much that Prabhupada has said on this, about it. And I think as we go along, perhaps we’ll get an opportunity to discuss it also.
But to succinctly answer your question as to what is the purpose of speaking anything, it should be Hitam, benefit. But what is benefit? That has to be seen in the light of Satyam, or truth. Because if one doesn’t have knowledge of the truth, then one may have some misconception about what Hitam or benefit is.
You know, and say, for example, one may continue to give some intoxicating substances to an addict, just because one feels that that is for his or her benefit. Because otherwise the person is suffering, so let me give it. So I would say the ultimate purpose should always be Hitam.
That has to be kept in mind. But Hitam with reference to Satyam. And here it’s a little nuanced, because what exactly is the effect that we are looking for? We want to do good to somebody.
We are speaking the truth. Our motivation is good. We want to do good to somebody.
But the result is contrary to what we hope for. So then it means we have to re-navigate, we have to rethink, where did I go wrong? Yeah, there will be people who will get upset whatever you say. So you can’t stop speaking the truth because somebody doesn’t like it.
But the point is that as far as possible, we have to keep in mind the effect it’s going to have. So there’s Satyam, there is Hitam, the benefit. And at the same time, there is also the reaction, the response of that speech or that action on somebody else.
Ultimately, we want that person to respond positively. Yes, Maharaj. So if we consider Anudvega Karam and Priyam, so of course at one level, this is all from the speaker’s perspective.
I intend to speak in a way that doesn’t agitate. I intend to speak in a way that is truthful, that is beneficial, that is pleasing. So if we say have a four quadrant visual, the one is we speak that is, if we just put these two things, beneficial and pleasing.
Yeah, beneficial and pleasing. So the top right hand corner quadrant is beneficial and pleasing. This is what is most desirable, most desirable.
Then we have, say, beneficial but not pleasing in the green one. Beneficial, but not beneficial and displeasing. May be essential at times.
Yeah, but it’s not desirable, but maybe essential. Yeah, then if it is not beneficial, not pleasing, that is definitely undesirable. Yeah, never to be done.
Okay. Not just undesirable, but never to be done. So, and then something is pleasing, but not beneficial.
Then we could say, this is also not to be done. Okay, not to be done. This is underutilization.
We are not really doing any benefit to them. Yeah. So unless there’s benefit, we should not do it.
Okay. So if you look at this now, in this context, if someone considers that, if you take the standard doctor metaphor, doctor patient metaphor, that the doctor has to give medication, sometimes the medication may be painful, the medicine may be better, or the injection has to become just painful. So where it is essential, it may have to be done.
But where it is possible, the doctor should do it in a way that is as painless as possible. Yes. And the doctor should never do anything that is not beneficial for the patient.
Yes. If the doctor just inject something which is not a medicine at all, yeah, then that is undesirable. Yeah.
So the two neurons, which, which are not to be done, never to be done, that’s not beneficial. So therefore, we should never do it. Interesting, you can put here, that is placebo effect, where it is actually not meant to be beneficial, but it’s pleasing.
Oh, I’m getting treated. But in a sense, people get benefited. Yes.
So therefore, that there is some benefit there, a placebo has its benefits too. Yeah. You know, the worst, you know, the worst that comes to mind with this diagram.
Yeah, this is a verse Prabhupada used to quote, there was a lot of discussion on this. Satyam bruhyat, priyam bruhyat. Right, right.
Satyam bruhyat, priyam bruhyat. So satyam bruhyat, bruhyat means speak, speak the truth, but priyam bruhyat, speak it pleasingly. So satyam bruhyat, priyam bruhyat, speak the truth, speak it pleasingly.
So that’s number four. Yeah. Right.
Yes. Then ma bruhyat satyam apriyam, don’t speak truth, that is not pleasing. So that is quadrant two.
Quadrant two, here it says don’t do it. Yeah. But Prabhupada did say at times that this is a social convention and when it comes to scriptural discussions or spiritual wisdom, because we are spreading the message of Krishna consciousness, you know, we are not obliged to always abide by this dictum, by this social convention.
We may have to speak the truth sometimes, even if it is not pleasing. But this will need a little discussion perhaps as we go along. But ma bruhyat satyam apriyam essentially says don’t speak truth, that is apriyam, which is not pleasing.
So it essentially says don’t be in number two. Yes. But Prabhupada says it may be essential, we have to do it.
Yes, that’s true. Therefore in number two, we are speaking of being, abiding by satyam, even if it is not pleasing. Yes, Maharaj.
Right. Then priyam cha na anritam bruhyat. So don’t speak something that is anritam, which means false, which is not true merely because it is pleasing.
Yes. Right. So that is probably number three.
And I think the number one doesn’t deserve mention itself. Yes. It is implicit, it should not be done.
Yes. So number three means it is very pleasing. But it’s not truthful, it’s not beneficial.
Because if something is not truthful, it won’t be beneficial either. Yeah. Right.
So number three is actually that something, you say something that is pleasing, but it is not truthful, it is not beneficial. So we should not do it. That’s what it means.
