SB 10.10.5 – Curses and Blessings

Giriraj Swami:

[SB 10.10.5]

yadṛcchayā ca devarṣir
bhagavāṁs tatra kaurava
apaśyan nārado devau
kṣībāṇau samabudhyata

TRANSLATION

O Mahārāja Parīkṣit, by some auspicious opportunity for the two boys, the great saint Devarṣi Nārada once appeared there by chance. Seeing them intoxicated, with rolling eyes, he could understand their situation.

PURPORT by Srila Prabhupada

It is said:

‘sādhu-saṅga,’ ‘sādhu-saṅga’ — sarva-śāstre kaya
lava-mātra sādhu-saṅge sarva-siddhi haya

(Cc. Madhya 22.54)

Wherever Nārada Muni goes, any moment at which he appears is understood to be extremely auspicious. It is also said:

brahmāṇḍa bhramite kona bhāgyavān jīva
guru-kṛṣṇa-prasāde pāya bhakti-latā-bīja

“According to their karma, all living entities are wandering throughout the entire universe. Some of them are being elevated to the upper planetary systems, and some are going down into the lower planetary systems. Out of many millions of wandering living entities, one who is very fortunate gets an opportunity to associate with a bona fide spiritual master by the grace of Kṛṣṇa. By the mercy of both Kṛṣṇa and the spiritual master, such a person receives the seed of the creeper of devotional service.” (Cc. Madhya 19.151) Nārada appeared in the garden to give the two sons of Kuvera the seed of devotional service, even though they were intoxicated. Saintly persons know how to bestow mercy upon the fallen souls.

COMMENT

This verse begins with the word yadṛcchayā. The same word appears in many places in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other scriptures, and our previous acharyas have commented on it. A similar, related word appears in the Fifth Chapter of the First Canto, also in relation to Devarṣi Narada. Narada had taken birth as the son of a maidservant. The maidservant happened to serve some sages during the rainy season, and the young boy got to eat the remnants of their food and hear their talks about Krishna. By the mercy of those saintly persons, the young boy ultimately became the great sage Narada. And Narada, with his transcendental stringed instrument, the vina, now travels throughout the universe, yādṛcchikaḥ, by his own sweet will. He is free to travel anywhere and everywhere as he desires.

sūta uvāca
evaṁ sambhāṣya bhagavān
nārado vāsavī-sutam
āmantrya vīṇāṁ raṇayan
yayau yādṛcchiko muniḥ

“Thus addressing Vyāsadeva, Śrīla Nārada Muni took leave of him, and vibrating on his vīṇā instrument, he left to wander at his free will.” (SB 1.6.37)

In the purport, Srila Prabhupada comments that devotional service by nature is free. One may get it or one may not. Similarly, the association of devotees is also free. One may be fortunate to get it or one may not. The main point of devotional service is freedom, and one who surrenders to Krishna becomes eternally free.

In Mādhurya Kaḍambinī, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura discusses the question of how a conditioned soul gets the seed of devotional service. And he proposes different explanations. One suggestion is that one gets devotional service by pious activities (śubha-karma), but that proposal is rejected because devotional service is beyond karma and jnana (anyābhilāṣitā-śūnyaṁ jñāna-karmādy-anāvṛtam). No amount of material pious activity can earn one devotional service, because devotional service is beyond karma and jnana, etc.

Then Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura proposes that one may get devotional service by the causeless mercy of Krishna. But that cannot be the explanation, because Krishna must be equal to everyone. He is the father of all living entities. As the father of all living beings, He must be equal to all of His children, so He could not show partiality by giving bhakti to some of His children and not others?

Then Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura proposes that one may get devotional service by the mercy of the devotee. Now here too one may raise the objection that devotees also are supposed to be equal to everyone, so how could the devotee show mercy to one person and not to another? Here Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura quotes from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.2.46), prema-maitrī-kṛpopekṣā yaḥ karoti sa madhyamaḥ: the madhyam-bhakta exhibits love to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, friendship to other devotees, mercy to the innocent, and neglect to envious. So the madhyam- Vaishnavas, who in particular are preachers (and even uttamā Vaishnavas, who when they preach come to the madhyam platform or adopt the mood of a madhyam Vaishnava), do distinguish: they give mercy to the innocent and not to the envious.

