The One Most Important Thing About Life
Acharya Prashant: Namaste Gauriji, can you see me? Hear me?
Questioner: Yes. The fellows and the entire team of People for Animals Public Policy Foundation, People for Animals-Uttarakhand, they’re all here.
Acharya Prashant: Wonderful.
Questioner: And eagerly waiting to hear you.
Acharya Prashant: Wonderful. So, let’s begin.
Questioner: Yeah. First of all, my deepest gratitude that you could take out time today, to address a very like-minded group of people here. We align with the values that you are so known for teaching the masses, and we are struggling to get the same message across. So, I think this will be a great interaction. To our team, we’d just like to introduce you in a moment. So, guys, Acharya Ji is basically, he’s a very learned fellow, very well educated, much more than me and much more than so many of you. He left all of his worldly and his corporate job, and everything because he wanted to; in his search for wisdom, that’s what my understanding is. And that he has not only attained it, but he is sharing it widely.
The wisdom that our civilization basically nurtured, and has continued on. And, that we are now somehow forgetting; is something that is his mission and his NGO’s mission that is called Prashant Advait Foundation. He’s also an author, a very widely read author and a very widely heard teacher. And at this time, you all have done your homework on him. So, you probably know and have seen his wide following in the country. He’s also a very celebrated vegan. And while we are all ethical vegans, that’s where a point of convergence that I see, and that we understand from him, how our message is sort of based in logic, but is very misunderstood, understood by very few, neglected, just a small, very tiny echo chamber we’ve got, where we keep talking about it but the general masses probably.
We’ll explore ways with him, and understand from his wisdom — how to fine tune our message, so that it goes out in a powerful way. And people are able to see what is absolutely there in front of us, which is an inevitable future, if there has to be a future for this planet. But we just keep avoiding it. We just think in very myopic terms. And a lot of people don’t even entertain the thought of being a vegetarian, let alone being a vegan. So those arguments keep coming to us. And while we give our own very emotional arguments, we would love to learn from Acharya Ji how he handles such thoughts, and such arguments.
And how we can make our mission a little more powerful, our mission of making the world a little more compassionate? And I just stated once, “It’s not just because we like animals, we are a team of people, Acharya ji, who are not only just people who like animals, or who love animals, or who like to cuddle animals, or we feel very emotionally about them, but we are people who are fighting for justice!’ And I think there cannot be a higher justice, than actually abolishing speciesism, than abolishing just looking at all life in the same manner, that we feel is the justice that we wish to sort of communicate. So, it’s for the good of everyone. Not just the good of one dog or one elephant or one bird, but for the good of everyone! So, we’d love to know your thoughts on Veganism first and likewise.
Acharya Prashant: First of all, Gauriji has been just too generous in introducing me. Like you all, I am just a fellow struggler, far from successful. I understand that in the shared mission that we have, you face daily obstacles. So do I, and my friends and my team here. So, it’s much the same story, same challenge and same pain. And that brings me to, how do I address the whole point of Veganism? Same story, same challenge, same pain. That’s where the Vegan story begins! You see, who are we? And this is not just to construct an argument in favor of Veganism. This is our reality. This is our existential fact.
Who are we? We are creatures of consciousness. And if; we are not conscious then we are not human. That’s not just rhetorical, metaphorical, that’s even biological and social; is it not? Your consciousness goes a bit awry, and you are dispatched to an asylum. All your other bodily functions are just okay, you might not even be harming somebody, and yet you are not considered fit to live among normal, that is — conscious people. Which means to be a normal human is to be a conscious human. Same applies to sick people. Your body functions might still be holding up, but if there is very little probability of you ever behaving in a conscious way, you ever becoming mentally functional like a normal human being, then, well, euthanasia is not too far away, even the family interest drops.
And if you were to be told about such a possibility, in the future regarding your own health, your own body, you too would probably say that if it comes to that, “Please don’t drag me on. Let me go.” What does that mean? That simply means that life is consciousness, and life without consciousness is not worth living! It’s as simple as that! And it is not something you have to convince somebody on. It is an obvious fact. It is an obvious fact. A fact that applies to all living forms. But when it comes to human beings, this fact applies even more starkly. Why? Because, we think, we ideate, we have a language, we structure, and we are people who are not satisfied. We want to reach a particular point called — peace or liberation or fulfillment. We all have that, right? And that’s why human beings have far too many desires compared to other living beings.