Esha dharma sanatana. And number one means it’s neither pleasing, nor truthful, nor beneficial. We should never indulge in that.
Right. Yes, Maharaj. So number four, you know, there is, you know, you have these subhashitas, proverbs in Sanskrit.
Yes, Maharaj. And there is a proverb called apriyasyach pathyasya. That which is undesirable is forbidden.
No, pathya refers to something that is salubrious, salutary, something that is wholesome, beneficial, pathya, you know. So, but it is apriya. Okay.
In other words, that sometimes, even though something is apriya, it should still be spoken if it is pathya, if it is hitam. Yes, it is, even if something is disagreeable, it should be spoken if it is wholesome, if it is beneficial, if it is truthful. So we see Vidurath speaking to Dhritarashtra about this in the Mahabharata or we see Maricha speaking to Ravana about this in the Ramayana.
When Ravana goes to him and says, you know, you should help me to kill Ram, or you should help me to abduct Sita. Yes. Distracting Ram and getting him to the forest and Maricha cautions him that even though you’re inviting death, don’t do this.
I mean, you’ll find many people who will tell you what’s pleasing to you, but there’s one who will tell you the truth. And as your genuine I’m telling you, don’t do this. Yes.
He says that whoever has advised you to do this is actually your enemy and should be punished. Yes. Going back to the example, there’s one point over there that Vidurath and Dhritarashtra had a lifelong relationship.
And if you read the Mahabharata, Vidurath does not speak in that tone with that severity anytime earlier. He does speak his disapproval quite vocally whenever Duryodhana is doing something wrong. So he doesn’t hide his disapproval, but the tone which he uses in the Bhagavatam that we don’t see in the Mahabharata.
So in one sense, Vidurath, we can also say that although Vidurath speaks strongly to Dhritarashtra, he also speaks strongly at the right time. Maybe while Dhritarashtra had Duryodhana and he was still, that attachment was still a hopeful attachment. Then he was blind to anything else.
So I feel a strong speech, there are examples of strong speech, but there are also, like earlier you said the age of a person, even strong speech is effective at particular times. So it may not be effective at other times. That means there’s one thing that in principle, we do acknowledge the category two as valid, that there are times when even if something is displeasing, it needs to be spoken.
But what are those times that has to be carefully discerned. And so maybe we could discuss some criteria based on which when is speaking in quadrant two acceptable or it is essential, we could say. So there are examples in principle, we accept that, but in practice, when to do that, could there be any guidelines for that? When it is essential to speak the truth, even if it is not pleasing, meaning yes.
Right. So your question is, what are those circumstances? Yes. It is essential to speak the truth, even though it is displeasing.
Yes. Right. I would say when the third quadrant that is speaking the truth pleasingly is not possible or is not effective or somehow is not possible to do or is not appropriate.
Or we could say it’s not effective also. It’s not workable. It’s not effective.
The first priority should always be Satyam Bruhyat Priyam Bruhyat. Speak it nominatively, speak it truthfully. That quadrant, speak the truth, but speak it as it should be for the benefit and it should also be pleasing.
That should always be the first priority. Right. Okay.
You know, when it comes to Srila Prabhupada’s criticism of Satyam Bruhyat Priyam Bruhyat, Maa Bruhyat Satyamat Priyam, that you know, don’t speak truth that is displeasing. So Prabhupada, as I mentioned earlier, said this is a social convention and all that. So many times in his lectures, in his letters, conversations, Prabhupada will mention that no, this social convention is not applicable to us as devotees and we should be willing to speak the truth because that is the important thing.
Now, there are also many occasions when Srila Prabhupada tempered that very strong stand. Yes. That he took.
Yes. I mean, don’t look at the other quotes that you may think that you should always, regardless of point, look at Srila Prabhupada’s quotes, then Srila Prabhupada was not against speaking truth in a palatable way at all. It’s not that because he said that we should speak the truth regardless of whether it is pleasing or displeasing.
It doesn’t mean that he was against speaking the truth in a palatable way. What I’m trying to say is that it is not that speaking truth is necessarily synonymous with being unpleasant. Yes.
It’s not that every time you speak the truth, it must be unpleasant. That’s true. You know, it’s not like that.
Sometimes it may be so and that’s where the second quadrant, where we have to speak the truth despite the fact that, you know, it’s displeasing to somebody. Yes. Right.
But, so there are many instances like this in which Prabhupada did mention one letter that he wrote to one devotee in which he cautioned him to speak the truth but deal with him softly because he has spiritual inclination. So, that devotee may have been, you know, speaking to some other person and so in that connection the devotee must have written to Srila Prabhupada. So, then Srila Prabhupada responded that you must speak the truth, yes, but deal with him softly because he has a spiritual inclination.
So, meaning if you see that spiritual inclination in somebody, you know, then you would be careful. Deal softly. So, basically the idea is the spiritual inclination needs to be fanned and that shouldn’t get extinguished.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
And because of harsh speech, because of truth being spoken harshly even when it was not really necessary, when it could have been avoided, what you may end up doing is to drive that person away. Yes, Maharaj. A negative impression about, you know, spiritual knowledge about Krishna consciousness, you know, like that.
