good bye, and a suggestion

[Avinash]

IP addresses of posters can be easily checked by the moderator. So, you should not worry that somebody may try to be the impostor of you.

In any case, it is easy to find out if it is really you making a post (from the writing style).

[karthik_v]

 

please read the thread "Prabhupada as a Hindu" thread

if you did not read it.

 

My article will start with that point and will show that it is beneficial for both HK's and the Hindus that HK's never say they are not hindus. This does not change the K C preaching of prabhupada at all.

 

 

I will read it. Here is my take on why SP said that HKs aren't Hindus. He has often affirmed that the correct term to use for our religion is Sanatana Dharma. The same has been said by many other saints, including the venerable Paramacarya of Kanchi mutt. There is a prime difference between Hinduism (or SD) and the Semitic religions. SD is not characterised by one book of dogma, one jealous God and a powerful church. SD is basically about following the realization of great saints, and realizing the words of Krishna or Brahman, through their experiences. It is an internalized way of life. Hence, it is not necessary for the Hindus to have a brand tag. That was one thing SP was highlighting.

 

Thanks to 2 centuries of missionary abuse, anything Indian or Hindu has come to be tainted. So, SP was trying to present the same theology without associating it with names.

 

Further, most western countries, and even India, discriminate against the Hindus and Hinduism. Even running a charitable trust is very difficult, if one were to identify themselves as Hindu. Since SP was primarily focussed on spreading Krishna Bhakti, he would have wanted to dissociate the movement from such tangles. We should note that even Ramakrishna mission has often declared that they are not Hindus, only to ward of the threat of their property being taken over by the government. It doesn't ean that their principles are not rooted in Hinduism (or SD).

 

So, I think SP was being practical too, on that aspect.

[theist]

to understand instead of trying not to understand. Vaisnavism is integral to the soul in relation to the Supreme Soul. This is eternal. Vaisnavism exists independently of so-called Hinduism, so-called Christianity or so-called Islam.

 

Now Vaisnavism may exhibit itself within any particular religion or it may appear in someone outside of any such religion.

 

Don't you think there is Vaisnavism on other planets? It may manifest on some planet where the inhabitants don't wear dhotis and saris and eat Indian food. They may not use ghee lamps in their expression of that vaisnavism. Can you picture such a thing? if not perhaps you are overidentifying with the land and culture of your birth.

 

Vaisnavism is 100% independent of any temporary religion brought about by time place and circumstance. To the degree that vaisnavism is to be found with any given religion or philosophy, to that degree that religion is based on eternal principles.

 

 

I must say those that appoint themselves as spokesmen for Prabhupada are really being rude to him. He spoke for himself.Agree or disagree but don't make things up "on his behalf". We don't need any two-bit speculations on what he "really" meant. Thanks but no thanks.

[Guest guest]

 

Hi Karthik,

 

 

Here is my take on why SP said that HKs aren't Hindus. He has often affirmed that the correct term to use for our religion is Sanatana Dharma. The same has been said by many other saints, including the venerable Paramacarya of Kanchi mutt.

 

 

In which case, the HKs should accept that there are no Hindus and so such thing as hinduism, which will make them wrong anyway, because there are millions of hindus. However, the situation is, they *acknowledge* the existence of hindus and alienate their sect from hinduism, which does not square with your hypothesis. Irrespective of it's etymology, the word Hindu has come to have a clear and standard meaning, at least for the last 400 years. It is being used on a daily basis, worldwide, with no ambiguity, by millions. This being the case, what is incorrect about it? While we are on the topic, what is the origin of the label 'Sanatana Dharma'? Let us examine how apt 'Sanathana Dharma' is to describe Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which involves chanting and worship of a female goddess, among other things.

 

Let me present my take on this issue.

 

Prabhupada had the job of preaching Gaudiya vaishnavism, which is a branch of Hinduism, to westerners. It is difficult, if not impossible to get a western christian to convert to Hinduism, a religion practised by a primitive, third world country. However, if you project your teaching as universal and above sects, it becomes more colorful and appears meaningful. To avoid the problem of the poor state of India, it was also necessary to say something like "Indian religion was terrific once upon a time, but has deteriorated now. What we are preaching is the untainted, original form of Sanathana dharma -- a universal religion, which is not what is known as hinduism". This of course, is a prevarication, but then, all is fair in love, war and preaching religion. Anyone who has to market a new product has to invariably stretch the truth a little. Otherwise he will get nowhere. This was his reason for avoiding the label Hindu, a sales pitch. It is actually fine, for most people like to think that they are part of a univeral, high form of religion vis-a-vis plain, boring, parochial hinduism.