Then Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says that when the devotee chooses to give mercy to someone, the Supreme Lord’s mercy will follow. Here again we come to the question of partiality, that the Supreme Lord is partial to His devotees: because His devotee wants to give mercy to someone, the Lord will follow and give His mercy. Here Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura admits that the Supreme Lord is partial to His devotees, but he says that the Lord’s affection for His devotees is not a fault; it is an attribute. And he uses two words in Sanskrit. He says the Lord’s partiality or affection for His devotees is not a dūṣaṇam, a fault or bad thing, but rather is a bhūṣaṇam, an ornament that enhances all His other qualities.

In his discussion, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura had begun with the word yadṛcchayā, “independent, by one’s own sweet will.” As the all-spiritual energy of Krishna, it is as independent as the Lord. Thus bhakti is free to manifest itself—or not manifest itself—according to its own sweet will. In other words, bhakti comes from bhakti—bhaktyā sañjātayā bhaktyā (SB 11.3.31). Now, even accepting that the devotee’s mercy is the cause of bhakti, the cause of that mercy is the bhakti in the devotee’s heart. Because the devotee has bhakti in his or her heart, he or she may desire to give bhakti to someone else. Thus, the independent, self-manifesting nature of bhakti is confirmed. So, yadṛcchayā.

Sometimes yadṛcchayā is translated as “somehow or other.” Also in the Eleventh Canto of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam there is a discussion about what makes someone eligible to receive devotional service, and that verse also begins with yadṛcchayā. Somehow or other if one gets the association of devotees and hears about Krishna from them, develops faith and attraction for Krishna’s messages, and is not attached or too detached, that person can take to devotional service.

yadṛcchayā mat-kathādau
jāta-śraddhas tu yaḥ pumān
na nirviṇṇo nāti-sakto
bhakti-yogo ‘sya siddhi-daḥ

“If somehow or other by good fortune one develops faith in hearing and chanting My glories, such a person, being neither disgusted with nor very much attached to material life, should achieve perfection through the path of loving devotion to Me.” (SB 11.20.8)

This is a very big question—what makes someone eligible for devotional service? So, yadṛcchayā, somehow or other, if one gets the association of devotees and in their association hears about Krishna and develops faith and attraction for His messages, and is neither too attached or too detached, that person is eligible to engage in devotional service.

Now, what is the significance of “not too attached or too detached"? We all know that it is bad to be attached to material things, but what about being too detached? This section of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam explains that those who are too materially attached and inclined to material enjoyment are suited for karma-yoga. And those who are too detached, who are disgusted with material life and averse to material enjoyment, are suited to jnana-yoga, or negativity. So those who are too attached will make a positive effort—of course, it is illusory—but they will make a positive effort to attain material objects and material enjoyment. And those who are too detached, who are averse to material things and material enjoyment, will go for jnana-yoga and negation, neti neti, “not this, not that,” the analytical process of rejecting the material world.

Bhakti is a matter of the heart. The heart of a devotee is soft, and the process of bhakti, of hearing and chanting about Krishna, is meant to soften the heart. If we perform artificial austerities or false renunciation, they can make the heart hard. And too much material enjoyment can also make the heart hard. Therefore, we are not after material enjoyment or material negation. We just want to serve Krishna, to hear and chant about Krishna.

Once, Srila Prabhupada told an interesting story about when he asked a question of his Guru Maharaja. He began that Rupa Gosvami left everything for the service of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu—his lucrative service, his post as minister—tyāga. And Ramananda Raya, who was a governor and a householder, lived in great material opulence—bhoga. Both were devotees of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. “So what is the difference?” he asked. Rupa Gosvami lived as a renunciant with practically no possessions. He dressed in a loincloth and would sleep under a different tree every night. Still, both were accepted equally by Lord Chaitanya. So, he was raising the question of bhoga and tyāga.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura gave a striking answer. He used the word proṣita bhārtṛkā. Proṣita bhārtṛkā refers to a wife when her husband is away. When the husband is away, the wife will wear very plain clothes. She won’t decorate herself or comb her hair. She will lie down and sleep on the floor, and she will live in a very austere and renounced way. When people see her they can understand, “Oh, her husband is away.” And the same woman, when her husband is at home, will bathe twice daily, apply oil to her body, change her dress, wear beautiful clothing, and decorate herself in a very attractive way. But in both cases the central point is the husband. If the husband is away she will live in that renounced way, and if the husband is present she will act in that sort of lively way. But in both situations the central point is the husband; there is no difference. So bhoga-tyāga is not a consideration.

