Followers have a blind spot regarding their gurus that they need to overcome

A very important message from Rajiv in the background of discussions in the forum on some of the stands taken/policies followed by some present day gurus or their lineages.

He says:

There is a serious mix up here [in the forum] that is a common occurrence among Hindus everywhere. It has to do with the notion that to be a good guru he/she must be enlightened, a term which is further assumed to mean perfection in every domain of activity. Therefore, if someone challenges that guru's position on something, it is seen as an insult to the guru's integrity. This starts a fight in which the guru's character/legitimacy become the topic of contention.

I have tried numerous times to explain that one must compartmentalize domains of knowledge and expertise. Being enlightened is one domain, but there are also many others. Can your guru (and the same applies to mine) run as fast as the Olympic champion? Or match Tendulkar's record of 100 centuries?

The point being there are many domains out there and just because a given guru is enlightened to teach us Vedanta does not imply infallibility. Even Avatara takes form within maryada, and hence is bound by the limits of the body, i.e. disease, old age, death, etc.

It is foolish escapism to imagine some infallible, perfect state in all domains achieved by any human in our times. I would like to put to test any claims of infallibility - our tradition DOES ask us to test the guru.

The false notion on this leads to chauvinism about one's guru, his/her being beyond all criticisms, etc. When I have spoken privately to gurus on this, they say they are ordinary humans who have achieved insights and abilities to teach that require long term tapasya, but they never say they are perfect/infallible in every domain of activity.

So it is perfectly fine to question a guru on his/her policy on other religions, knowledge on how digestion works, pro's and cons on building hybrid systems, etc.

My UTurn Theory case studies are full of instances where gurus were simply foolish in the way they got deceived by Judeo-Christian followers, and this is a big reason for our failure today. The same also applies to the arrogance of many Hindu political leaders who go on promoting policies that are simply retrograde. The long term implications of some well intended policies are often not appreciated by gurus who have not acquired sufficient knowledge outside their own domain of expertise.

This problem is illustrated by what has happened at one of the foremost Bhagavad-gita teaching movements. 

• Their acharyas at one point did not want to let me speak at their gatherings, citing the reason that by policy they limit their discussions to the works of their organization's founder. 
• But then a large number of parents and teachers of their bal-vihara made a list of questions to be answered. These questions are faced by the children in their daily lives and are not adequately addressed in the organization's teachings. They asked this guru to please address these issues. Many of the parents/teachers of this organization are members of our egroup here. So they are well informed about such matters. 
• The good news is that their acharya personally called me to invite me to address all his students. We are good friends now. I see this as a sign of maturity. He accepts the limits of their internal teachings, and what I will present is not a threat of any kind, and complements their own knowledge.

So in this way I have developed good relations with many other gurus as well. Swami Dayananda Saraswati never hesitated to bring in outside subject-matter experts to teach in his ashrams those topics that were outside his core topic of Vedanta. This shows maturity, not deficiency of any kind.

Bottom line: A guru is not being undermined if we disagree with his policy on yoga's relationship to other religions, and if we claim that he lacks adequate knowledge of other religions. Nor are we insulting a guru when we disagree with his policy to include Jesus on the altar, and when we state that he is not an expert on Christian theology or its present socio-political strategies.

A purva-paksha of Sheldon Pollock's thesis on Shastras

First post is by Divya J, a member of Rajiv Malhotra's forum, with a followup by Navita V, Arun and other members.
 
Dear All,

Here are some thought after reading Pollock's paper.  If I understand him correctly, he is basically trying to say that Indian culture is stagnant because it relies heavily on ancient shastras imbued with divine authority that can never be challenged. I am willing to grant that Indian culture is stagnant, if not in a continuous state of degeneration. However, I would theorize that this is because we have neglected our shastras and not because we have relied upon them. As far as theories go, there is more evidence for the latter than for Pollock’s theory. In fact, his entire essay is peppered with evidence that goes against the grain of his own theory, a fact that he even acknowledges but ultimately neglects. A good theory must accord with the empirical evidence and must resonate with the people or culture it describes. I doubt most Hindus recognize themselves or their culture in Pollock’s description. As such, his entire essay lacks explanatory force and can resonate only with people of Pollock’s own ilk.

