The 4 Components of True Love

[dream-scape]

I have been reading some works by Thich Nhat Hanh recently, and he often presents, refers to, and invites us to practice the Four Immeasurable Minds. The Four Immeasurable Minds are the Buddha's teachings on love, and that true love, real love, has 4 components; and your love must have these 4 things for it to really be love. If not, you may call it love, but it is not really love if you look closely, is the basic point. Anyways, I thought maybe I'd present a brief overview of the Four Immeasurable Minds, and then I dunno, maybe we can just have a discussion or list our thoughts. (For those not interested in religion, though this is a teaching of the Buddha, there is nothing "other worldly" or really even "religious" about it, and it contains alot of insight that is very... uh how should I say... down to earth and practical) Well, I'm not that articulate of a writer, so here is an overview of the Four Immeasurable Minds from Thich Nhat Hanh: Teachings on Love Thich Nhat Hanh The first aspect of true love is maitri, the intention and capacity to offer joy and happiness. To develop that capacity, we have to practise looking and listening deeply so that we know what to do and what not to do to make others happy. If you offer your beloved something she does not need, that is not maitri. You have to see her real situation or what you offer might bring her unhappiness. In Southeast Asia, many people are extremely fond of a large, thorny fruit called durian. You could even say they are addicted to it. Its smell is extremely strong, and when some people finish eating the fruit, they put the skin under their bed so they can continue to smell it. To me, the smell of durian is horrible. One day when I was practising chanting in my temple in Vietnam, there was a durian on the altar that had been offered to the Buddha. I was trying to recite the Lotus Sutra, using a wooden drum and a large bowl-shaped bell for accompaniment, but I could not concentrate at all. I finally carried the bell to the altar and turned it upside down to imprison the durian, so I could chant the sutra. After I finished, I bowed to the Buddha and liberated the durian. If you were to say to me, ‘Thay, I love you so much I would like you to eat some of this durian,’ I would suffer. You love me, you want me to be happy, but you force me to eat durian. That is an example of love without understanding. Without understanding, your love is not true love. You must look deeply in order to see and understand the needs, aspirations, and suffering of the one you love. We all need love. Love brings us joy and well-being. It is as natural as the air. We are loved by the air; we need fresh air to be happy and well. We are loved by trees. We need trees to be healthy. In order to be loved, we have to love, which means we have to understand. For our love to continue, we have to take the appropriate action or non-action to protect the air, the trees, and our beloved. Maitri can be translated as ‘love' or ‘loving kindness’. Some Buddhist teachers prefer ‘loving kindness,’ as they find the word ‘love’ too dangerous. But I prefer the word ‘love’. Words sometimes get sick and we have to heal them. We have been using the word ‘love' to mean appetite or desire, as in ‘I love hamburgers’. We have to use language more carefully. ‘Love’ is a beautiful word; we have to restore its meaning. The word maitri has roots in the word mitra which means friend. In Buddhism, the primary meaning of love is friendship. We all have the seeds of love in us. We can develop this wonderful source of energy, nurturing the unconditional love that does not expect anything in return. When we understand someone deeply, even someone who has done us harm, we cannot resist loving him or her. Shakyamuni Buddha declared that the Buddha of the next aeon will be named ‘Maitreya, the Buddha of Love’. Compassion (Karuna) The second aspect of true love is karuna, the intention and capacity to relieve and transform suffering and lighten sorrows. Karuna is usually translated as ‘compassion’, but that is not exactly correct. ‘Compassion’ is composed of com (‘together with') and passion (‘to suffer'). But we do not need to suffer to remove suffering from another person. Doctors, for instance, can relieve their patients' suffering without experiencing the same disease in themselves. If we suffer too much, we may be crushed and unable to help. Still, until we find a better word, let us use ‘compassion’ to translate karuna. To develop compassion in ourselves, we need to practise mindful breathing, deep listening, and deep looking. The Lotus Sutra describes Avalokiteshvara as the bodhisattva who practises ‘looking with the eyes of compassion and listening deeply to the cries of the world.’ Compassion contains deep concern. You know the other person is suffering, so you sit close to her. You look and listen deeply to her to be able to touch her pain. You are in deep communication, deep communion with her, and that alone brings some relief. One compassionate word, action, or thought can reduce another person's suffering and bring him joy. One word can give comfort and confidence, destroy doubt, help someone avoid a mistake, reconcile a conflict, or open the door to liberation. One action can save a person's life or help him take advantage of a rare opportunity. One thought can do the same, because thoughts always lead to words and actions. With compassion in our heart, every thought, word, and deed can bring about a miracle. When I was a novice, I could not understand why, if the world is filled with suffering, the Buddha has such a beautiful smile. Why isn't he disturbed by all the suffering? Later I discovered that the Buddha has enough understanding, calm, and strength; that is why the suffering does not overwhelm him. He is able to smile to suffering because he knows how to take care of it and to help transform it. We need to be aware of the suffering, but retain our clarity, calmness, and strength so we can help transform the situation. The ocean of tears cannot drown us if karuna is there. That is why the Buddha's smile is possible. Joy (Mudita) The third element of true love is mudita, joy. True love always brings joy to ourselves and to the one we love. If our love does not bring joy to both of us, it is not true love. Commentators explain that happiness relates to both body and mind, whereas joy relates primarily to mind. This example is often given: Someone travelling in the desert sees a stream of cool water and experiences joy. On drinking the water, he experiences happiness. Ditthadhamma sukhavihari means ‘dwelling happily in the present moment’. We don't rush to the future; we know that everything is here in the present moment. Many small things can bring us tremendous joy, such as the awareness that we have eyes in good condition. We just have to open our eyes and we can see the blue sky, the violet flowers, the children, the trees, and so many other kinds of forms and colours. Dwelling in mindfulness, we can touch these wondrous and refreshing things, and our mind of joy arises naturally. Joy contains happiness and happiness contains joy. Some commentators have said that mudita means ‘sympathetic joy’ or ‘altruistic joy’, the happiness we feel when others are happy. But that is too limited. It discriminates between self and others. A deeper definition of mudita is a joy that is filled with peace and contentment. We rejoice when we see others happy, but we rejoice in our own well-being as well. How can we feel joy for another person when we do not feel joy for ourselves? Joy is for everyone. Equanimity (Upeksha) The fourth element of true love is upeksha, which means equanimity, non-attachment, nondiscrimination, even-mindedness, or letting go. Upa means ‘over', and iksh means ‘to look’. You climb the mountain to be able to look over the whole situation, not bound by one side or the other. If your love has attachment, discrimination, prejudice, or clinging in it, it is not true love. People who do not understand Buddhism sometimes think upeksha means indifference, but true equanimity is neither cold nor indifferent. If you have more than one child, they are all your children. Upeksha does not mean that you don't love. You love in a way that all your children receive your love, without discrimination. Upeksha has the mark called samatajnana, ‘the wisdom of equality’, the ability to see everyone as equal, not discriminating between ourselves and others. In a conflict, even though we are deeply concerned, we remain impartial, able to love and to understand both sides. We shed all discrimination and prejudice, and remove all boundaries between ourselves and others. As long as we see ourselves as the one who loves and the other as the one who is loved, as long as we value ourselves more than others or see ourselves as different from others, we do not have true equanimity. We have to put ourselves ‘into the other person's skin’ and become one with him if we want to understand and truly love him. When this happens, there is no ‘self’ and no ‘other’. Without upeksha, your love may become possessive. A summer breeze can be very refreshing; but if we try to put it in a tin can so we can have it entirely for ourselves, the breeze will die. Our beloved is the same. He is like a cloud, a breeze, a flower. If you imprison him in a tin can, he will die. Yet many people do just that. They rob their loved one of his liberty, until he can no longer be himself. They live to satisfy themselves and use their loved one to help them fulfil that. That is not loving; it is destroying. You say you love him, but if you do not understand his aspirations, his needs, his difficulties, he is in a prison called love. True love allows you to preserve your freedom and the freedom of your beloved. That is upeksha. For love to be true love, it must contain compassion, joy, and equanimity. For compassion to be true compassion, it has to have love, joy, and equanimity in it. True joy has to contain love, compassion, and equanimity. And true equanimity has to have love, compassion, and joy in it. This is the interbeing nature of the Four Immeasurable Minds. When the Buddha told the Brahman man to practise the Four Immeasurable Minds, he was offering all of us a very important teaching. But we must look deeply and practise them for ourselves to bring these four aspects of love into our own lives and into the lives of those we love. From Teachings On Love, copyright 1997 by Thich Nhat Hanh, published in the UK in 2003 by Thorsons.[/b] Thoughts? Discussions?