Yeah. Effort should always be to speak the truth palatably. Yes.
Yes, Maharaj. So, that is first criteria we could say. Now, yes, now sometimes, now with respect to when the truth is, truth is unpalatable or displeasing.
Now, why is it displeasing? There could be various reasons for that. One is, you know, sometimes people say that I will not pander to political correctness. But it is not that every time sensitivity is asked for, that doesn’t mean we are pandering to political correctness.
Or we could put it this way that some norms of political correctness have evolved because of a valid need for sensitivity. But sometimes some norms of political correctness become so extreme that they don’t just don’t allow the truth to be spoken. So, then we can see that if the truth is displeasing, why is it displeasing? It could be because maybe the person is hypersensitive and they need to be, you know, if we just dance around the truth as they say, then we will not benefit them at all.
But sometimes it could be that also. So one, so we could say, why is it displeasing? We can consider that. And then if it is something specific to a particular context, then adjusting things so that it is not displeasing to that person.
Say, for example, there are certain words which were quite commonplace in the past. Say, for example, the N word was quite commonplace maybe 50 or 100 years ago to refer to a particular class of people. Now it is considered outrageous.
So, there are many words which just set off unnecessary agitation in people’s minds. Say, for example, the word cult. Prabhupada often says the word the cult of Krishna Consciousness or the cult of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
But today the word cult just triggers a lot of agitation. There is indoctrination, there is manipulation of people and it triggers alarm. So, when we talk about agitation, what is causing that agitation and whether that agitation is essential or not.
Sometimes we might say this is the way it was spoken. This is the word that we use. I’m using them now, but it’s causing agitation which is not necessary.
So, then changing certain words so that that agitation is not caused. That is not changing the truth because that’s something which is just, you might say the same, but it is having an undesirable effect. So, we could look at why it is causing agitation and then see whether we need to speak that or not speak that.
Thoughts on this Maharaj? You know, we started off our discussion by speaking about not just the circumstances and the listeners, but also the speakers, right? Yes. So, it is the speaker’s responsibility to make a good judgment. You know, if you keep in mind that the purpose of speaking of Sathyam is Hitham, then we will have to keep in mind sensitivities.
You know, and also as I said, natures of people are different. Some people like to be told things strongly. You just do it and some people, you know, will go away if you tell them something like that.
Just do this. You know, they will go away. Some people just tell you, just tell me what to do.
So, it’s really a very subjective thing and each one will act differently. But if we keep in mind that, you know, as Prabhupada says in one of the purports in Bhagavad Gita, he says purpose of speaking Sathyam is to present facts as they are, to not misrepresent and also it should be for the benefit of others. Is this in the Bhagavad Gita or the Bhagavatam Maharaj that Prabhupada talks about realization? Bhagavad Gita purports, one of the Bhagavad Gita purports where he speaks about Sathyam.
So, Sathyam means to present the facts properly, don’t misrepresent the facts and ultimately it should be done for the benefit of everybody concerned. So, the speaker has to keep that in mind. Now, because these things are so fluid and so subject to the perceptions of the speaker, so there will be different ways in which different speakers judge a certain person or judge a certain situation and both speakers will speak differently because the judgment of the situation differs and also their personal natures differ.
So, you know, we can’t paint all speakers with one brush, there is going to be a difference but I think we can keep in mind these three main points that Prabhupada said about the purpose of speaking Sathyam. Yes, Maharaj, that’s true. Now, just taking this a little further, Satya and Hita, they are not necessarily equivalent, although normally Satya will lead to Hita but here we have the point of like if you administer a medicine, the person is benefited but in the case of spiritual growth, it is that the person has to consciously choose to turn toward Krishna.
So, how can we quantify what is Hita? It is that a person heard the pure undiluted message of Krishna, is that the benefit or is it that the person heard something and became attracted and then wants to hear more or is it that the person heard something but then that was so agitating to that person that they left. So, Hita, we could see it as get them to hear once or get them to hear so that they can keep hearing more and more. So, that could also means talk about gradation.
So, Satya can be spoken at levels according to maybe, so right now this person can digest only this much and then maybe a little more they can digest. So, Hita, how would we quantify Hita over here? Can we say that increased eagerness to hear about Krishna is the Hita or what would mean by Hita over here, benefit? I would say Hita has to be seen in the context of to what degree the listener is getting closer to the spiritual path and to Krishna consciousness in a sustainable way, you know. So, we also take a longer term thing.
Let’s say you speak the truth. So, that person has heard the spiritual wisdom. So, it’s gone in but because of the way that person was dealt with, because of the way that knowledge was spoken, this person may be turned away and may not come back.
Okay. So, the truth has gone inside but it’s not been digested but you’ve lost the person at least for this life or at least for a long time. Yes.
