Non Intervention ?

[banchang]

A friend and I were talking about Buddism and he brought up the point of "non intervention"

He told me a story about two Buddist monks looking on as a small girl about 2 years old teased a rabid dog untill the dog attacked . The monks just walked by leaveing the toddler to her fate.

Now I understand this was a made up storie but was the point right, would a buddist person or buddist monk do this?

I post this not to offend anyone but learn the truth

[chownah]

Buddhist people are all different..some are saints and some are a55holes.

If you are wondering what does the Buddha teach about something like this.....one thing is that the Buddha taught compassion....in this case compassion towards the dog and the girl. My view is that each person must find out for themselves what the Buddha meant by this "compassion" and then act accordingly.

I think that a Buddhist teacher might say something like...."don't worry what those other people did in that situation...it is better to think about what you would do in that situation." This kind of advice helps keep one from being too ready to blame others...blaming others will not help you along the path so it is best to not indulge in it.

Chownah

[thaibebop]

Buddhist people are all different..some are saints and some are a55holes.

If you are wondering what does the Buddha teach about something like this.....one thing is that the Buddha taught compassion....in this case compassion towards the dog and the girl. My view is that each person must find out for themselves what the Buddha meant by this "compassion" and then act accordingly.

I think that a Buddhist teacher might say something like...."don't worry what those other people did in that situation...it is better to think about what you would do in that situation." This kind of advice helps keep one from being too ready to blame others...blaming others will not help you along the path so it is best to not indulge in it.

Chownah

Well said Chownah. I second Chownah's words.

[the swagman]

ditto thaibebop

[JRingo]

I know a monk that lives in a cave by himself up north.

At the base of his little hill is a mountain stream that runs next to the road.

Across the road is a lychee orchard.

The farmers cemented a few of those big concrete pipes together, the kind used

to line water wells, next to the stream so they can dilute and mix their pesticides with a

larger volume of water to put into their sprayers.

The old monk told me that he has seen tourists stop there and fill up their drinking water

bottles with the diluted pesticides thinking it was fresh clean mountain water.

I’m not sure if he told them or not, but he was telling me about it.

I noticed over the years that he hasn’t put up a warning sign.

I have often thought of painting a skull and cross bones on the cement pipes but my

local friends said I shouldn’t get involved.

It is easy to look down the two cement pipes and see the bottom made out of cement

and is not a well at all.

So let the tourists drink the tainted water?

What would you do?

[banchang]

I know a monk that lives in a cave by himself up north.

At the base of his little hill is a mountain stream that runs next to the road.

Across the road is a lychee orchard.

The farmers cemented a few of those big concrete pipes together, the kind used

to line water wells, next to the stream so they can dilute and mix their pesticides with a

larger volume of water to put into their sprayers.

The old monk told me that he has seen tourists stop there and fill up their drinking water

bottles with the diluted pesticides thinking it was fresh clean mountain water.

I’m not sure if he told them or not, but he was telling me about it.

I noticed over the years that he hasn’t put up a warning sign.

I have often thought of painting a skull and cross bones on the cement pipes but my

local friends said I shouldn’t get involved.

It is easy to look down the two cement pipes and see the bottom made out of cement

and is not a well at all.

So let the tourists drink the tainted water?

What would you do?

I guess this monk would be classed as an a55hole by most people . But a buddhist would not think this but just think what they would have done. As a westener (not christian) I find this a very hard concept to get my head around.

[chownah]

I know a monk that lives in a cave by himself up north.

At the base of his little hill is a mountain stream that runs next to the road.

Across the road is a lychee orchard.

The farmers cemented a few of those big concrete pipes together, the kind used

to line water wells, next to the stream so they can dilute and mix their pesticides with a

larger volume of water to put into their sprayers.

The old monk told me that he has seen tourists stop there and fill up their drinking water

bottles with the diluted pesticides thinking it was fresh clean mountain water.

I’m not sure if he told them or not, but he was telling me about it.

I noticed over the years that he hasn’t put up a warning sign.

I have often thought of painting a skull and cross bones on the cement pipes but my

local friends said I shouldn’t get involved.

It is easy to look down the two cement pipes and see the bottom made out of cement

and is not a well at all.

So let the tourists drink the tainted water?