[SleepSpirit]

that's kool, Perfect example of why I luv budhism (not that i consider myself a budist) I find the 4th the most thought provoking, the equanimity,

[tboothby]

Thich Nhat Hanh is one of the best teachers we have today... have you read "zen mind. No mind"? Here is a summery of Thich Nhat Hanh's life if anyone is interested: Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese Buddhist monk as well as a writer, scholar, and teacher. He was born in central Vietnam in 1926 and was ordained as a Zen Buddhist monk in 1942 at the age of 16. At the age of 24, he co-founded the An Quang Buddhist Institute in South Vietnam. In 1961 he travelled to the United States where he studied at Princeton and later lectured on comparative religion at Columbia. In 1964, Thich Nhat Hanh returned to Vietnam and with other Buddhist students, helped found Van Hanh University. Through the University and the La Boi Press publishing house they also set up, they released a steady stream of publications and writings calling for peace and reconciliation. Nhat Hanh also founded the School of Youth for Social Service, which performed various services such as rebuilding villages destroyed by bombings. By the mid-70s, more than 10,000 monks, nuns, and students were involved with the organization. They are perhaps best known for their role in evacuating villagers caught in the cross fire: monks and nuns, dressed in their yellow robes, would enter the battlefields, form a double line and walk the villagers to safety. Thich Nhat Hanh's writings and publications were censored by both opposing Vietnamese governments. In 1966, after travelling to the United States to lecture about the plight of the Vietnamese people, he was warned not to return to Vietnam. He has been living in exile since then. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1967, and led the Vietnamese Buddhist Peace Delegation to the Paris Peace Talks in 1969. Thich Nhat Hanh now lives in Southern France where he founded the Plum Village retreat center in 1982. He still lectures widely, teaches, and writes.[/b]

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by tboothby have you read \"zen mind. No mind\"? No I haven't. The following are the books I've currently read by him: Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers Taming the Tiger Within: Meditations on Transforming Difficult Emotions True Love: A practice for Awakening the Heart Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life Teachings on Love No Death, No Fear

[O'nus]

This really reminds me Robert Sternbergs (1988) concept of love. Sterberg's Triangular Love Sternbergs concept of love combines three basic components of love; intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. With the combination of each kind comes different forms of love; romantic love (intimacy & passion), companionate love (intimacy & commitment), fatuous love (passion & commitment), and finally consummate love (intimacy, passion, & commitment). Does Thich Nhat Hanh mention Sterberg or Hatfield at all? ~

[Yume]

I would say that forgiveness is also another key component of love. Without forgiveness you really cannot show your loved one how much you love him/her because there is still some bad energy floating around in the area from previous experiences. Without forgiveness your love cannot grow.

[O'nus]

Originally posted by Yume I would say that forgiveness is also another key component of love. Without forgiveness you really cannot show your loved one how much you love him/her because there is still some bad energy floating around in the area from previous experiences. Without forgiveness your love cannot grow. Thank you for pointing this out. I think that forgiveness and confrontations are very productive to a relationship. Also, this would most likely fall under commitment. This is because, in order to make a commitment, the couple must confront each other about their vices and show actual passion. Those blinded with love will believe a "perfect relationship" has no fighting, but this isn't true. A relationship without passion, debation, or any form of disagreement is monotomy and empty. Also, there may be dramatic forms of repression (ie. "I don't want to bring this up" "I don't want to ruin our 'perfect' relationship"). Confronting someone is often misunderstood as a fight and that it demeens the sincerety of a relationship. In fact, it does the opposite. By confronting the problem, disclosing your feelings, and resolving it, the relationship strengthens and becomes more mutually equitable. This is what creates the jubilation of "making up". I love love.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by Yume I would say that forgiveness is also another key component of love. Without forgiveness you really cannot show your loved one how much you love him/her because there is still some bad energy floating around in the area from previous experiences. Without forgiveness your love cannot grow. The 4 immeasurable minds are minds, intentions, etc, that should be cultivated. They are not actions, but they lead to actions. IMO, forgiveness arises from the minds of compassion, joy, and equanimity. -------- Also I should have posted this initially, but sometimes it is better to take it one thing at a time. Each minds also has 2 associated obstacles or enemies: a near-enemy and a distant-enemy. The distant enemy is often clear and easily avoidable; but the near-enemy needs continual mindfulness to be avoided. Loving kindness' near-enemy is sensuous love. This is like a foe lurking near his enemy to find the way of approach. Its distant-enemy is ill-will like a foe watching from some distant place. The near-enemy of compassion is sorrow associated with worldly desire (tending to people's cravings and not their real needs). Its distant-enemy is cruelty. The near-enemy of immeasurable joy is worldly joy (the indulgence in short-term pleasures). Its distant-enemy is dislike or envy. Equanimity's near-enemy is indifference - the casual equanimity not borne from understanding of the conditioned nature of things which allows the root to remain. The distant-enemies are lust and aversion.[/b]