 

There is also another opinion among HKs that they are not not sectarian, which is a travesty considering they have a label distinguishing them from other religions, stringent rules, many were intitated by Prabhupada himself, etc. To make the matter simple, the word sect [a noun] is defined as follows,

 

14th century

 

a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body;

 

b : a religious denomination

 

c : a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader

 

While any one of the 3 will do to qualify as sectarian, all 3 definitions hold good for the Krishna consciousness movement.

 

Madhav,

 

In this situation, it is is not possible for you to convince western HK devotees that they are part of Hinduism. This is not something they like and therefore you should avoid trying to convince them. It does not matter that your postion is correct. SP has said so and his words are axioms to his followers. If SP said Americans did not land on the moon, then they did not land on the moon. If SP said, HKs are not hindus, then HKs are not Hindus. No amount of evidence will help, for their position is "Prabhupada said so...". There is nothing one can do beyond that.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Leyhji, Gopis are being most Krishna Conscious but they are not worshipping Krishna as the monotheistic god. They are the simply loving him. When Krishna is tricking them and appearing in his Narayan rupa they are then worshipping him as God not knowing that it is Krishna doing same. And then the Gopis are paying homage with love and devotions to Shivaji who is protecting Braj Mandal. Then they are praying to Goddess Ma in the Jamuna while Krishna is in background stealing their clothings. So how you are able to sift the flour of so called monotheistic from the harvest of hinduism?

 

Ultimate KC is Krishna is not known as God but lover and friend and child. Gopis are worshipping Shiva and Narayan as God. Lord Shiva is Shri Krishna's pure devotee so by worshipping Him they are followings Bhagavad Gita advice to be worshipping pure devotee. Such are the Gopis.

 

If the montheistic is the fundament of Krishna Consciousness why then cannot Radhaji find the God in Krishna? It is being said that Krishna is simply UNABLE to be manifest as Narayan in the presence of Radhaji's love. Are you knowing this already?

 

Please be considering.

[leyh]

Dear Shashi:

 

The gopis are not ordinary cowherd girls. They are very great souls and we should not jump to their stage. I am a neophyte and for me, Krsna is God. When I become a litle more advanced, then I may speak differently. For now, I can only see Krsna as the Supreme Lord.

 

 

[Guest guest]

guest, theist, kartik, heyh,

 

your responses are very good.

you addressed some points like:

 

- why HK's would not agree they are Hindus,

- why prabhupada said he is not teaching hinduism

- and why HK' are hindus to us or

- why vaishnavism is a major part of hinduism.

 

i will address it in my article

and also:

 

- what is gain and loss to Hindus and HKs' if Hk's agre they are Hindus?

- what is alternative to unite of HK's do not agree?

- why others do not want HK's unite with any one?

 

of course you could figure what i would write.

 

see what is happeinig?

the thread is locked,

but most of us are talking about it here.

 

any one is free to not agree or not change one's opinion,

but any one is free to show it does or does not make sense.

 

as long as facts are presented and conclusions are made rationally, then it could not be offensive to any one.

 

[karthik_v]

Hi Shvu,

 

 

However, the situation is, they *acknowledge* the existence of hindus and alienate their sect from hinduism, which does not square with your hypothesis.

 

 

They do it and it is not correct.

 

 

Irrespective of it's etymology, the word Hindu has come to have a clear and standard meaning, at least for the last 400 years. It is being used on a daily basis, worldwide, with no ambiguity, by millions. This being the case, what is incorrect about it?

 

 

Nothing wrong in using it, for it is best understood. I was just proposing some of the reasons why SP might have said that.

 

 

However, if you project your teaching as universal and above sects, it becomes more colorful and appears meaningful.

 

 

True. I can't argue against this. I have made my position very clear on this many times, you are aware of it.