All living forms have desires. But look at the desires of Homo sapiens, we exceed them all by many times. So, our existence is a conscious existence, not just biological. We are not pieces of meat, loafs of flesh just walking around. We have a purpose of life. And that purpose of life is to come to, as we just said, a particular peace or realization or fulfillment, simply put —satisfaction. So, the existence itself is related to consciousness, right? Consciousness! Now, the consciousness that we are; keeps changing its subject, its stuff, that which it is attached to, that which it is busy with, all that thing keeps changing, right? Right now, I’m, for example, addressing you all here, right now you are listening to me. An hour or two later, something else would occupy your consciousness. And the same applies to me. So, the stuff of consciousness would change, but consciousness remains, right? And it is not the stuff that we value. Are we together on this? It is not the stuff that is so valuable. It is consciousness that is valuable.
How do two people differ? When we take two human beings to begin with; we’ll come to other living forms then, how do two people differ? They differ in the stuff of their consciousness, right? Not in the fact of consciousness itself. And we just said, a couple of sentences back that, “The stuff is not all that important. What is important is the very fact of consciousness, not the object of consciousness.” So, consciousness itself is important. And what separates one person from the other; is simply that the two people have different priorities, varying ideas and different things to take care of or be attached to, be occupied with and all that, right?
But the fact that they both have something to live for — is a shared reality, which means consciousness is what is supreme! Consciousness is what makes us alive and equally, consciousness is what we live for!
Now, extending the argument to animals, the stuff of their consciousness is definitely different. We might be thinking of discoveries, inventions, literature, art. Animals don’t think of that. And if they do, we do not know of that. At least they don’t think of these things in the way that we do, right? From our point of view. So, the stuff of their consciousness is different, but they are conscious. And the fundamental cravings that we have, are very much alike to theirs, is it not so? In terms of thought and the content of thought, obviously we are very different. We are different from each other and we are very different when it comes to other species.
But when it comes to the very fundamentals of life, are we not all one, think of it? We do so many things. What is the fundamental tendency driving the various things that we do? For example, the tendency to secure a future. The tendency to just live on. Schopenhauer was – “The will to live.” “The will to just continue.” That, he said, is the basic human existential tendency. I’m asking, “Don’t animals have that tendency?” At the root of all consciousness; is the will to survive and continue. We don’t want to die; the animals, too, don’t want to die, right? We feel pain, we suffer; so do animals. The reasons might be very different. Often the reasons are, in fact, not too different. Separate a human mother from her baby and you see the suffering. It’s very apparent. Separate a cow from her calf, and the suffering is much the same.
So, the fundamentals of consciousness we share with animals; to some extent, to a lesser extent, we share those things even with plants. And if we want to go deeper than that, then even with organisms that have just a few tissues, basic, or just even a single cell, like an amoeba or a paramecium, the will to continue living is found there as well. If you attack an amoeba, it has ways to survive, and it wants to prolong its existence into eternity by reproducing. And it has its own peculiar way of reproduction. The same things that we do. Outwardly, there is so much that we have created and that looks so spectacular, and so different from the jungle kingdom. But inwardly, at our core, don’t we all have the same desires, the same tendencies that animals have? Isn't the very core of consciousness the same?
And it is consciousness, the maximization of consciousness, the liberation of consciousness, that is also the purpose of life. Which means that a conscious entity has to be looked at with respect, with a certain love. If you want liberation of consciousness, how can you hurt another conscious being? Especially when you know that it is the stuff of consciousness that differs, not consciousness itself? If your own consciousness is worthy of being taken care of, being nurtured, and being liberated, how can the same consciousness, when seen in another living being be abominable, negotiable, violable; the same thing when I see it in my own self, if it is respectable, it will remain respectable even if it is seen in somebody else’s self, right?
If I really want to eliminate suffering, then suffering is what I want to eliminate, not just my own suffering. Because as long as I keep saying, “My own suffering.” This ‘my own’ itself remains the cause of suffering.