Thus, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura explained (and Srila Prabhupada explained to us) that as devotees we are not interested either in bhoga or tyāga. We are interested only in Krishna and Krishna’s service. For the sake of Krishna’s service we can give up everything, like the Gosvamis. And for the sake of Krishna’s service we can accept any opulent position, like the governor. We are not really interested either in bhoga or tyāga. We are interested only in Krishna’s service.

Srila Rupa Gosvami, in discussing eligibility for devotional service in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, has quoted this verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (yadṛcchayā), which says that one should not be too attached, too inclined toward bhoga, or too detached, too inclined toward tyāga. One should just go in the direction of Krishna consciousness, follow that initial faith and attraction for Krishna consciousness.

In the present narration from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the two sons of Kuvera were involved in bhoga, material enjoyment. And because they were so intoxicated and enamored by their own personal beauty and by the beautiful ladies with whom they were enjoying, they could not appreciate the appearance of Sri Narada. They were so puffed up with false prestige and so intoxicated with their material opulence—and with whatever intoxicating substances they had imbibed—that they felt no shame. They did not cover themselves or offer any respect to Narada. They just carried on in their own merry way.

So Narada thought, “How can I help these boys? They are obviously in a very fallen condition.” He did not become offended like an ordinary person: “Oh, why didn’t they show me respect? Don’t they know who I am?” Rather, he was thinking, “Oh, these poor fellows are hopelessly lost in sense gratification. What can I do to help them?” Then he considered, “Because of their material opulence they have become so proud and so entangled in material enjoyment. The best cure for their disease, the best remedy for their particular situation, is to take away their opulence—for it was their opulence that has so intoxicated them.” And so, as the story unfolds, Narada acts in such a way as to deprive them of their opulence. Superficially one could say that Narada cursed them, but actually he blessed them, because their material opulence was a curse. Their material opulence was a great obstacle to their spiritual development. Thus Narada’s apparent curse was actually a blessing, because by being freed from their material opulence and enjoyment (bhoga) they became open to Krishna consciousness, which is the real benefit of life, especially human life.

Therefore Srila Prabhupada says that saintly persons know how to bestow mercy upon fallen souls. Sometimes people are just so intoxicated with material enjoyment that they have to be deprived of their material opulence. And Lord Krishna says the same: yasyāham anugṛhṇāmi hariṣye tad-dhanaṁ śanaiḥ. If someone wants to engage in devotional service but is unable to do so fully because of material attachments, then Lord Krishna, out of His special mercy, will take away the person’s material opulence so the person will be free to engage fully in devotional service. Lord Krishna certainly also knows how to give mercy, and sometimes He takes away a person’s opulence. Similarly, saintly persons also know how to give mercy.

Some people who know about this type of mercy try to avoid Krishna consciousness because they are afraid: “I’m going to end up poverty-stricken.” But sometimes Krishna acts the other way. Sometimes the spiritual master acts the other away.

One famous example is Sudama Vipra. Sudama Brahmana was Lord Krishna’s classmate in the gurukula, and they had many pastimes together in the ashrama of their spiritual master, Sandipani Muni. After they graduated from the gurukula, Lord Krishna went on to become the prince of Dvaraka and Sudama Vipra ended up living as a very poor brahman. Very poor. He maintained his life with whatever came of its own accord, and both he and his wife were thin from not eating enough. One day when Sudama’s wife was unable to offer him any food, she implored him, “You are friends with Krishna. Why don’t you go to Him? He will do something for you.” Sudama Vipra was not at all materialistic. Although he had no desire to approach Krishna for material gain, he did consider that the association of Lord Krishna would be the greatest attainment in life. So he agreed, “Yes, I will go.”