[Guest guest]

Leyhji

Your point is like saying that Arjuna is no ordinary human so that Lord's message in Bhagavat Gita is not being relevance for us. Same same for Shrimat Bhagavatam etc etc.

Please be considering.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

Irrespective of it's etymology, the word Hindu has come to have a clear and standard meaning, at least for the last 400 years. It is being used on a daily basis, worldwide, with no ambiguity, by millions. This being the case, what is incorrect about it?

 

 

What is "unambiguous" or "clear and standard" about the definition of the word 'Hindu'? Even casual observers note that any two average "Hindus" worship different "gods" and employ different modes of worship. It is a fact that especially in the last 400 years, the religion of Hinduism has become more and more corrupted, and the dividing lines have been blurred more and more until it all becomes one tangled mess.

 

And this is clear?

 

 

To avoid the problem of the poor state of India, it was also necessary to say something like "Indian religion was terrific once upon a time, but has deteriorated now. What we are preaching is the untainted, original form of Sanathana dharma -- a universal religion, which is not what is known as hinduism". This of course, is a prevarication, but then, all is fair in love, war and preaching religion. Anyone who has to market a new product has to invariably stretch the truth a little. Otherwise he will get nowhere. This was his reason for avoiding the label Hindu, a sales pitch. It is actually fine, for most people like to think that they are part of a univeral, high form of religion vis-a-vis plain, boring, parochial hinduism.

 

 

Well you have spoken correctly, that this is only your opinion. Never mind if it is wrong or right, but it is simply your opinion. To suggest that Srila Prabhupada's "Marketing" of Gaudiya Vaishnavism independently of "Hinduism" was simply a preaching strategy is not only ridiculous, but sheer falsity. Everyone who even has the faintest contact with "Hinduism" in it's many forms has an idea of exactly how heterogenous it is.

 

 

It does not matter that your postion is correct. SP has said so and his words are axioms to his followers. If SP said Americans did not land on the moon, then they did not land on the moon. If SP said, HKs are not hindus, then HKs are not Hindus. No amount of evidence will help, for their position is "Prabhupada said so...". There is nothing one can do beyond that.

 

 

I suppose sarcasm is being employed here, where it seems to achieve no purpose except to smirk.

 

It is interesting to note that Srila Prabhupada quoted Vedic evidence at the time to backup his idea that Americans did not land on the moon. Funnily enough, the idea that there was a government-masterminded conspiracy by NASA, and that the Americans relaly never went to the moon, is being accepted by more and more people every day. And there is scientific evidence to prove as such, and documentaries have been filmed on the subject.

 

It is only a matter of time before other assertions of Srila Prabhupada are proved by modern science. It will be of no consequence anyway, because those who believe in and follow the words of the spiritual master will look sympathetically on the rest of those who will "catch up," and they would be so very bored by then. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[leyh]

Dear Shashi:

 

My point is that as a neophyte, I cannot and should not jump over to the stage of stage of the gopis or the stage where Krsna is lover and friend and child. Those rasas are not very cheap nor should they be whimsically imitated. Right now, it is enough for me that Krsna is God. I am speaking only for myself.

[Guest guest]

Dear Leyhji, if Krishna is being God for you at your level of realitions then you are being like most of Hindus for them it is same same. If KC is claiming differnet to Hindu it is being that devotte is relating to Krishna without the concsiousnesses of God but simply as consciousnesses of love of Krishna. Therefore the Gopis are serving as acharya of such. If it is you are denying relevence of Gopis love to your levels then you must be denying the particlar differnce that is setting apart the KC from Hindu.

Are you following this?

[Mxyzptlk]

 

Dear Leyhji, if Krishna is being God for you at your level of realitions then you are being like most of Hindus for them it is same same.

 

 

I don't really want to get involved in this debate, especially as I see that most of the points I might make have already been made. However, in reply to the above statement, I would like to state that most Hindus do not accept Krsna as God in the same way that Leyh does. Leyh is a Vaishnava, and as such, accepts Lord Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the source of all other incarnations. Many Hindus believe that Visnu is the source of Krsna. Many Hindus believe that we are all one, that we are all Krsna, and that the impersonal Brahman is the source of Krsna. Many Hindus repose their worship upon Demigods like Lord Ganesh, Lord Brahma, Lord Siva, and the Goddess Durga. Although Vaishnavas do respect and honor the Demigods, they accept Krsna as being the Supreme Worshippable, the Supreme Controller, and the Supreme Friend, as stated in the Bhagavad Gita, and that by worshipping Lord Krsna, one is automatically worshipping all the Demigods, just as by pouring water on the root of a tree, all of the branches and leaves become nourished.