But if it is spoken in a certain way that ensures the person is not driven away, yes, you know, he comes back and he listens to more and he then discusses with you and so on, then obviously that’s a better way of doing things. So, I would say that would be the it’s very hard to quantify such a thing. Yeah, of course.
What degree are you bringing that person closer to Krishna? So, that Hita has to be that as you said that the person is going away, then we have not really done Hita. So, continuing the medicine metaphor, you know that suppose somebody does some procedure which is excessively painful, then the patient will say I’ll not come again at all. Or if you could say more of a physical therapy, that you get the patient to do some exercises.
Now, if you don’t get the patient out of the comfort zone, then they will nearly not improve, they will not recover. But if you exercise the patient so much that they think, this is the workout I have to do every day, I cannot do it, they just stop coming after. So, that means that if we could talk about these three things, you know, that comfort zone, stretch zone and panic zone.
So, a certain amount of agitation may be required. We have to challenge people’s existing conceptions to some extent. But if it is such a big challenge that they feel their whole world is falling apart, then they may think it’s not worth it.
What you’re saying is so dead against their cherished beliefs, which they hold very dear to them, and they just can’t bear the thought of, you know, even listening further to such a thing, then perhaps that person is not a good candidate to be spoken to in any case. But perhaps in some cases, these entrenched beliefs, maybe because of not having had the opportunity to hear Krishna Consciousness being presented in a proper way. So, that’s really a judgment that the speaker has to make.
You know, it’s all very subjective and that’s why I use the word wisdom. And we also have judgment, we have nature, you know, these are the factors that will ultimately determine how a speaker presents things. Yes, Maharaj.
So, another point to just, I mean, this is, as you said, it’s nuanced and subtle. Another point to complicate things is that the people don’t necessarily in advance accept the truth to be the truth. In today’s world, there are so many spiritual paths and when they come to a spiritual teacher to hear, there may be some acceptance, okay, this person may be wise and I’m ready to give them a hearing.
But we may think I am speaking authorized truth based on Shastra, but we cannot assume that our audience accepts our authority. So, to some extent, people may judge us or evaluate or assess us based not so much simply on what we speak, but also how we speak it, how we conduct ourselves. So, it might be that in a one hour class, 59 minutes might be sound reasoned arguments, but one minute might be some harsh words spoken and then that’s what that person remembers.
So, in the meantime, there was some devotee who wrote a letter to Srila Prabhupada and I asked the question that, should one always speak the truth? He was referring to the time of preaching or presenting Krishna Consciousness. So, should one always speak the truth and Srila Prabhupada replied, yes, but a qualified devotee will be able to speak it in a palatable way, in such a way that even an enemy will be attracted. And then he said, this is the art of speaking the truth.
And then he went on to say the same thing that he said that, it’s not so much what you say, but how you say that makes it important, that makes the difference. And with experience, we will learn to speak and present the truth in the proper manner. So, Srila Prabhupada made several points in that particular exchange with this devotee.
Number one, that yes, you must always speak the truth, Satyam, but it should be Priya, because it is Satyam, it must also be Priya. If it is Satyam, it is Priya, it will also be Hitham, who, because that person will accept it. And then he said, this is the art of speaking the truth.
This is a very important phrase, I feel, for all of us who present Krishna Consciousness everywhere. It’s not just about speaking truth, it’s about how to speak the truth. Because Prabhupada then mentioned there that how you say it is very, very important.
Yes. So, this is the most successful system, Prabhupada says. Yeah.
So, in that sense, if we assume that we have authority because we speak the truth, and then we may speak something which is, so there are two things then, there is something which is the truth is unpalatable. And the second is truth is spoken unpalatably. Yes, yes.
So, there are two different things. So, as far as possible, truth shouldn’t be spoken unpalatably. Correct.
Correct. Elsewhere also Prabhupada said that you should speak truth in a way, because you also asked me in terms of the response, what are we looking at in terms of… I think Prabhupada said, you should speak truth in such a way that the person responds positively. Yes.
So, if the response is going to be highly negative, then we have to consider where we went wrong. And there are some audiences which will have just no interest. And no matter what you say, so if you’re sticking to the truth, no matter what you say, they will not accept.
But then what can we do about that? We can’t stop speaking the truth because of these situations. But as far as possible, our effort has to be to see that the person responds positively whilst still speaking the truth. Yes.
Here also we could talk about, I mean, speaking the truth, we could also say which truth in the sense that scripture has many truths within them. And we needn’t speak, do we necessarily have to speak that part of the scripture, which is true, but that is going to agitate the person. So whether that is essential, there is a conversation of Shri Prabhupada with his disciples in Hawaii.
And they asked, Prabhupada, when we tell the scholars that Maharaja Ugrasen had some astronomical number of bodyguards, they start laughing at us. And they say, how is it possible they all lived in Dwarka, where were their houses, where were their washrooms? And Prabhupada gives a very surprisingly non-confrontational reply. He says, among all the verses in the Bhagavatam, was that the only thing you found to speak to them? Yes.