What would you do?

Sorry but I don't believe that this scenerio actually exists...I think you have made it up.....but we can always consider theoretic situations.

In what way are you "letting" the tourists drink the water. Do you give them permission to do so? Do you do something to make it easier for them to do it?....do you tempt them? Did you put up a sign? Am I "letting" them drink the water too because you have told me about it and now I am obligated to do everything in my power to end this nightmare situation?

[banchang]

I know a monk that lives in a cave by himself up north.

At the base of his little hill is a mountain stream that runs next to the road.

Across the road is a lychee orchard.

The farmers cemented a few of those big concrete pipes together, the kind used

to line water wells, next to the stream so they can dilute and mix their pesticides with a

larger volume of water to put into their sprayers.

The old monk told me that he has seen tourists stop there and fill up their drinking water

bottles with the diluted pesticides thinking it was fresh clean mountain water.

I’m not sure if he told them or not, but he was telling me about it.

I noticed over the years that he hasn’t put up a warning sign.

I have often thought of painting a skull and cross bones on the cement pipes but my

local friends said I shouldn’t get involved.

It is easy to look down the two cement pipes and see the bottom made out of cement

and is not a well at all.

So let the tourists drink the tainted water?

What would you do?

Sorry but I don't believe that this scenerio actually exists...I think you have made it up.....but we can always consider theoretic situations.

In what way are you "letting" the tourists drink the water. Do you give them permission to do so? Do you do something to make it easier for them to do it?....do you tempt them? Did you put up a sign? Am I "letting" them drink the water too because you have told me about it and now I am obligated to do everything in my power to end this nightmare situation?

A good start would be for you to advise that the mounk should intervine but that dosnt seem to be the message you are giving.

[sabaijai]

But a buddhist would not think this but just think what they would have done.

Not necessarily so. There's no one way Buddhists act, same as there is no one way Christians act. Plenty of Christians (Muslims, atheists, etc) forgo meritorious deeds regularly as well.

What Chownah is asking is what would you have done? If the dog story is true, it says nothing at all about Buddhism in general, only about those particular individuals. Just as the Nazi execution of Jews in the name of Christianity can't be used to tar all Christians with the same brush.

[JRingo]

I know a monk that lives in a cave by himself up north.

So let the tourists drink the tainted water?

What would you do?

Sorry but I don't believe that this scenerio actually exists...I think you have made it up.....but we can always consider theoretic situations.

It’s a real story.

Take Road 107 North from Chaingmai to Kilometer marker 137

and turn left to Doi Angkhang.

About half way up the mountain you will cross a little bridge and

see a little roadside shrine on the right with a small cement Buddha.

That’s the place, his cave is short hike up the hill.

The old monk is quite friendly and has been there for 11 or 12 rainy seasons.

Now the ball is in your court, you could do something about this situation if you

wanted to.

What will you do?

Edited August 10, 2006 by JRingo

[JRingo]

I should also add that the locals are quite touchy about water and water rights

and some protestors not far away (Mae Ai) have been killed.

So be careful if you get involved.

[jdinasia]

I know a monk that lives in a cave by himself up north.

At the base of his little hill is a mountain stream that runs next to the road.

Across the road is a lychee orchard.

The farmers cemented a few of those big concrete pipes together, the kind used

to line water wells, next to the stream so they can dilute and mix their pesticides with a

larger volume of water to put into their sprayers.

The old monk told me that he has seen tourists stop there and fill up their drinking water

bottles with the diluted pesticides thinking it was fresh clean mountain water.

I’m not sure if he told them or not, but he was telling me about it.

I noticed over the years that he hasn’t put up a warning sign.

I have often thought of painting a skull and cross bones on the cement pipes but my

local friends said I shouldn’t get involved.

It is easy to look down the two cement pipes and see the bottom made out of cement

and is not a well at all.

So let the tourists drink the tainted water?

What would you do?

After these 2 threads ... I'd just think you were a troll

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=76759&hl=

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=77327&hl=

[soic]

I believe that you have made the problem your own. You know the monk, you know what's going on, you are at least minimally on friendly terms with the monk. You also said that he confided the message to you. I would say that it would be up to YOU to ASK that monk if YOU can place a sign near those pipes. You have seen the percieved danger, and if YOU do nothing, it would be YOU that would be guilty of the "sin". By telling everyone here, you think that you made us complicit, the fact is, you've made us bear witness to a grave misdeed. YOU as a compassionate individual should excersize your free will and resolve the situation.