In fact, Pollock himself appears to be an embodiment of all the elements he imputes upon Indian culture. For starters, he does not look around him for evidence but simply draws upon his pre-existing cultural biases and presents them in the form of a theory. Some of the specific biases of western culture that he imputes upon the Indians are the following: (i) that knowledge is textual; (ii) that values are normative; (iii) that authority (shastra) is some sort of truth that cannot be challenged; (iv) that theory precedes action; and (v) that there is a divine realm starkly different from the secular realm that humans must obey. These are, in fact, the defining prejudices of western civilization, but Pollock cannot see the forest for the trees. Instead he acts like he has discovered something about Indian culture which is in fact quite the opposite of what Pollock describes.

Let’s look at his claim that Indians treat knowledge as if it is textual, implying that knowledge is something that can be put into words or contained in books. As evidence for this he cites numerous passages that assert the authority of the shastras. But this is rendered moot right off the bat because the vedas themselves assert that true knowledge cannot be obtained by relying on the vedas (or any other text). The clear implication is that knowledge can only poorly be put into words, or not at all. Pollock cites a passage from the Gita where Krishna emphatically asserts the importance of shastra. However, he conveniently overlooks the fact that Krishna’s closing words to Arjun were to do as he, Arjun, thinks best, after proper reflection, and not that he must open up his textbooks before he decides what to do.

It is a common lament among most Hindus who live in the West that their parents did not teach them anything about “Hinduism”. This becomes a problem in western culture where you are expected to spout off exactly what your religious beliefs are. This is because in western culture such knowledge is contained in a book and can be described in words and formulated in terms of beliefs. This attitude is all pervasive in western culture, not just with respect to religion. In order to act correctly they believe they must know what the right thing to do is. Not so in Indian culture where action (karma) generates knowledge. Most Hindus cannot articulate the fundamentals of their culture; there are no common beliefs, and no common practices. Yet it is a culture that has thrived, spread, flourished and survived to this day. Obviously there’s some form of knowledge that has been passed along from generation to generation even though most of us cannot put it into words. Surely in his 30-year-long career Pollock must have discovered, just as the British did 200 years ago, that Indians, including the pundits, are mostly quite ignorant of their shastras? How, then, can he claim that Indians cannot act until they consult their shastras since all evidence points to the fact that they have not been consulting them?

At the Kumbh mela I asked a couple of ordinary sadhus what books they relied upon. They looked at me with incomprehension as if I was totally clueless. They said that their lifestyle was mostly about keeping their parampara alive, looking out for each other, networking with others on the same path, and following some basic practices. None of them (the three people I spoke to) relied upon any Shastra and I’m guessing they would have told me if others in their akhada did. However, as Pollock notes, there is even a Shastra for proper sadhu behavior. So who’s reading these Shastras? Clearly it is the likes of Pollock and not the sadhus. Therefore, he is totally and completely wrong to claim that Indians believe that “the practice of all human activity depends on rules accessible to us in a textualized form.” The more accurate statement would be to say that human activity can be described in a textualized form. From here you cannot jump to the conclusion that Hindus believe that knowledge comes only from texts or shastras. In fact, that theory precedes action is closer to the western attitude and not an Indian one.

Pollock's paper is riddled with holes and I meant to take down some other aspects of his accusations but this has become way too long already. He does not strike me as someone seriously looking to solve any problems. It’s a pity he has so much clout.


A followup response from forum member Navita V.

Rajiv ji's analysis of Pollock's 1985 paper in TBFS is brilliant, thorough and very elegantly put. Divya J also did a very impressive analysis...

Here are some lay observations :

A. Pollock’s negative pre-disposition towards Sanskrit and Sanskriti

This is quite apparent in his 1985 paper that it beggars belief how some argue otherwise. Some examples :


1. The very first sentence is a clue to the lens being used :

‘Sastra is one of the fundamental features and problems of Indian civilization in general and of Indian intellectual history in particular ‘

At the very outset Pollock categorically problematizes an entire civilisation before the reader has even had a chance to consider his thesis.


2. ‘In light of the major role it appears to play in Indian civilization, it is surprising to discover that the idea and nature of sastra in its own right, as a discrete problem of intellectual history, seem never to have been the object of sustained scrutiny.’