So the part of the wisdom and the judgment comes not just in speaking the truth, not just in speaking it palatably, but also judging the content, also judging which aspect of the truth you are going to be presenting to whom, when and why. You know, so what aspect, as you rightly said, there’s so much in the scripture. And why don’t we focus on the basic points, the body and the soul, you know, transmigration of the soul, the law of karma.
So there are many, many things that you can speak of to a newcomer. There’s no need to get into areas that are unnecessarily controversial in that person’s mind. In your mind, it’s not controversial, but that person may see it as being controversial.
So why do unnecessarily go into that space prematurely? You know? Yes. So what you speak is also important. When we say how you speak is important, it doesn’t mean that what you speak is not important, even if it is the truth.
So judging part of the truth to present and which part to not present, you know? Yes, Maharaj. So at one level, we do any part of education means challenging others’ conceptions. In fact, we could say any good discussion or interaction involves a certain level of reincarnation.
Now I had a particular conception and then I realized, that is not the exact thing. And maybe that conception dies and then a more evolved conception comes up. So challenging people’s existing conceptions is essential.
But then, we need to first establish our authority before we challenge the conception also. Not establish authority by simply lording it over them. So there has to be, we could say, some part of the speech which is pleasing, which is reasonable, which is spoken, speak pleasingly, establishes credibility and then some part which may challenge.
But if we directly challenge people’s conceptions without having established our authority, without having considered their sensitivity or their vulnerability, we could say, then we might, that might backfire. Yes, Prabhupada could get away with it. You could say that.
I have been hearing conversations and many times, Prabhupada is directly confrontational and challenging. At the very first meeting, the moment the professor sits down, okay, tell me, what have you taught in the university? Who am I? He gets back. But they can see that he doesn’t mean malice.
There’s no malice in his voice, that he’s speaking it genuinely from conviction and also that he has that stature. You know, they’ve come in a mood of respect anyway. So they’ve already come in a mood to listen and plus he’s an older man, so in between he would joke, see I’m an elderly man, I can speak and get away with it, you know.
So we have to consider all these factors. Yes, Maharaj. So we talked about the truth, we could say which aspect of the truth to speak is one aspect, then we need to be aware also of what is the effect, at least to some extent of what is going to be the effect of what we speak.
And then some agitation is essential, but some agitation, if it is not essential, then not speaking that those things are, that is also the responsibility of the speaker. So now if there’s how much of the truth to speak on which occasion, so it could be that I just give some people some food for thought, so that they think and then they come back again. That could be one approach.
Other approach could be that, that actually they may never come again. So let them hear, let them get a full picture truth and it will stay with them. So now it’s like give one dose of vaccine.
If they don’t come, at least this will work for them or give them one thing, let them see the benefit and they may come again further for vaccination or whatever. So if you’re getting the medical metaphor, so any thoughts on this? How much of the truth to speak at one point? Prabhupada says that will come with experience. Okay.
We have to learn the art of speaking the truth. That will come with experience and with practice, Srila Prabhupada says in his letters. So when we experience the different reactions that people give us, when we preach in a certain way, we learn by experience and look that was not the nice way to do it.
I made a mistake there. I should be careful the next time. I shouldn’t preach in that way.
So by experience, by practice, you know, by also looking at how experienced good preachers present Krishna consciousness, we can learn like that. So Maharaj, when we say experience, are we essentially meaning observing the effect of what we do? Because what does experience mean in this particular context? Like when we say doctor is experienced, okay, they gave different medicines at different times and they observed what happens. So it’s mainly observing the effect.
Yes. You saw that by speaking in this way, there was a vigorous reaction and vigorous negative reaction. And that put off so many people and then the program stopped.
It was a nice weekly program coming up and then people stopped coming. You know, there was so much criticism going on and the whole program collapsed, right? And I learned, okay, so that’s not a way to do things. I made a mistake there.
Yes. Coming back to, you know, which part of the truth to present, etc. I’ll tell you a bit of a funny thing that happened, you know, many years ago when I was about to go to a certain place for preaching.
It was the first time I went to that place as a preacher. And so I asked the local devotee who would organize the program, so what would you like me to speak on? You know, so he said, you can speak on any topic, no problem, but please don’t tell them to stop eating fish. He said, because here people are, it’s a coastal area and people are so addicted to eating fish, they eat fish three times, four times a day.
They can’t live without fish. So if you tell them, stop eating fish, meat, at least, okay, they can maybe digest it, but fish, no way. Don’t tell them that.
Speak anything but that. Now, had I not got that little tip, I might have spoken about fish because I knew that people in those areas eat a lot of fish. So I might have said it.
I don’t know, but perhaps I would have. But after that, I was cautious. So I didn’t mention it at that time and slowly, slowly, people have become devotees and they’ve given up fish and all that.
So it’s like that. So eating, yeah, not eating fish is something we want to say, but in certain circumstances, we withhold. We don’t say it.
Yes. So my, yeah, this brings us to one point that what comprises compromising the truth. Prabhupada often said, I never compromised, my spiritual master never compromised.