 

One other thing I might add: Srila Prabhupada did not "alienate" himself from the Hindus, as someone suggested. He simply made the distinction that Vaishnavas are not Hindus. That does not constitute "alienation." Srila Prabhupada has said many wonderful things about those fortunate souls born in India. He has stated that after many many births, if one is fortunate, he/she will take birth in the land of Bharata-varsha. He has also praised the "Hindu" people in general, that they are automatically attracted to Krsna, that they naturally understand basic philosophical principles such as reincarnation, karma, the eternal nature of the soul, and the natural giving of respect to the Sadhus. One of the primary reasons Srila Prabhupada came to the West to preach was because he knew that if he was successful in converting mlecchas into Vaishnavas, then he could return to India (with his Western disciples) and encourage the "Hindus" there to become full-fledged Vaishnavas, to abandon all other varieties of dharma and simply worship Krsna, as advised by Lord Krsna Himself, (Bhagavad Gita 18:66.) Definitely, alliance should be there, not alienation. Still, it appears that some Indian-born souls refuse to accept Srila Prabhupada's own words on the matter. The word "Hindu" is not an eternal name. It has already been established that the word was created by Muslims. You won't find the word in the Vedic literatures. Why submit to the Muslims and allow them to name your religion for you? Why not select an appropriate name which aptly describes your beliefs and method of worship? (Brahmavadis, or Devavadis, perhaps? That would make more sense than simply lumping everyone under the designation "Hindu.") Not some temporary name or designation, but an eternal name, one given by the Lord and/or His associates such as Srila Vyasadeva in Sastra. There are no Muslims in Krsnaloka, nor are there any Hindus. Only Vaishnavas.

 

Many, if not most, of the good people who identify themselves as "Hindus" have set their sights on attaining the heavenly planets. Or in becoming one with the Brahmajyoti. For Vaishnavas, (pure Vaishnavas, anyway), these destinations are considered as poison. A Vaishnava would rather go to Hell and preach about the glories of Radha and Krsna than to go to Heaven or to merge with Brahman.

 

Still, Srila Prabhupada has always shown and demonstrated his great love and respect for the good and pious people of India. Perhaps some of his followers have alienated themselves from those good souls who already possess some natural spark of love for Lord Krsna, some spark of respect for the Vaishnava scriptures, some spark of respect for the holy Dhama (Mathura/Vrndavana/Navadvipa/Jagannatha Puri, etc.), but this was not at all Srila Prabhupada's mood.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mixitlipstick,

All your points are being very good and nicely putted but they are not uplifting my metaphor of KC as being the one special tree in the grove of Hinduism. That Vaishnavs are different from the other Hindus is same same as Shaivas are different to other Hindus. Each tree is having special feature but still they are belonging in the grove. Now there are many Hindus who are seeing themselves as Hindus are knowing Krishna is supreme. I am knowing this personally and experencing same long long before you are even hearing of Beloved Prabhupad. I am being Hindu also. At best Hinduism is selebrating the differences between groups, between subsacts and down to every unique souls.

The platform for selebration of same is being the oneness of Brahman and the reasons for selebration is being the differences that is making the each soul to be individual realationship with Lord. The realationship with Lord without care for God state of Lord is specialty of highest Bhakti and the other realationships is more common.

Are you following my line of presentations? Thank you too much.

[Mxyzptlk]

Dear Mixitlipstick,

 

Heh heh. Good one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

That Vaishnavs are different from the other Hindus is same same as Shaivas are different to other Hindus.

 

Yes, good example. Perhaps we should differentiate our respective goals in spiritual life by using words like Shaivites, Vaishnavas, Mayavaadas, Jnani-yogis, karma-yogis, etc., instead of just lumping everyone together under the name "Hindu".

 

I am knowing this personally and experencing same long long before you are even hearing of Beloved Prabhupad. I am being Hindu also.