Ironically Pollock himself is the first to construct that the Shastras are a ‘problem’ and then proceeds to be surprised that no one else has seen it that way! Since there have been plenty of competing ideologies over time, one could also reasonably expect that such dissenting views would have arisen organically out of the tradition itself had the Shastras really been a ‘problem’. That this did not happen suggests that the practitioners did not feel the ‘problem’ that he alludes to and that Pollock is first applying an entirely Western lens and then proceeding to craft a 'problem'.

3. ‘It was this attitude that prompted me to further study in the area of shastric regulation, conceived accordingly as an analysis of the components of cultural hegemony or at least authoritarianism.’

The words ‘hegemony’ and ‘authoritarianism’ in this context are Western concepts that ought not to be applied with such abandon as it is clear that in that era one was free to disagree and set up alternative schools of thought (evidenced by the many competing philosophical systems that co-existed harmoniously, at least non-violently).

4. ‘Besides the extraordinary taxonomical interests and procedures of the metrical texts, what struck me most forcefully was the nomological character of the handbooks….’

The use of the word ‘nomological’ appears to be a function of Pollock’s lens and understanding.

5. ‘The question of domination remains in my view important for several areas of pre-modern India, the realms of social and political practices, for instance.’


Another indication of the ‘lens’ being used and the hidden agenda


6. ‘What both Manusmriti and Amy Vanderbilt's Everyday Etiquette articulate for us is practical cultural knowledge, mastery of which makes one a competent member of the culture in question. Such cultural grammars exist in every society;’


So Manusmriti just did what all societies do and whilst Pollock then goes on to say the Classical Indian civilization was the most exquisite expression of this, he completely ignores the even more remarkable point that Western society only got round to codifying such practical cultural knowledge in the 1950’s (as per his quote) while Manusmriti did this millennia earlier ie. the Indians had reached that civilizational stage thousands of years earlier.

7. The second concerns the implications of this relationship for the conceptual possibilities of cultural change and development. While I believe the degree of actual influence of shastric models on cultural practices and beliefs in pre-modern India to be a far-reaching issue of the utmost importance.


There is a hint of setting up a framework for ‘indirect intervention politics’ ie. stirring up one side against the other whilst pulling unseen strings ….why else is the influence of shastric models on the culture such afar-reaching issue of utmost importance? One senses urgency here.

8. ‘Sastra, the Sanskrit word for these grammars, thus presents itself as one of the fundamental features and problems of Indian civilization in general and of Indian intellectual history in particular.’


Why a problem? The shastras only prescribed a way of doing things, perhaps an ideal way that would lead to the best functioning of society and highest transformation of the individual. One was still free to do things their own way given all the competing schools of thought and ideologies that existed at the time. There were no prescribed be-headings for not following, only that one would not get the full benefits of a particular action if not performed correctly. The fact that the public followed the shastric norms of their own volition could be interpreted as being due to their lived experience of the benefits.

9. ‘Sastra is a significant phenomenon both intrinsically--taken as a whole it is a monumental, in some cases unparalleled, intellectual accomplishment in its own right--and extrinsically, with respect to the impact it has exercised, or sought to exercise, on the production and reproduction of culture in traditional India.’


Key point here that Pollock remains silent on is that the Shastras were not physically imposed – It was not authoritarian ie. no capital punishment for failure to comply – it is entirely possible and more likely that people followed the shastras because they experienced the benefits

10. We are informed further by Patanjali that "Sastra is that from which there derives regulation [definite constraints on usage]"


Not sure if the ‘definite constraints’ comment is part of Patanjali’s quote or a Pollock translation. It could also mean that something becomes the norm not because it is strictly imposed but because it is recommended and then found to be the most efficient and pleasant way in practice.

11. ‘Whatever the number and specific composition of such topics of knowledge, it seems clear that the very notion of a finite set of "topics of knowledge" implies an attempt at an exhaustive classification of human cultural practices.’


Finite as per the available knowledge in that era, not finite till the end of time – would be a more generous interpretation, which of course would not suit Pollock’s agenda.


B. Pollock’s deliberate or inadvertent misunderstandings to suit his argument


1. ‘Theory is held always and necessarily to precede and govern practice; there is no dialectical interaction between them.’


This is questionable. While there may be no dialectical interaction between Shruti and practice, there can be a dialectical interaction between the understanding of Shruti and practice, the latter’s role being to refine the understanding and interpretation of the former.