Sudama wanted to bring an offering to Lord Krishna, so he asked his wife what he could carry. Sudama’s wife then begged four handfuls of flat rice—the most meager of provisions. Then Sudama traveled by foot to Dvaraka and eventually arrived at the palace of one of Krishna’s queens.

When Lord Krishna saw the brahman in the distance, He immediately rushed to greet him. He embraced His dear friend and shed tears of ecstatic love. Because Sudama was a brahman and Lord Krishna was playing the part of a kshatriya, Krishna invited him into His palace to honor him. He seated him on His bedstead and personally washed his feet and offered him all sorts of desirable articles in worship. Sudama felt so ashamed of the meager gift he had brought for Krishna that he decided not to present it. But Lord Krishna snatched the bundle of flat rice from Sudama’s garment and exclaimed, “What is this you have brought for Me? These few grains of flat rice will satisfy not only Me but the entire universe.” Then Lord Krishna ate one palm full of the rice. When He was about to eat a second, Queen Rukmini, the goddess of fortune, restrained Him: “This much is more than enough to award him great opulence in this life and the next.” She hinted that if Lord Krishna ate one more handful, she would be obliged to completely surrender herself to the brahman Sudama.

Sudama never asked Krishna for anything, nor did Krishna offer him anything substantial. Thus Sudama departed for his home, all along the way thinking of Lord Krishna’s kindness to him in Dvaraka. And he considered that the compassionate Lord had not given him even one cent, because if a poor man like Sudama suddenly became rich, he would become intoxicated by material happiness and false pride and thus forget Krishna. When Sudama finally reached his home, he saw that instead of his humble cottage there was a magnificent palace filled with all sorts of opulent furniture and servants, surrounded by gardens with lakes and all sorts of beautiful birds and flowers. He was struck with wonder. Then he concluded that Lord Krishna surely must have blessed him with His merciful glance.

So sometimes Krishna does bestow material opulence upon a devotee, and sometimes He takes it away. Both are meant to encourage the devotee in Krishna consciousness. Here Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura gives the example of a parent, who will always do what is best for the child. Sometimes the parent gives the child candies, sometimes bitter medicine. But all are for the benefit of the child. Sometimes the parent may hug and kiss the child, and sometimes he or she may scold or spank the child, but in either case, whatever the parent does (in the ideal) is done with love for the child, for the benefit of the child. So Krishna is not interested, in and of itself, to give or withdraw opulence. He is interested only that His children should become happy, should become Krishna conscious. He knows that outside Krishna consciousness they cannot be happy, and so He wants that they become Krishna conscious. And when the devotee is mature enough, he or she also has no interest in bhoga or tyāga, in material enjoyment or renunciation. The devotee also has only one interest, and that is Krishna and Krishna’s service—Krishna consciousness.

So Krishna and Krishna’s devotees know how to give mercy. In some cases the mercy may come in the form of taking the person’s opulence away, as in the case of the two sons of Kuvera, and sometimes the mercy may come in the form of offering the person some material facility. (In India, for example, there was sometimes a shortage of food—poverty. And Srila Prabhupada offered, “They can come to us and we will give them a nice place to stay and good prasāda to eat. All they have to do is become devotees.") Somehow, aspiring devotees should not be too attached or too averse, and preachers, in order to help candidates become eligible for devotional service, will act to break their false attachments to the material world, as well as their false detachment (if you want to call that detachment)—their false attachment to artificial austerities and renunciation—so that they can receive the real boon of life, which is pure devotional service.

Hare Krishna.

Badrinarayan dasa: You gave the nice example of Rupa Gosvami and Ramananda Raya and how Lord Chaitanya dealt with them equally. I can understand Rupa Gosvami and his austerities. Why was Ramananda Raya, even though he was acting as a governor, obliged to accept opulence and act in that role? He still could have. . . just like we have Canakya Pandita, who was living austerely. Why does a devotee have to live opulently? He can live austerely. Where is the obligation to do that side of the coin?

Giriraj Swami: In the First Canto of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Srila Prabhupada explains that to rule, one needs opulence. He needs to have a palace and servants and an army. He needs that show of strength to subdue the citizens.