[Yume]

Originally posted by dream-scape The 4 immeasurable minds are minds, intentions, etc, that should be cultivated. They are not actions, but they lead to actions. IMO, forgiveness arises from the minds of compassion, joy, and equanimity If that were always true my life would be different from the way it is. You can have compassion without forgiveness. I am not trying to purposely go against Buddhist teachings because they are very important in society today, but there are always exceptions in this world.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div> <!--QuoteBegin-dream&#045;scape The 4 immeasurable minds are minds, intentions, etc, that should be cultivated. They are not actions, but they lead to actions. IMO, forgiveness arises from the minds of compassion, joy, and equanimity If that were always true my life would be different from the way it is. You can have compassion without forgiveness. I am not trying to purposely go against Buddhist teachings because they are very important in society today, but there are always exceptions in this world.[/b] I think you are misreading what I am saying. Is English a 2nd language for you? Please do not take offense at that, it is a serious question I am asking because some of the things you are saying indicate that you seem to be reading some of what I am saying backwards or incorrectly. For example, you replied "You can have compassion without forgiveness." No doubt you can, but where did I say you cannot? If you read what I said, I did not say that anywhere. It is a simple mistake and either you have read what I wrote backwards, or you have written your reply backwards, or perhaps you didn't quite get what I was trying to convey. I'll reply to each of first 2 cases, and hopefully, that will also help take care of the 3rd case should that be the one. case 1: you may have read what I wrote backwards I did not say forgiveness = compassion or compassion = forgiveness. I also did not say you have to forgive to have compassion. No that would not be compassion. If you had to forgive everyone to have compassion for them, that would be something like pity, which we can consider to be a near-enemy of compassion. case 2: you may have written your reply backwards You wrote "You can have compassion without forgiveness." Perhaps you meant to write that as "You can have forgiveness without compassion." In this case, I would say otherwise. Let's look at why forgiveness would arise. Someone has hurt you, and they know they have. They will usually ask for forgiveness. Usually they will say "I am sorry." So why do we forgive them? If we really want to forgive them, it is because we see that they suffer also and we know we can lessen this by forgiving them. This comes from the mind of compassion. We know it might make them happier or make them smile. This comes from the mind of joy. So we truly forgive them. Now we can just say "I forgive you" without giving any thought to it. We often do this. But I would say, this is not forgiveness. Why would we forgive someone without thought or compassion? Because we want to forget about what happened. It is not uncommon for us to say "Let's forget this ever happened." We want to bury it with all of the other things we don't want to think about. This is not forgiveness in any sense. This is what we might say is "forgetfullness"

[Yume]