 

Yes, fair enough. However, Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was knowing Krsna long long before you, and he said he was not a Hindu. Also, I am knowing Srila Prabhupada for a long long time and have been his student for 30 years. Once again, the word "Hindu" was invented by the Muslims. It is not a Vedic word. Is it your desire that the Muslim invaders should have such control over your spiritual heritage that they should be allowed to name your religion? Would you allow a Muslim to come into your home and name your new-born children for you?

 

The realationship with Lord without care for God state of Lord is specialty of highest Bhakti and the other realationships is more common. Are you following my line of presentations?

 

Yes. The Brajabasis do not even know that Krsna is God, so deep is their love for Him. However, 5000 years ago when these pastimes were enacted, the Brajabasis never used the word "Hindu" to describe themselves.

[Guest guest]

 

---again, the word "Hindu" was invented by the Muslims. It is not a Vedic word. Is it your desire that the Muslim invaders should have such control over your spiritual heritage that they should be allowed to name your religion?

 

 

 

The Hindu they are loving and serving Lord. Now the word Muslim is meaning servant of Lord. But still I am preferring other word for my religion than being called as the Muslim.

 

You are wearing lipstick and I am wearing bindu?

[Guest guest]

 

Hi M...k,

 

 

again, the word "Hindu" was invented by the Muslims. It is not a Vedic word. Is it your desire that the Muslim invaders should have such control over your spiritual heritage that they should be allowed to name your religion?

 

 

After running out of the usual stock of arguments, I see you are trying the patriotic angle. So is this the actual, hitherto unmentioned reason why Prabhupada disliked to be called hindu? Where did he disclose this? Or will you admit you are now making up your own wild reasons?

 

btw, who was the muslim who came up with this name for Indian religion? When did he/she live?

 

I see you disapprove of hindu because it is not a vedic [sic] word. Which veda defines the label Vaishnavism? Or 'Gaudiya Vaishnavism'?

 

Cheers

[Vaishnava_das108]

OK, first I would like to ask all the "Guests" to try and log in instead of iridiscently mentioning "shvu here" or "shashi speaking" and things like that. This is kind of annoying.

 

 

After running out of the usual stock of arguments, I see you are trying the patriotic angle. So is this the actual, hitherto unmentioned reason why Prabhupada disliked to be called hindu? Where did he disclose this? Or will you admit you are now making up your own wild reasons?

 

 

This fact about "Muslim invaders" is accepted by most Indological scholars, not just endorsed by Srila Prabhupada alone. Not that I have any quick references for the same, but I have personally spoken with many Indologists and they say the same thing.

 

 

I see you disapprove of hindu because it is not a vedic [sic] word. Which veda defines the label Vaishnavism? Or 'Gaudiya Vaishnavism'?

 

 

OK, fair point. The labels 'Vaishnavism' or 'Gaudiya Vaishnavism' are a westernisation naming of a predominantly Indian-based system of philosophy. There are many Puranas etc that mention 'Vaisnava,' so an extension of this word (even if a Western one) is perfectly alright.

[Guest guest]

 

OK, first I would like to ask all the "Guests" to try and log in instead of iridiscently mentioning "shvu here" or "shashi speaking" and things like that. This is kind of annoying.

 

 

It is just being one big pity you have not reading my earlier post explaining my reason as being "guest". That one post is in this same topic and it was acceptable to Madhavji. So your little comment here is a little annoying also particularly as you are not called as moderator so what for you are making such demands? It is only the good manners that I am ID myself in this situations as explained before. And so perhaps you may be having good manners also and not criticising my lowly ID herein. Thank you.

[Guest guest]

 

btw, who was the muslim who came up with this name for Indian religion? When did he/she live?

 

 

These are being very clever questions. Are the Hindu also?

 

Now the Muslim only began after the Mohammed in 6-7 centuries CE. But the river Sindhu (now being called Indus) was being known in the olden times as such much much before the Islams came to be. So this Sindhu is being very old preIslamic name for river from which the references of Hindu and Indus (and therefore India) is being derivated.

For all ancient peoples form West of India this was Sindhu River which was for them the first outstanding crossing into the Land of Rivers and the peoples therein was being called as Sindhus or Hindus and varients thereof.