This localization of consciousness itself is the limitation, and the constraint, and the bane of consciousness. I want to be happy, right? We all want to be happy. Why are we unable to be happy? Because we want to be happy at the cost of others. So, I want to say, “I want to be happy, and I want to have my own happiness.” So, this, my own, is what prevents true happiness from coming to me. A very localized and limited and individualized happiness is what I want! “I don’t want happiness. If I want happiness, it would be an impersonal happiness that I would share with as many beings as possible.” So, if consciousness is my goal, or happiness is my goal, or freedom from suffering is my goal, and I’m true to my goal, then I’ll want these same things for others.
And if I want these things only for myself, then I cannot have them even for myself! That’s a rule! If you want these things, these best of things that life can offer only for yourself, then you will not have them even for yourself. But if you want them for everybody, then you will have it for yourself as well! So, if I want my happiness at the cost of somebody’s life, the thing is, the poor thing will lose its life and I won’t even get what I want to get, at the cost of his life. So, it’s a double whammy. Nobody gains anything, no emotions involved. It is just mathematically a loss-making proposition. It’s simply bad existential economics. “I wanted happiness by consuming that other person, or animal.” That’s what we want, right? Otherwise, there is no need to hurt the other. So, I hurt the other. Thinking that happiness is a zero-sum game I throw sadness upon you. I inflict suffering upon you and wishfully I think that will give me happiness. Happiness to my consciousness.
There’s a problem there. You are trying to violate an inviolable rule. It’s a rule of existence, Prakriti that these things cannot be had in isolation. That you cannot have these things only for yourself. These are the most subtle gifts of living that cannot come to an individualized person. Money you can have for yourself. I understand. It’s your bank account, and if it’s deposited in that account, it belongs only to you. Nobody else can ever say. But when it comes to liberation, it can never be personal. When it comes to real happiness, that is joy, it can never be personal.
Money can be a zero-sum game. I snatched RS.100 from you. You lost a hundred, I gained a hundred. The sum is zero. The same cannot be applied to happiness. “I cannot take your life and enhance mine.” “If you have lost your life, in the bargain, I too have lost mine.” Equally, “If I can enhance your life, I have enhanced mine.” We are inseparably connected and the name of the connecting tissue is — “Consciousness.” That’s what we share! We all! And in that there is no zero-sum arithmetic. If you lose, so do I. If you gain, so do I.
So that day I was in Rishikesh and after the camp, there was this little puppy. And we posted a pic, “Me and the pup.” And along with that we wrote a little caption from my favorite saint poet -
yeh tan vah tan ak heain, Ak pran dui gaat Acharya Prashantnea ji se janiye, mare ji ki baat. kabirdas
So, this body and that body are actually the same. The pran is the same. Pran here refers to consciousness. Gaat means body. Ek pran dui gaat. The bodies appear different, but the life is the same. Life means consciousness. Ek pran dui gaat. Two bodies, but the consciousness is just the same. So that’s what you hurt the other, you are hurting yourself. It’s not even a matter of emotion, it’s not even a matter of sympathy. People won’t understand, even if you call it empathy.
Have to help them see, you kill the other, and you are killing your own possibility of joy, fulfillment, liberation. Don’t you want that? In some sense — The chicken is gone. It won’t suffer anymore. But you have condemned yourself to enhanced future suffering by just doing what you did! It’s bad! You disrespect the consciousness there, and you have disrespected your own consciousness. And if you disrespect your consciousness, how will you ever bring it to fulfillment? Am I too abstract? What are the friends saying? Are they feeling disconnected? I don’t know.
Questioner: I’m certainly not. Because I’ll tell you something here, when I first went to the Parliament for the very first time, and I was just like a tourist walking around, I saw this huge engraving right in front of the Parliament Hall which said, “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.” And then I studied a little more about it, all the world is one family. Globalization is one interpretation of it. But I think from our civilization point of view, I think it’s more deeper than that and it’s about all consciousness actually being the same. Exactly what you said, and basically indicating kind of a singularity from which everybody originated.
Acharya Prashant: Wonderful.
Questioner: Which even physics agrees with now. We can’t look at species in Silos, and now even the World Health Organization has come up with the One Health Program, because all health is one! Those are little things where it’s manifesting itself, but it’s just too little, too late. Are we too late to save the planet, Acharyaji? I mean, is it really too late?