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream&#045;scape)</div> Originally posted by Yume@ <!--QuoteBegin-dream&#045;scape The 4 immeasurable minds are minds, intentions, etc, that should be cultivated. They are not actions, but they lead to actions. IMO, forgiveness arises from the minds of compassion, joy, and equanimity If that were always true my life would be different from the way it is. You can have compassion without forgiveness. I am not trying to purposely go against Buddhist teachings because they are very important in society today, but there are always exceptions in this world. I think you are misreading what I am saying. Is English a 2nd language for you? Please do not take offense at that, it is a serious question I am asking because some of the things you are saying indicate that you seem to be reading some of what I am saying backwards or incorrectly. For example, you replied \"You can have compassion without forgiveness.\" No doubt you can, but where did I say you cannot? If you read what I said, I did not say that anywhere. It is a simple mistake and either you have read what I wrote backwards, or you have written your reply backwards, or perhaps you didn't quite get what I was trying to convey. I'll reply to each of first 2 cases, and hopefully, that will also help take care of the 3rd case should that be the one. case 1: you may have read what I wrote backwards I did not say forgiveness = compassion or compassion = forgiveness. I also did not say you have to forgive to have compassion. No that would not be compassion. If you had to forgive everyone to have compassion for them, that would be something like pity, which we can consider to be a near-enemy of compassion. case 2: you may have written your reply backwards You wrote \"You can have compassion without forgiveness.\" Perhaps you meant to write that as \"You can have forgiveness without compassion.\" In this case, I would say otherwise. Let's look at why forgiveness would arise. Someone has hurt you, and they know they have. They will usually ask for forgiveness. Usually they will say \"I am sorry.\" So why do we forgive them? If we really want to forgive them, it is because we see that they suffer also and we know we can lessen this by forgiving them. This comes from the mind of compassion. We know it might make them happier or make them smile. This comes from the mind of joy. So we truly forgive them. Now we can just say \"I forgive you\" without giving any thought to it. We often do this. But I would say, this is not forgiveness. Why would we forgive someone without thought or compassion? Because we want to forget about what happened. It is not uncommon for us to say \"Let's forget this ever happened.\" We want to bury it with all of the other things we don't want to think about. This is not forgiveness in any sense. This is what we might say is \"forgetfullness\"[/b] Arises My connotation: To come from. Dictionary definition (According to Webster's Second Edition Dictionary): To result, issue, or proceed from: Mistakes that arise from a basic misunderstanding. I would say you accidentally used the wrong word which can happen. Just try to word your responses better next time. I hold nothing against you. As for your response in your last paragraph. It is not forgetfullness. This is because you can still know it is there. I shouldn't have to give you a dictionary definition of forgetfullness. If you want to forgive something just because you do not want to think about it does not mean you have forgotten about it. You just don't care to put thought towards it. You can still recall the experience if you feel like it, but you choose not to give time towards it. You don't have to give compassion or any care towards something. You know it is there and you have forgiven someone, but you haven't always had to really care about something to forgive someone. You aren't forgetting anything.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by Yume Arises My connotation: To come from. Dictionary definition (According to Webster's Second Edition Dictionary): To result, issue, or proceed from: Mistakes that arise from a basic misunderstanding. I would say you accidentally used the wrong word which can happen. Just try to word your responses better next time. I hold nothing against you. Yes that is in the context I used it. I have used the words I intended to. Something arises because of conditions; it results from. Nothing can arise free from conditions. Now please read this carefully. There is a misunderstanding here. You replied, and I quote exactly, \"You can have compassion without forgiveness\" This implies that you think I said, \"compassion arises from forgiveness.\" If you read what I wrote, I neither said nor implied that anywhere. Either that, or your reply is worded backwards, and you think I said, \"forgiveness arises from compassion.\" Yes this is what I said, and you correctly understand me, if you typed your response backwards. To be safe, I have already addresses both cases of misunderstanding (on on your part and one on my part). There is no need to further address them. That is not the point of this thread, and is not the topic either. Originally posted by Yume You aren't forgetting anything. You are attempting to forget. Hence the expression "forgive and forget." Of coarse you do not literally forget, because especially when we try to repress things, they will usually return to the surface. In any case, let's try not to get so caught up in our words. They aren't the truth; they only point towards the truth. And please can we try to stay on topic

[Yume]