What you said about Canakya Pandita is true, but he was a brahman. He was the advisor to the king. But the king was a kshatriya, and he had to maintain his position with a show of opulence.

Badrinarayan dasa: I accept that. My other question was. . . Now you gave the nice example of Sudama Brahmana and how Krishna deals differently with different people. He doesn’t always take opulence away. So, any hint on what the calculation is? You were saying that some people don’t want to take to devotional service because they’re afraid that Krishna may take their opulence away. So is there any preemptive calculation of whom He takes away from and whom He gives to, so one can determine whether to engage in devotional service or not, and one can determine the result?

Giriraj Swami: That is a very good question, and in fact I was going to touch on that point, but as the discussion went I didn’t. Fortunately, you have brought it up now.

This very same issue comes up in the pastime of Vamanadeva and Bali Maharaja. (In four days we shall celebrate Vamanadeva’s appearance day.) So, Bali Maharaja had conquered the universe. And according to the rule, because he had conquered by his own strength, he had the right to enjoy what he had won. So Vamana did not want to take it away by force—although He could have. Rather, He took it away by asking for charity. He appeared as a young brahman and begged some charity from Bali Maharaja. Now, Bali was very charitably inclined toward the brahmans. In fact, he had been successful in his campaigns because he had been charitable to brahmans and they had given him their mercy. So he agreed to give in charity what Vamana asked.

There is an elaborate discussion in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and Srila Prabhupada explains further in his purports that when Krishna is pleased with some devotees He takes away their opulence. Bali Maharaja was attached to his kingdom, and because of his material pursuits he could not really surrender to Krishna. But when he surrendered to the Lord and was relieved of his opulence, he was able to develop a most intimate relationship with the Lord. In the end, Vamanadeva gave Bali Maharaja his own planet and personally accepted the position of Bali Maharaja’s doorman and constant companion. He further granted that in the future Bali would attain the position of Indra, a position Bali had converted throughout his exploits.

The Lord explained to Bali and the others with him that when one becomes maddened by material opulence and defies all authority—even the Lord’s—the Lord favors him by taking away his possessions. But when someone in spite of all opulences remains humble, considering that whatever wealth he has attained is due to the Lord’s mercy, and engages whatever he has in the Lord’s service, he has truly received the Lord’s favor. Thus, Srila Prabhupada concludes, “One’s being deprived of his wealth is not to be considered the special mercy of the Lord. If one continues in his opulent position but does not become unnecessarily proud, falsely thinking that he is the proprietor of everything, this is the Lord’s special mercy.” (SB 8.22.26 p) So yes, it is the Lord’s special mercy to take away the devotee’s opulence so that he can surrender more fully. But when a devotee is truly surrendered and ready to use all opulence in the service of the Lord and not for his own enjoyment, then the Lord gives even greater mercy by allowing to the devotee all opulence, knowing that the devotee will use it in the Lord’s service, in Krishna consciousness.

Srila Prabhupada even said of himself, “In the beginning Krishna tested me by taking everything away, and in the end He tested me by giving me everything.” Krishna could give Srila Prabhupada everything because Srila Prabhupada used everything in Krishna’s service. But sometimes when we get some facility—though nothing like what Srila Prabhupada had—it goes to our heads and we start to think that we are the Lord of the universe and want to control and enjoy. But if we are fully committed to using whatever we have in Krishna’s service, or in other words, if we do not consider that anything that comes to us is ours but are conscious that everything is Krishna’s and is meant to be used in Krishna’s service, then Krishna may go on giving us more and more.

Badrinarayan dasa: So we could say that the taking away is a temporary curative state and that once we are cleansed and purified, then Krishna reciprocates? His natural inclination is to award, but the removal is a temporary curative state?

Giriraj Swami: If a devotee is not blessed with material opulence, is it a sign that he is not cured of desires to own and enjoy? It may be, depending on the devotee’s situation. In our case, where we are preaching in Kali-yuga, we may need material facility. As Srila Prabhupada said of himself, “I could sit under a tree in Mayapur, but who would come to hear me?” So he built very palatial buildings there. But we cannot conclude, for example, that because Rupa Gosvami was not completely cured in the end he did not get opulence, because his role was different. His mission was different.