2. ‘Two important implications of this fundamental postulate are that all knowledge is pre-existent, and that progress can only be achieved by a regressive re-appropriation of the past.’


The second point is not necessarily an implication of that postulate – but rather that progress is achieved by better and better discoveries / understandings / interpretations of this pre-existent knowledge. Ie. just because certain knowledge is not in our collective consciousness, this does not invalidate its existence. For example, the Earth did not start orbiting the sun only when the Western world discovered that it did so.


3. Similar to point 2

‘THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRIORITY OF THEORY
That the practice of any art or science, that all activity whatever succeeds to the degree it achieves conformity with shastric norms would imply that the improvement of any given practice lies, not in the future and the discovery of what has never been known before, but in the past and the more complete recovery of what was known in full in the past ‘


The fundamental flaw in this seems to be the lack of understanding that it is not about ‘what was known in full in the past’ (because presumably not everything existed in the collective human consciousness at that time), but what ‘was’ and ‘is’ ever extant, only waiting to be discovered….so although it has always existed, it is still ‘new discovery’ to the human consciousness.


C. Pollock lends support to the point that the Abrahamic religions need to be history-centric in order to maintain their power.

‘The eternality of the vedas, the sastra par excellence, is one presupposition or justification for this assessment of sastra. Its principal ideological effects are to naturalize and de-historicize cultural practices, two components in a larger discourse of power.’


So the eternality of the Vedas de-historicizes cultural practice and this is a component in a larger discourse of power. The most obvious interpretation of this is that ‘historicity’ enables power-play by giving control to a unique time-stamped and non-replicable event eg. the historicity of Jesus gave the Church its power for centuries. On the other hand, the de-historicized Vedas enable a more egalitarian playing field where many new ideas can originate over time within the same overarching eternal framework.

Arun adds:
Since Divya J gave a summary of Pollock's 1985 paper that is pretty much what I would give, let me just add a point.

If Sanskrit was not spoken by the general public, I don't really care how aesthetic the power it had; the mechanism of how some texts, held and kept secret by the brahmins, exerted any influence on the non-brahmin jaatis. The mechanism of this control needs to be explained.

IMO, a possibility which needs to be examined is that the Shastras are primarily like encyclopedias, used to compile all known stuff, and as a reference work; but not consulted for daily living, etc., any more than today we consult the Encyclopedia Britannica. They can't deaden knowledge production because like the encyclopedia, they are the storehouse of knowledge which is generally accepted and has long been available, they aren't the front line of knowledge production. That is, in modern terms again, they are not the research papers published by scientists, they are textbooks or encyclopedias.  

 

Bhagavad Gita is NOT the Bible of India

The forum has covered several instances of how digestion occurs, how to withstand it, and what we can learn and apply from BI & BD in preventing a cultural genocide of dharma civilization. Here is another example, where gullible Indians are eager to accept half-baked and even totally erroneous western equivalents for dharmic concepts and constructs. However, on the positive side, the author in question [G. Schweig], readily acknowledges this error. Much credit to him.
 
July 2013

Bhagavat gita: bible of India  
Sreenath posts:
Following is the back cover narration from a book "Bhagavad Gita: The Beloved Lord's Secret Love Song by Graham Schweig". May be we should call The bible as the Bhagavad Gita of Christ's teachings.

"The Bhagavad Gita is often regarded as the Bible of India. With a gripping story and deeply compelling message, it is unquestionably one of the most popular sacred texts of Asia and, along with the Bible and the Qur'an, one of the most important holy scriptures in the world.
Part of an ancient Hindu epic poem, the dialogue of the Bhagavad Gita takes place on a battlefield, where a war for the possession of a North Indian kingdom is about to ensue between two noble families related by blood. The epic's hero, young Prince Arjuna, is torn between his duty as a warrior and his revulsion at the thought of his brothers and cousins killing each other over control of the realm. Frozen by this ethical dilemma, he debates the big questions of life and death with the supreme Hindu deity Krishna, cleverly disguised as his charioteer. By the end of the story, Eastern beliefs about mortality and reincarnation, the vision and practice of yoga, the Indian social order and its responsibilities, family loyalty, spiritual knowledge, and the loftiest pursuits of the human heart are explored in depth. Explaining the very purpose of life and existence, this classic has stood the test of twenty-three centuries. It is presented here in a thoroughly accurate, illuminating, and beautiful translation that is sure to become the standard for our day"

Balakrishnan notes: As [Rajiv Malhotra has pointed out in the book [Being Different]....we have a library and not just a single book unlike Bible/Koran.