So anytime a sensitivity is recommended, often some people will say that you are simply compromising with the truth. So in my understanding, compromising the truth would mean when we are asked a specific question and then we are wishy-washy. So if somebody in that context had only asked you publicly, should you eat meat? Should we eat meat or not? Then maybe, so if an issue comes up on its own and then we waffle on it, that could be compromised, but choosing not to speak a particular issue, that needn’t be compromised.
Any thoughts on this? Don’t speak untruth because it’s pleasing. Okay. So let’s say, you know, telling people not to eat meat is a sensitive point in a particular area where we go.
Hmm. Okay. So you don’t start off in the very first lecture by bombarding them about the ill effects of meat eating, you know, right? How, what the karmic effects are and so on.
Okay. So you don’t tell them all that. You give usual basics, lecture on the basics of Krishna consciousness.
But then somebody asked you the question, as you said, should we eat meat? So obviously we can’t speak an untruth just because that person likes, would like to hear it. So we definitely can’t say it’s okay to eat meat. It’s fine.
We can’t say that. So what we could say is, what I would say is that, look, it’s not right, but we’ll leave that discussion for another time. You just understand the process, what this Krishna consciousness is about.
You start chanting and automatically everything will work out. Everything will happen. That’s interesting.
Yeah. Now, wouldn’t that, I mean, what would be the effect of this? Would it raise like, why among the other audience, why is this question being avoided? Would it raise that question or avoid agitation? If there was a certain audience where I felt it was necessary to speak in detail, then I would have spoken about why meat eating is so harmful. Okay.
So in some cases, say like I gave the example of that place where I went, he said, please don’t speak about this. So if they had asked me the question, if somebody from the audience had asked me about fish. Okay.
After this devotee had told me this before the lecture. So I can’t tell them, just go on eating fish. It’s fine.
It’s okay. I can’t do that. At the same time, it’s not advisable from that devotee’s point of view that I launch into a whole big, you know, analysis of how bad it is to eat fish.
I may be very brief about it. Briefly talk about it. Okay.
But emphasize that first understand what Krishna consciousness is. Okay. Yeah.
And by that way, you are, you’re also stressing the point that Krishna consciousness is much bigger than just not doing this. So don’t get too fixated. Oh, I’ll have to give this up.
Understand the whole. Yeah. Okay.
Because there are many people who say, Oh my God, they could ask me to give up meat. And I’m sorry, I can’t come here. Okay.
Lift them up to a certain level of understanding and faith. And then gradually these things will go on. See, we’ll see the early days when Prabhupada started the movement, the first batch of devotees that got initiated, he told them about the four relative principles only after they were initiated.
Yes. Right. It’s true.
Yeah. So this also brings us to one more point that when we talk about which truth to speak, there are, there are central truths and there are, we could say peripheral truths. And we could also say this from a perspective of the philosophy, but we could also say this from the perspective of the audience, that for the audience, hearing this right now is more important and that is not so important.
So any guidelines about, you know, because quite often it may happen that a whole good talk gets, gets undone by, because of an unrelated issue, unrelated question, answer, or just an unrelated passing comment, which just agitates people. So what guidelines can we use to understand what is central and say what is peripheral? That which is an essential principle in Krishna consciousness is central. You know, Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Now you cannot say something else. Okay. But there may be occasions when you won’t stress it.
You won’t even mention it perhaps. Let’s say you go to a corporate program where they want you to speak on, you know, something, some particular topic and you try to bring in some spiritual dimension to it, but you’ve been strictly told not to bring God in the picture. It’s happened to me a couple of times.
They tell you, please don’t mention God or anything. So you have a choice of either to go to that program or not go at all. And if you go, then you have to do it on their terms.
So if you find the terms to be not that objectionable and that you’re not really compromising that much, you’re presenting things in a way that will be beneficial up to a point only, but then gradually you will get the opportunity to go deeper into it. Then you might take up that opportunity. Hmm.
So that means what is central and what is a peripheral can dramatically vary based on the context that Krishna is a Supreme person is central, but there it is not central. Maybe there is, it’s just you people introduction to spirituality, make them at least explore life’s spiritual dimension. That’s the central purpose.
Yes. Yeah. I remember I was talking with Hanumat Peshak Maharaj.
He told me a very strong, he had invited to speak on science and spirituality, something like that, spirituality and psychology by a professor. And then the HOD of that department came for the class and the Dean of the college came for the class. And then the professor told him, Swami, if you speak anything objectionable, it’ll kill me now.
All these people. So then after that, he said that one person asked him, Swami, I see you are in a monk’s dress. So what is your religion? So then Maharaj said that I spoke at that time that, you know, yeah, I may have my religion.
You may have your religion or you may have no religion. Now, right now we are discussing about spiritual, about psychology and consciousness. Yeah.
So, you know, let’s focus on this. If you want to know about my religion, we can talk about it afterwards. So, and he told me that the HOD, the principle about nodding, that means the idea is that you don’t use our podium to speak, to propagate your own ideology.