Originally posted by dream-scape Now please read this carefully. There is a misunderstanding here. You replied, and I quote exactly, \"You can have compassion without forgiveness\" This implies that you think I said, \"compassion arises from forgiveness.\" If you read what I wrote, I neither said nor implied that anywhere. Either that, or your reply is worded backwards, and you think I said, \"forgiveness arises from compassion.\" Yes this is what I said, and you correctly understand me, if you typed your response backwards. Either says a non-connecting relationship Originally posted by dream-scape You are attempting to forget. Hence the expression \"forgive and forget.\" Of coarse (course) you do not literally forget, because especially when we try to repress things, they will usually return to the surface. Like I have said. You can just not care. You have the choice to not try to forget, but not bring up the experience either. The experience just happens to be in your brain where you may think one day and remember that experience. You have forgiven someone only because you do not care and in no way have compassion for someone. Originally posted by dream-scape And please can we try to stay on topic The whole point of this discussion is because I said that I think that forgiveness is a separate component of love on its own. Forgiveness does not need compassion to exist. If there was no compassion humans would still be able to forgive. I would like to hear what you think are guidelines for staying on topic. It will be interesting to get another perspective on that since so many people have different opinions. If you want to stay on topic why don't you pm me with your answer.

[dream-scape]

This starting to get into a word game, which I will not take part of. Arguing in this direction is pointless and meaningless. Words themselves do not hold or speak truth. Getting back towards the topic, you said "You have forgiven someone only because you do not care and in no way have compassion for someone." To me, this sounds like a forgiveness arising out of indifference, which is a near-enemy of equanimity. Real love is not indifferent. Real love is understanding. That such an action labeled as "forgiveness" exists is not denied. But such an action cannot be a part of real love. All components of real love inter-depend on each other. In one we can find all the others. When one arises, the others arise. If we find a component of our love does not help the others to grow, or in our love there are components missing, then it is not really love. A forgiveness that is indifferent cannot be a part of love, because love is not indifferent. Love is not separate from its components.

[nerve]

nitpickers. I was enjoying reading what you guys wrote until it turned into a semantics war.

[Yume]

Originally posted by dream-scape This starting to get into a word game, which I will not take part of. Arguing in this direction is pointless and meaningless. Words themselves do not hold or speak truth. Getting back towards the topic, you said \"You have forgiven someone only because you do not care and in no way have compassion for someone.\" To me, this sounds like a forgiveness arising out of indifference, which is a near-enemy of equanimity. Real love is not indifferent. Real love is understanding. That such an action labeled as \"forgiveness\" exists is not denied. But such an action cannot be a part of real love. All components of real love inter-depend on each other. In one we can find all the others. When one arises, the others arise. If we find a component of our love does not help the others to grow, or in our love there are components missing, then it is not really love. A forgiveness that is indifferent cannot be a part of love, because love is not indifferent. Love is not separate from its components. It is not love out of indifference. 1. The one you truly love does something accidentally that would hurt you deeply 2. Even though what the person did would seem unforgivable and there is no real reason why one does this act against their love the one who has had this done to them forgives them not because they have compassion, but they choose to not care. This is still forgiveness. There is still true love. 3. The person who was hurt in some way doesn't try to forget or remember, but keeps the experience in their mind and they bring it up once in a while to think on it. Because the person chooses to forgive a person not on how much they love the person or how much compassion, but only because they don't care afer the experience has taken place forgiveness has been created without compassion. It is not what you think it sounds like. It is what it is.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by Yume and there is no real reason why one does this act against their love And here is the crux of the problem. Nothing arises free from conditions. There is always a reason why an act is done, even if it is not immediately apparent. This is one reason why being mindful is so important, as it can help us to keep situations like this one from arising. And when they do, it can help us find the root of them by meditating on questions like, "Why did I say that to him?" or "Why did I act that way just now?" Now please Yume, can we keep this topic to a discussion of the 4 immeasurable minds? This thread is a public thread, and not just a conversation between you and me. For the sake of sanity and sanity of other who might not yet have had a chance to read or reply, I beg of you to at least try to remain on topic. However now, the nature of forgiveness would make a wonderful topic for its own thread

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by O'nus This really reminds me Robert Sternbergs (1988) concept of love. .... Does Thich Nhat Hanh mention Sterberg or Hatfield at all? No, he doesn't. In his writings, most of what he speaks comes from teachings he received as a young monk, from his own experiences and insights, and sometimes - since he is writing primarily to Western audiences - to help make a point, he will reference something written by a poet, artist, writer, etc that has a parallel fit with what he is attempting to say.