Koti agrees with the proposition:
"... Bhagavad-Gita is equated with the New  Testament (Christ's sermon on mount). I think there is nothing wrong with that. In fact BG is our New Testament, even though it fell on deaf ears for all practcal purposes! No Hindu scripture has such a blend of Philosophy and theology. ... But none of them have the scope of BG. BG is what many Hindus swear on the court....

... In fact, it is not at all wrong to say that Krishna is the Jehova, David, Solomon, Jesus, Mohamed, and Martin Luther of SD."

Rajiv disagrees with Koti and explains why:
This is a recipe for digestion.

Using Bible as analogy to define Gita reinforces Bible as the reference point for understanding Gita. Further analogies then follow - people define moksha as salvation, and so forth. The whole mapping of non-translatables into the predator paradigm follows.

Thats why we are where are - because Ram Mohan Roy started the trend 200 years ago to make ourselves look easy to understand in the other's terms of reference. It was his deep inferiority complex.

My new book explains that Vivekananda made a major contribution to reverse this digestion, by re-establishing dharma in our terms. By then the digestion had become very advanced. But what Vivekananda started was only partially completed by him. We must take this further to reclaim our tradition - also called decolonization. My new book is my humble attempt to make a contribution in this direction...  "

Indrani asks:
The issue of using the BG to swear in court - is this not a western concept? Hindus traditionally use Agni. In Trinidad, the indentured Indians used a lotah with water that signified Ganga Jal. We are not a people of the Book as far as I understand.

Sreenath responds to the comments on his post:
"I don't think Bhagavan Krishna would be insulted by this. He only taught us the message that "You can take different paths to reach Him".The apt sentence would have been that "The bible is the Holy book of Christians, The Gita is one of the most revered texts for Hindus. Christians give due respect to Bible and Hindus worship and try to learn the essence of Gita".  .... May be we need to elevate Jesus as one of the many million hindu Gods. We could pray to Him in a Hindu way.May be a concept of "Hindu temple for Jesus Christ" where we have the idol of Jesus christ along with all other Gods like Rama, Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha etc under one single roof. Then that may deter people who are confused about "how to get Moksha" from converting to other religions from Hinduism. Now they will get the same Gods blessings and there by Salvation from here too.

Rajiv disagrees: 
With all dues respects, Sreenath has not read BD to understand that moksha is NOT the same as salvation. hence the promised outcome is different. They are based on DIFFERENT ideas of the original nature of humans -
Original Sin in their case, and originally divine in ours. Please read my blogs on this at Huffpost. Also read: http://hindugoodnews.com/ 

Sreenath forwards a response from the original author:
"... The statement certainly can be reversed, but for the Indian/Hindu audience most appropriately. Of course, the point of my mentioning it this way in my introduction was to give the uninformed Western Christian-based reader a sense of the degree of importance that the Gita generally holds in India, which I'm sure you can appreciate. But you're absolutely right in thinking it was a totally eurocentric statement! "


Rajiv Malhotra provides a more detailed response and context:
"These two texts refer to entirely different paradigms about the nature of ultimate reality, the nature of the human predicament, the nature of ultimate solutions possible, and the paths to follow. It is as stupid as saying that the telescope is the idli of physics. There is no end to stupid things one can make up. It is not an insult to just one text, but to both texts, because in either direction the mapping causes violence.

I am glad my friend G. Schweig acknowledged the error so truthfully. Had it been a typical RISA scholar, the response would have been to attack us as fascists, nationalists, Muslim killers, woman abusers - thereby entirely evading the real issue being raised.

Graham was ONE OF THE FIRST AND VERY FEW scholars to stand up and defend me at the AAR 2012 panel on BD where I was attacked by the Rambachan-Pennington side. He told them in plain language that what I had been saying all these years was valid, and my voice could no longer be ignored by them. He did this with no request from my side. He just sat quietly throughout the event, and during the Q&A raised his hand to make a clear and assertive statement with no mumbo jumbo or ambiguous language. Rare individuals inside the system do this. Most of my supporters inside the religious studies establishment (of which there are many) like to be private in their support, but do not have the combination of integrity-courage to speak up publicly.