Acharya Prashant: Sometimes I feel like saying, yes, it is already too late. Probably that is the fact as well! But that does not matter, you see. It might not be too late. It might already be too late. How does it matter? One has to just keep fighting on, not for those who are gone, not for the future, but for the present possibility – that there is something precious, lovely, worthwhile — that can probably be redeemed. And one will not be able to forgive oneself, if one doesn’t give it all one has. You see, I don’t know about the future of the planet. So, the more I go into the science of it, the more it starts looking quite certain; that this unfortunate and monstrous species of ours isn’t going to last another hundred years.
In fact, within the next decade or two, we’ll start seeing very, very obvious signs of the approaching end. All that is going to happen in our lifetime.
But anyway. When 100 years is too distant a future, I do not know what will happen. How much time do we have to live as individuals? I suppose at most I have a few decades. The fellows are probably younger. They’ll have a spare decade or two compared to me. We don’t have too much time, let’s fight it out! And the best use, we can put our life to! That’s how I look at it. I don’t know what the result of this battle would be, but it’s worth fighting. Calculations tell me that the odds are not in our favor, right? But in things like these, calculations don’t matter that much. Even if there is just a 0.1% probability left, one would still give it everything. It’s like having a loved one in ICU or on Ventilator, one cannot give up! One fights till the last breath!
So, that’s what we can do. And I also know that our individual efforts are probably not going to suffice. So, one waits for creation to throw up something quite unexpected. It’s not as if we are the sole guardians responsible for the entire creation. Things happen and strange things happen. They say,
Truth is stranger than fiction.
One COVID had the potential to teach us so much about the fragility of our ecosystems, about the impermanence of all that we have, and about the helplessness of all manmade support systems. So, we never know what’s in store, and when an opportunity might present itself. So, let’s just keep doing the maximum and the best we can and even if nothing comes out of it, it would at least be a life well spent! We can die in peace!
Questioner: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. It’s uncanny how our thoughts completely align. I also feel that it's to be fought because it’s a battle worth fighting and it’s something that would be joy or not, but it at least does not give us the guilt at the end of the day of having done nothing. So, while we see too much, it’s just whatever little bit that we can spend our time doing to make things better. Thank you so much for your answer.
There’s one question that kind of just goes into everybody’s mind, and we secretly discuss it with small groups. But we want to probably ask you about it. There is a certain segment of Vegans who are antinatalist Vegans. They think that the world is not worth multiplying in. We will not have anybody else in the world, because it’s just way too much. The resources are not enough and we would not subject anybody else to it. Is it ethically right or is it ethically, morally duty bound? People should bring more people, so they can raise them in a, I don’t know. It’s a very conflicting thing and people are not able to find their moral, correct, strong ground to stand on. Have you ever thought about it?
Acharya Prashant: Yeah, I think about it, I speak about it and I think I’m quite unequivocally in favor of it. It’s not a personal choice anymore. I bring a child to this world, and the kind of resource consumption that implies, simply means death to thousands of trees, and lakhs of animals. And it’s a geometric thing, it’s not just one being that I bring to the world, the being that I bring to the world; would continue to multiply. So, if you look at the entire geometric series, when I have one kid, I have actually had maybe 10-20 or 40 kids. That’s what it means. Purely from the point of resources, does the Earth have enough to sustain or tolerate even one more individual? The answer does not lie in emotions or opinions. The answer has to lie in rigorous computation.
If you look at economics, if you look at the kind of resources that an average individual consumes today, and the average individual not only consumes that many resources today, he aspires to consume even more in the future. So, if you bring a child to life, the resource consumption of that child, that single individual is likely to be at least five to ten times more, compared to the amount that you consumed. And we are not even talking of the fact that the child will beget even more kids into the world. “So, I have a baby, and that means slaughtering so many animals.” We should be talking in Lakhs, just for our consumption, every day we slaughter crores of animals. Even the number on a per minute basis is staggering, is it not?
So, when somebody talks of reproduction, when people talk of pregnancy, I say, “When you produce the baby, also produce roads, also produce school, also produce an apartment.” How does your responsibility end with just getting a baby to this world now? The baby will need so much. Where will that come from? From where will the road come? Otherwise, the road is jammed. Because of your baby, you need an extra lane. To have that extra lane, you will have to slaughter so many trees. From where will the air come? You know of the AQI, you know of the pollution levels. Where will the coal come from? Where will the steel come from? The electricity, where will it come from? The kid will surely want a car. Where will the car come from?