 

This is being history. Also history is the question, What is the origin of the name "Sindhu"? Is it not Sanskritic?

 

Thank you for considering.

[theist]

Why is it so hard to accept that vaisnavism relates to the activity of the soul? Why this continued attempt to drag it down into the material whirlpool of mundane designations, like a country or a temporary religious process?

 

"Hindus" of all persuasions need to rise up to transcendence and engage in Vaisnavism. Same with Christians and Muslims.

 

 

[Vaishnava_das108]

No one is criticising your ID. I'm sure we would all prefer if you could take the time to login before you write. This is hardly an impossible task.

 

Many people have asked (on this and other threads) various "Guest" posters to use an ID. It is annoying that many guests come here (although they are welcome) and talk a lot, and we cannot tell which guest is which.

 

That said, how about responding to the rest of my points?

[Mxyzptlk]

After running out of the usual stock of arguments, I see you are trying the patriotic angle.

 

It's not so much that I've run out of arguments. It's just that we haven't progressed beyond ABC yet. I'm not the type who wishes to dance around and around in circles, especially without first arriving at a mutual understanding of certain basic points. As far as employing the "patriotic angle", actually I was attempting to emphasize and elucidate the historical facts of the origin of the word "Hindu", which thus far appears to be something which you have brushed aside and refuse to accept, perhaps because you consider me a lowly Westerner who is not qualified to comment on such matters? (Yes, I am a lowly Westerner, but my Gurudeva most certainly is not.)

 

So is this the actual, hitherto unmentioned reason why Prabhupada disliked to be called hindu?

 

No. It is a secondary reason. The primary reasons have already been presented several times.

 

Or will you admit you are now making up your own wild reasons?

 

Wild? I am sorry, but that is rather weak, if not a bit harsh. If you disagree with certain historical facts relevant to the topic at hand, there is no need to accuse me of being "wild."

 

btw, who was the muslim who came up with this name for Indian religion? When did he/she live?

 

His name? John Jacob Jingleheimer Smith. He lived from 641 AD to 713 AD. He had a cute little kitty cat named "fluffy-wabbit", who was his very dear companion for many years. Later, he had been through a desert with a horse with no name. There were plants and birds and rocks and things. There was sand and hills and rings. You see, the ocean is a desert with it's life underground and a perfect disguise above. Under the cities lies a heart made of ground, but the humans will give no love. In the desert you can remember your name, for there ain't anyone for to give you no pain. When he reached the edge of the desert, it felt good to be out of the rain, (John Jacob and his horse with no name.) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I see you disapprove of hindu because it is not a vedic [sic] word.

 

It's not really that I disapprove. By all means please feel free to consider yourself a Hindu. I respect and admire most Hindu people. I desire to take birth in India in my next life, if I am so fortunate. My disagreement is with some of you referring to Srila Bhaktivenda Swami Prabhupada as a "Hindu" when he specifically said that he was not. He was the one who disapproved, (although he didn't really seem to make a huge issue out of it.) At any rate, being a paramahamsa Vaishnava, he was transcendental to all temporary bodily and mental designations, and hoped that one day we could all transcend as well.

[Guest guest]

You are really not listening at all. I asked you to be aware of an EARLIER post in this topic wherein I am explaining why I cannot be logging in. Still you are persisting in your blind pursuit. Please be reading first the other posts here on this points before harassing me further, OK? Good.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mixitlipstick

You have totally bilkul missed my latest desertations of the derivations from River Sindhu to arrive at Hindu and Indus. I am make this point earlier. You are simply regurgitating the half baked history. It is being indigestible for you as it is being half baked. As I am telling you already the term Sindhu and the dreivations therefrom are older than Mohammed but you are not listening.

India is too complex for you and you are preferring the simplistic formulas. It is like the Bhakti is too complex for some with too many aspects of Lord in his BrajLIla and too many Gopis and too many Gopeshwaras (Shivas) and Gopi Manjaris and so some are preferring the simplistic meging inthe light. They are wanting the sacred to be a neat little bundles for their sweaty hands to grasp. But the holy life cannot be grasped so neatly. It will not be fitting so plomply. When Lord is coming you will be the misfit and nobody will understand you.

 

Thesitji, moo to you, are you listening also.