Badrinarayan dasa: Yes, depending on the role.

Giriraj Swami: Yes. Our mission, following Srila Prabhupada, often involves offering material facilities to guests so that they will come and hear the message of Krishna. Thus Krishna has given Badrinarayana Prabhu and all of you this opulent temple! Hare Krishna.

Mahat-tattva dasa: Maharaja, wasn’t Ramananda Raya a sudra (in regard to Badrinayana Prabhu’s first question)?

Giriraj Swami: Although technically he was a sudra, he was acting as a governor. Because he was from a sudra class and was under the king, in service to the king, he was considered a sudra. Today the head of the US army would also be considered a sudra because he holds a job and is paid a salary. Still, he has to have all of the opulence and paraphernalia and that will make people feel, “Yes, he is the head of the army.”

So, he was the governor of Madras. And that was why Lord Chaitanya was cautious—not so much because he was a sudra. Lord Chaitanya gave His mercy freely to everyone. But because Ramananda Raya was a politician, He was especially cautious.

Lilamanjari dasi: Every morning we glorify the devotees by offering our respectful obeisances to them, and then we recite the translation. In this translation we say they “are just like desire trees, who can fulfill the desires of everyone.” I am wondering how is this that the devotees fulfill the desires of everyone?

Giriraj Swami: Good question. She says that every morning we offer respects to the devotees and we say that they fulfill the desires of everyone. So how does the devotee fulfill the desires of everyone?

Well, the ultimate desire of everyone is to serve Krishna. Jīvera ‘svarūpa’ haya – kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’: The constitutional position of the living entity is to be the eternal servant of Krishna. Therefore the devotees act to give Krishna consciousness to everyone, to fulfill their hearts’ deepest desire.

Even then, as we have read, sometimes the devotee will take away the person’s opulence. But in most cases, as long as a devotee was enthusiastic to serve, Srila Prabhupada would fulfill the devotee’s desire—not in terms of gross, physical objects, but if a devotee wanted to be a big leader and was sufficiently qualified, Srila Prabhupada would give them a chance. If someone wanted to be an artist, Srila Prabhupada would give them the chance. If someone wanted to be a cook, Srila Prabhupada would give them the chance.

But there are always variations. Sometimes a child might want a sweet, but we do not give the sweet; we give medicine, and it may be bitter. But the heart’s deepest desire is to serve Krishna, and devotees always act to fulfill that desire.

Ksudhi dasa: Maharaja, you’ve given a nice explanation. Maybe you can elaborate on this: Sometimes we think that things being taken away may become an impediment, if one’s health becomes bad or if we don’t get some opulence, whereas it seems that the impediment is not what you have or don’t have, because the opulence is Krishna consciousness. The example here is that sometimes a person has little money, so he thinks, “Well, I better not take intoxication, since I have little money.” But the person who has a lot of money and opulence thinks, “Somehow or other, I can get away with this.” But the example in the pastime here shows that even if someone has a lot of opulence, if they take intoxication, it takes control of you and you are not in control of what you do next, regardless of what you have and who you are.

Giriraj Swami: That is a good point. People who have material opulence think that because they have money they are free to enjoy. But actually they become slaves to their bad habits. So we come back to the point that by nature we are servants and that although a rich person might imagine that he is independent and is master, actually he is not. He is the servant of his senses, servant of his lust, servant of his anger, servant of his greed. So better to be servant of Krishna.

Therefore we pray:

kuverātmajau baddha-mūrtyaiva yadvat
tvayā mocitau bhakti-bhājau kṛtau ca
tathā prema-bhaktiṁ svakāṁ me prayaccha
na mokṣe graho me ‘sti dāmodareha

“O Lord Damodara, just as the two sons of Kuvera—Manigriva and Nalakuvara—were delivered from the curse of Narada and made into great devotees by You in Your form as a baby tied to a wooden grinding mortar, in the same way, please give me Your own prema-bhakti. I long for this alone and have no desire for any kind of liberation.” (Sri Dāmodarāṣṭakam 7, from the Padma Purāṇa)

Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.