Yes. So on that podium, you speak what is expected or what you have been asked to speak. Yes.
Yes. The sensitivity to the situation is, is the hallmark of a good preacher. Oh, a good preacher must be able to distinguish, must be able to discriminate, you know, what to present, how to present, you know, to different audiences and circumstances, etc.
Yes, Maharaj. So, you know, I just remembered a joke, which I also say sometimes, a king and an astrologer, you know, he had an astrologer. He came and said, I’m an astrologer.
Okay, so tell me my future. So, he said, oh, he looked at the palm. Are you an astrologer or a palm reader or something? So, he looked at the palm of the king and said, oh, all your relatives are going to die before you and you will perform their last rites with your own hands.
The king was very attached to his relative, to his family. So, he became furious and he ordered that astrologer to be arrested. And then he called for another astrologer to come.
That astrologer was a little more intelligent and he had heard what had happened to the first fellow. So, he was asked the same question, tell me about my future. So, when I read the palm or the chart or whatever it is, he saw the same thing that the first astrologer had said.
He presented it differently. Oh, my dear king, you will have a very long life. You will outlive your relatives.
You will live longer than your relatives. So, the king was very happy and he reported him. He said the same thing that, you know, your relatives will die before you, but he presented it in a way that appealed to the king.
Yeah, that’s beautiful. Bhaktivedanta Maharaj has written a book on the spiritual warriors book. So, he’s talking about sense control and the title of that chapter he had given was harnessing sexual energy for world peace.
And then he talked about how sexual attraction has caused so many wars and things like that. So, it is a very creative way of presenting. Yeah.
I just going back to that joke, maybe I’ll take this as one or two concluding points, but any thoughts on using humor in presenting? Because sometimes as I said, humor can also backfire. What is seen as a joke by one person may not be seen as a joke by others. So, any thoughts on the subject of using humor? Well, again, it depends on the nature of the person.
It depends on the circumstances. I think a little bit of humor once in a while is fine, provided it is acceptable humor. But using too much of humor may distract attention from the real message.
Yes. So, some degree of humor is all right. I mean, that’s fine.
I was talking about humor here in the sense of sensitivity, that maybe humor targeted at a particular group of people, say a particular region, a particular race that might be appropriate in a particular, actually, it shouldn’t be done anytime, we could say, but especially in today’s multicultural world, if humor is targeting a particular group of people that could backfire severely. So naturally, that’s why I said depends on which, whether it’s acceptable humor or not. The humor has to be such that it is acceptable.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, the kind of humor that we see is not at all something that is subtle or refined or, you know, even cultured. What people these days are increasingly attracted to is a little raucous kind of humor. And so that kind of humor, of course, is something we don’t get into at all.
But that’s what appeals to many people these days, but we don’t get into it at all. But if it is, you know, humor that is acceptable and used, now and then just to kind of embellish your presentation and keep the people glued and that humor has some connection to what you’re saying. That’s important.
You give a lesson through the humor. Yes, that’s true. It’s not humor just for the sake of humor, just to make people laugh.
You want to give a message through that. That’s true, Maharaj. So one last question and then maybe I’ll try to summarize.
When we talk about a sensitivity with respect to different audiences. So if some people are hypersensitive because of whatever reasons, say somebody has come from a background of discrimination or whatever, and then they, any statement just raises red flags for them. So is it advisable, I mentioned this earlier, that if a particular devotee finds a particular speaker’s presentations very agitated, then is it advisable for the devotee, I still respect that speaker as a devotee, as a spiritual teacher, but this doesn’t work for me.
So to what extent? I think it’s okay to some degree for the devotee to think like that because if the devotee still continues to attend those classes, he might start committing so many offenses. And it might also disturb his own consciousness. He’ll get agitated and so on.
Then if that’s the result that’s going to happen, then might as well just avoid it. So we could say Anukullesa Sankalpa Prathikullese Varjanam. Yes.
We have to see what is favorable for one’s spiritual growth. Yes, yes. And so it’s not that we should be avoiding agitation completely, but we could also say that it shouldn’t be like a constant agitation.
It should not be like overwhelming agitation. It should not be unnecessary. Because I mean, I don’t think any speaker will, if there are some speakers like to create like a sensation when they speak and they may feel that no speaker will think that what I’m speaking is unnecessary agitation.
The speaker’s perspective, they may feel this is necessary for you to hear. Like some speakers might say that it’s necessary for the audience to hear that you shouldn’t eat fish, but maybe that is not the time for them to hear that. Or rather, I would say that sometimes speakers can be not deliberately speaking something that is unnecessary and creates agitation.
They are very careless and casual. Okay. That’s possible.
Yeah. Being careless and casual and not really thinking deeply about what they’re saying and what impact it could have, you know? Yes, Maharaj. So it’s unnecessary to say that, to say that because it causes agitation.
It’s not even really so necessary to convey some important spiritual truth or something. Yes, Maharaj. And this is where I think what you’re talking about experience counts a lot.