All of that ultimately crashes upon the environment, right? Because the environment can’t speak and can’t resist! You produce a baby and you tell your neighbour, “Now that I have a baby, I need extra space. So, I’ll violate your premises and occupy one of your rooms.” Will your neighbour allow that?
Your neighbour won’t. But there are trees behind your house. Now that you have a baby, you go and hack those trees down and you say, “Now I have some free space, and we can have extra room there for the baby.” Baby is growing up. The baby doesn’t always remain a baby. So, you want an extra room. The trees won’t resist, the neighbour resists, everybody resists. Only the trees don’t resist. And the helpless, poor animals, they don’t resist. So, when the baby comes to this world, it is the trees and the animals whose death sentence has been read out. Lakhs of animals die the very day you give birth to a kid.
So, I just don’t think that the traditional animalistic feeling; of giving birth and the social concept that, “Life is fulfilled only when you have a full nest.” I don’t think any of that holds good today. But practically I also know that in both men and women; especially in women, there is a biological and a social urge to give birth. And not all individuals will be intelligent or compassionate enough, to listen to arguments or listen to the truth. So, to them I say, “If you want to have a baby, have one. Have one and stop at that!” And millions of Chinese families were able to stop at one baby. It’s not that they couldn’t bear it. They lived happily with their one kid, so stop at that!
And to others I say, who don’t want to have a kid, but they still want to enjoy the presence of a kid, I say, “Go and adopt somebody.” How is adoption not a great choice? If it stops at one, it is still okay because that would effectively mean that the population is not growing. In between we will definitely have over enthusiastic couples, who will go for the second one. So fine, that kind of allowance we have to make. But my appeal to all people who can see, and who can listen, and who have a heart, is to understand that,
“Your baby is the death of millions of other babies.” Don’t do that!
Questioner: Thank you for putting the message out so clearly. We’ve only just spoken about it, not trying to offend anybody. But basically, it’s the truth that we all have to confront. And consumerism is on the rise, and it only grows with more people on the planet. And you very rightly said that for even somebody who wants to buy one small thing, there is so much impact on the environment that it inevitably starts a domino effect on everybody.
Acharya Prashant: Also, when you have a kid, because you talked of the domino effect, that in some way, triggers so many others, to have a kid. See, those who do not have kids, surprisingly, they fail to become inspirations, they remain aberrations. But if you do get a kid, then your entire extended family feels inspired to have one more of their own, that’s the kind of domino effect that you experience. If you don’t have a kid, you don’t declare it loudly on social media. There is nothing to go to the town with. It’s not news, right? I haven’t had a baby. You won’t say, “Today is the third anniversary of me not having a baby.” That kind of absurdity you won’t display.
But when you do have a baby, then your social media and your entire circle is awash with pics and congratulations and baby stuff and this and that and that way you are triggering the maternal and paternal instinct in so many others, and they do not know what to make of life. So, the moment they see those pics, they say, “Come on, let’s do it.” And that’s the way human stupidity operates. What can one do?
Questioner: That’s so true. That’s so true. So, you just spoke about social media Acharyaji. You have such a strong message and you have chosen social media as a platform, as one of the platforms, one of the prime platforms to amplify your message. We are all very good at whatever, I mean, we try to do whatever we do best with authorities, with people doing a ton of capacity building and whatever. But we always keep social media a little on the low priority.
I want you to explain why you have chosen social media and what role has it played? Just a little on the importance of why all of these people here should, and how many times would be optimum? Some of them might be completely crazy about constantly being on Instagram or Facebook or Twitter even though that is not all right, not being there is not all right. So, what is the optimum amount that.
Acharya Prashant: One has to remember that social media is a tool! We are not going there for mere entertainment. Not that entertainment is despicable. It’s okay to entertain oneself, fine, if one. But when it comes to the mission, social media is an instrument. Social media is a weapon. So, one uses it, one uses it to strike at people where they are, right? It’s obvious, one has to reach people only where they are. And they are all there on Instagram and YouTube. So that’s where they have to be caught! There is no option!
Apart from work and personal time this is where people spend themselves. They are hooked to their phones; they are watching stuff there. And the collective time of humanity that is being spent in front of the mobile screen; is astonishing. If we look at the 800 crore people that we are, and if we talk of smartphones and Internet penetration, that would mean probably 500 or 600 crores of us have access to social media. I suppose Facebook itself has been the app, that has been downloaded, what, 5 billion times? 2 billion times? How many downloads does it have? The number of downloads of that single app runs into billions.