I have discussed that AAR event in detail in this egroup. That event got me started on my current project to write a book that critiques the neo-Hinduism camp - something that has not been done by any scholar so systematically. Thats the book I am in the process of finishing up....Thats the same book of which I sent the complete pdf to Jeff Long, who had promised that the sole purpose would be send me his constructive inputs - but instead he started presenting its ideas as his own in the RISA list where I (and almost every one of you) is prevented from responding...."

Sriharsha comments:
This is slave and servant mentality to campare Geeta with Bible or Geeta with Quaran or any other foreign religious scripture. I request you and others to read these throughly and you would think differently and would never put them at the same level.

Rajiv: Agreed. If you watch my Youtube discussion with Mark Tully, you will realize how even the most liberal Christians like him cannot accept mapping in the reverse direction. It is violence in either direction.
[Here's the Mark Tully Video. Among the best ones!]



Maria provides another in-depth response to Koti:
"... New Testament has NOTHING TO DO with the Bhagavad Gita. In fact there is so less relation that is even not enough for making an analogy of it. The only common point is that both are considered sacred scriptures in their respective contexts. That is it.

New Testament tells the story...or history....of Jesus, his life, miracles and teachings. Only moral teachings. Full of do´s and don´t-s. There is no science in it. There is not philosophy in it. At least, not in the way the mainstream christian denominations teach christianity. 

Bhagavad Gita doesn´t tell the life of Shri Krishna. It tells his teachings which are so profound that gives way to many interpretations, at several different levels. There is science in it. There is philosophy in it. There are morals, of course, but not only morals. 

If I am a child I have enough with following the discipline that my parents and my teachers give me. I am totally dependent on them and need them for guiding my every step. When I grow up, I start thinking by myself and taking my own decisions. Then I will start looking for an inner guide. 

Bible contains a set of beliefs that one has to follow without questioning. Fixed ideas. Bhagavad Gita is an inner guide. 

Bible is black and white. Like most of the western mindset: good or bad, yes or not. It moves always between the duality. One can only go from A to B and from B to A and there are not teachings of how to trascend both A and B. No more complexity...and no more inner evolution. 

Bhagavad Gita is plenty of colours and nuances. Much more complexity. And a staircase to evolve step by step. 

New Testament doesn´t respond any philosophical question.Whatever philosophical question that a human being can wonder, finds an answer in the Bhagavad Gita and other Hindu scriptures. 

If one finds some analogies its because they are important texts of both religions, and I guess that, at least, some common points all religions have. But by emphasizing the analogies above the differences, with the passage of time, the differences become diminished (when they are the crux that makes the religion what it is!). This attitude would bring a universality that, given the circumstances and the predominance of the christianity  (because of their aggressive and imposing ways of spreading), that would conclude in the establishment of christian ideas diluting the differences that define our dharma....which means making dharma disappear.  

I want to go upwards in my evolution, not downwards. That´s why I came from the given religion by birth to the Hinduism. You people who are so lucky of having been born in a wise, vast and rich religion, before comparing, please realise that you are comparing a child with an adult. As simple as that. This is the first time I´m writing it: but yes, after my experience, I can say that the state of the abrahmanic religions is a childhood state. 

I really wished all hindu realised how lucky we are by having the opportunity of being in a dharmic religion. The whole cosmos is comprised in the hindu philosophy!. Let´s protect it by preserving what makes us different!"
The last word in this interesting debate goes to Vijayalakshmi:
" ... attempts are being made by various sections of christians to christianize India by  fraudulently converting gullible Hindus, it is  foolish  of some Hindus to think of placing  Jesus' statue in Hindu temples along with consecrated 'vigrahas'  of our Deities. The idea itself betrays a lack of knowledge of the basic tenets of  Hinduism.. The philosophy of Hinduism is so entirely different from Christianity, one cannot equate the two religions on par. Moreover, it should be understood that the Kurukshetra war in  Mahabharata was not fought for possession of kingdom, but it was a war between Dharma and adharma, and in the end Dharma reigned supreme. The teachings which  Lord Krishna imparted to Arjuna is meant for all of us,that we should be on the side of Dharma always. So Bhagavad Gita will always be relevant."