Over the years, and I’ve been traveling, I recognize that after I speak in a class, giving the audience time to speak and hear from them. This actually I learned from you. Every time I see after you give a class, it’s like your class might be one, one and a half hours.
Sometimes you sit for one and a half, two hours. This is a long queue of people wanting to meet you. And you give everybody your full attention and time.
So I actually learned a lot that when we hear from our audience, we learn a lot about what works for them, what doesn’t work for them. And then we can learn, we can, as you said, get that judgment, get that. So for a speaker, the wisdom doesn’t come just by reading scripture.
It also comes by interacting with the audience. Maybe you could speak some concluding words about the importance of this and then summarize. You know, ultimately, we are here for the audience, right? So the very purpose of it, as I said, for Satyam is Hitam, no? So Hitam is the objective.
Who is Hitam? First of all, for the speaker himself is also because when I speak, I’m very clear. It’s also for my benefit. And I find that when I speak Krishna Consciousness or give a lecture, the person who benefits the most is me because I have to think about what I’m going to say.
I have to meditate on that. And after the lecture is over, the subject continues for a while in the mind. You know, so the speaker benefits, at least I find that.
So Hitam works for me. So I’m the first priority. Or also you’re speaking to an audience, because if you didn’t have the audience, you wouldn’t be giving the lecture in the first place.
So if it’s for them that we are primarily speaking, then we should be concerned about how they relate to the subject of the talk. You know, what are their concerns in relation to that, etc. So I’ll try to summarize.
You want to add anything else? Any points left out? So we discussed on the topic of sensitivity in presenting spiritual wisdom. We talked about the four factors, the speaker, the subject, the context and the audience. So I think we covered various aspects.
And it’s a speaker has to be mature. And the speaker has to, you said, wisdom and nature. So based on different people’s nature, they will speak in particular ways.
And with respect to wisdom is what can be developed. And then we discussed about what all the developing wisdom can mean. So broadly, if it divided into these three factors, that we have to consider, we are speaking the truth, but you’re speaking the truth for a purpose of benefiting the audience.
And whether the benefit is happening or not, we need to consider. So we had that four quadrants, where if something is not truthful, not beneficial and not pleasing, then that’s undesirable. So it’s pleasing, but not truthful.
That’s also undesirable. And the best is if it is truthful and pleasing. But in some cases, when that fourth quadrant doesn’t work, then we may have to speak truthfully when it is not pleasing.
And then most of our talk was, what are the parameters for deciding when to speak this? The first you said is, first, try to speak the truth palatably only. And you quoted the Subhashita. We also discussed Bhagavad Gita 1740, 1716, 1715, Anudvegakaram Vakyam.
Then within this parameter of when to speak, when it’s not possible to speak the truth palatably, then you may have to speak the unpalatable truth. Then we have to see whether the agitation that is caused, why is it caused? Is it because of some unwanted, say, use of words, like say cult or something like that, then better avoid that. Or is it a necessary agitation? Because that’s what is required for people to revise their conceptions, to grow in their understanding.
Then agitation also has to be such that people can take it. We talked about the comfort zone, stretch zone and panic zone. So you want to stretch people’s conceptions, but not so much that they feel overwhelmed.
And that would mean that the speaker has to consider… So one criteria for understanding Gita, when is the person benefited? It is not just by they hearing the truth, but also by they wanting to hear the truth more. They want to take up spirituality more. And if they go away, then that is undesirable.
So then we talked about, we cannot assume that because we are speaking the truth, people will accept it because we may have to establish our authority. And that means the way we conduct ourselves, the way we speak, the cultured way, the logical way that will establish authority. And then also which truth we speak.
So truth has many aspects and that which is most relevant or beneficial for the audience, we speak that. And if something is like, give the example of a fish, that if something is going to be too agitating or impractical for them, then not speaking it is not a compromise. So speaking, choosing which truth to speak is not compromise, but refusing to speak the truth itself, when it is asked for or speaking an untruth, that is a compromise.
And then we talked about how devotees will learn by experience. And experience essentially means observing the effect of what we speak. And that means we interact with the audience and we know that we’re speaking for the audience.
So what is the effect we need to, we can hear from them to learn. And humor also, if we use it is appropriate. And that means not targeted toward a particular group and used in moderation.
And then you also mentioned about Shri Prabhupada, that although he, because of his age and spiritual maturity, spiritual stature, spoke certain things and he was, he could be directly confrontational and people would not sense any malice in him. But for us, it may not apply. And also in today’s digital age, we might speak one thing in one context, but people might just cut it out and hear it in another context.
So it is important. So you said that sensitivity is an essential characteristic of a speaker of spiritual wisdom. Yes.
And ultimately, what is the goal? We want to see that the person moves closer towards Krishna. Yes. That’s the ultimate purpose.
That is our understanding of Hitham. Yes. So if we drive the person away from Krishna, then what’s the point? Yes.
Thank you. This was a quite a comprehensive discussion and very illuminating for me personally, also many dimensions. Yeah.
Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.