So that’s where the people are! If somebody is not in his house, you do not knock at that house, right? If people have all assembled at some place, that’s the place you go to if you want to address them. So, that’s what. But as professionals and as missionaries, obviously we remember that, for us social media is work! Work! And very dedicated work! It’s just that the rules of this workplace are very nascent, very tentative, they are still evolving. So, one has to learn on the job! YouTube today is not what it was five years back, and the arrival of TikTok totally changed Instagram. So, it changes, it changes and one has to keep pace. If one doesn’t do that, then one loses the audience. And it’s important not to lose your audience, because it is the audience that you want to work on! It’s not obviously about the two of us holding conversation here. I would want this conversation to reach at least lakhs of people. Had it been in my power, I would have wanted it to reach the entire population.
I don’t have that kind of power. But that’s what I imagine, imagine if these things can reach everybody that too, ten times a day. Won’t we have hope? We were just talking of the odds being stacked against the survival of this planet, against the success of compassion. Won’t the picture completely change if we have access to the minds of all those people, who are rushing very blindly towards their own destruction? And we cannot stop them, just because we do not have access to them. So, access, reach is everything. There is nothing more important than that in the work that we are doing. See we are not scientists working on something privately in some isolated lab.
Our mission involves influencing people because it’s people who make choices, and it’s their choices that we want to impact. So probably there is nothing more important than social media today. And if you can add print and TV to social media, you are a winner! You’re a winner! Imagine if somebody with, let's say, a hundred million followers on Instagram could have a change of heart, a burst of sudden enlightenment and dedicate himself to the cause of animals. Just imagine the kind of impact that would make, somebody with 100 million followers is consistently talking of empathy and compassion, and the kind of cruelty that we display. And the facts of the animal agriculture industry, and mechanized slaughterhouses, and the cruelty that even the common members of the population display.
If he is constantly talking about this, we’ll get a steroid shot in terms of our mission. We may like it or not like it, but that’s how things stand! If you can get the leading voices to espouse your cause, you are doing the millions of species a great favor! And that’s what they are all calling out for, from their jungle. They are saying, “Please get us heard. We don’t have a voice. Please get somebody with a big voice to speak for us.”
Questioner: Yeah. So yes, you’re right. It’s an amplifier like no other. We can’t physically collect so many people in one place. We can’t knock on enough doors and tell them about our message. So, it’s absolutely important that a few times a day we speak up on social media, and probably try to become our own influencers in our own small ecosystems. We can become voices that will be heard, at least among our friends and followers. And I’m so glad you’re gaining followers every day. May your tribe increase.
Acharya Prashant: A lot of time, of the foundation and, would you believe it, about 80% of the total donation that we receive is spent on simply promoting our message. In fact, I sometimes say to the team, “Reach is the mission.” Nothing else is the mission. If somebody asks you to define the mission in one word, that one word is “Reach.” Just reach out to as many people as possible, and the rest will follow on its own! The rest is natural! What needs to be laboriously done, effortfully done, is the act of reaching out. That cannot happen naturally. But once you have struck someone, after that there will be some kind of reaction, that you don’t have to worry about. After that, the ball will roll on its own. So, reach is the mission.
Questioner: That’s true. And it’s both very simple and difficult at the same time. Yes, you can do it on your phone, you can do it on your computer, but you have to fine tune your message and know a little about it, understand and be very perceptive about what the mood of the audience is.
Acharya Prashant: I’ll share the difficulty with you. The difficulty in that is; when you come to know that it’s all about gaining reach, then, as I said, 80% of all that you have, including your own time, your own energy, gets invested towards Reach. Which means that you start taking your content a lot for granted. You see 80% of yourself, if I talk of my own time, if a lot of that is going just towards reach, then I have to be very sure that my content is worth it. Because I’m not able to work on my content, all my time is invested towards reach. So that’s the problem one faces.
The content is the stuff that I want to reach to other people. The content is the stuff that I want to reach to other people. But because reach is so important, therefore I cannot work on the content. That means that one has to be internally very disciplined, and even in limited time, one has to ensure that the content remains updated, and that the purity of what you are saying, and the sharpness of your argument remains intact. And it’s a challenge, but yes.
Questioner: Yes, that’s right. Thank you.