I was asked not too long ago how I felt about Accountability Drills in our Camp. The Employee Relations officer thought that I would side with him against my boss, as is the popular thing with many of my colleagues. I surprised him by totally agreeing with my boss and going one step further. He became irate and said that none of the other camps were doing anything like that, "How could I feel justified in wanting to do it anyway?" My answer... " I would rather be in trouble for doing something right, than to be lauded for doing something wrong!" Just because some others don't feel compelled to do the right thing, won't stop me from doing what I feel is right. I have to live with MY OWN conscience. I don't have to live with yours, or you with mine.

You have to do what YOU KNOW to be the right thing...

I should also add that the locals are quite touchy about water and water rights

and some protestors not far away (Mae Ai) have been killed.

So be careful if you get involved.

[banchang]

Looks like a hard one to answer.

Maybe a bit uncomfortable to get your head round but from my understanding the monks would just observe and not intervine they sertanly wouldnt pull the girl away as this would mean touching a femail.

Christian teaching would say you had to help this girl "the good sermaritan" Not to say that all christians would help just as most Buddhists would help but how many monks would help?

You could widen this out to the careing christian church in Pattaya that looks after unfortunate babies and children without parents or homes.Selfless work to care for others.

Are there any Thai temples that do the same? none that I have heard of but I stand to be corrected.

Temples seem to be the last refuge for soi dogs , cats , monkeys ,tigers, But what about children?

[thaibebop]

Looks like a hard one to answer.

Maybe a bit uncomfortable to get your head round but from my understanding the monks would just observe and not intervine they sertanly wouldnt pull the girl away as this would mean touching a femail.

Christian teaching would say you had to help this girl "the good sermaritan" Not to say that all christians would help just as most Buddhists would help but how many monks would help?

You could widen this out to the careing christian church in Pattaya that looks after unfortunate babies and children without parents or homes.Selfless work to care for others.

Are there any Thai temples that do the same? none that I have heard of but I stand to be corrected.

Temples seem to be the last refuge for soi dogs , cats , monkeys ,tigers, But what about children?

I think you are looking to much in to this and your question as already been answered. It's individuals you are talking about here. I have met many Christians who would not give the time of day to the own kids, let alone help someone else in need.

[robitusson]

After these 2 threads ... I'd just think you were a troll

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=76759&hl=

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=77327&hl=

Is a troll someone who asks unpopular or controversial questions? Is that what it means?

[thaibebop]

After these 2 threads ... I'd just think you were a troll

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=76759&hl=

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=77327&hl=

Is a troll someone who asks unpopular or controversial questions? Is that what it means?

So, we are the intervening type, yes?

[soic]

There's a difference between asking an unpopular question or broaching a controversial subject and starting a thread that was orchestrated to inflame someone. For example: To start a thread about, hmmm, supporting the American position in Iraq. That might be considered unpopular or controversial. To start a thread that equates Americans to Hitler, that would be inflammatory. There is a difference. A thread that inspires debate or thought isn't a bad thing... a thread that makes a declaration that women are inferior, that's an attack and an affront to legitimate posters in my view.

After these 2 threads ... I'd just think you were a troll

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=76759&hl=

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=77327&hl=

Is a troll someone who asks unpopular or controversial questions? Is that what it means?

[jdinasia]

There's a difference between asking an unpopular question or broaching a controversial subject and starting a thread that was orchestrated to inflame someone. For example: To start a thread about, hmmm, supporting the American position in Iraq. That might be considered unpopular or controversial. To start a thread that equates Americans to Hitler, that would be inflammatory. There is a difference. A thread that inspires debate or thought isn't a bad thing... a thread that makes a declaration that women are inferior, that's an attack and an affront to legitimate posters in my view.

After these 2 threads ... I'd just think you were a troll

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=76759&hl=

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=77327&hl=

Is a troll someone who asks unpopular or controversial questions? Is that what it means?

did you look at the 2nd link?

[thaibebop]

There's a difference between asking an unpopular question or broaching a controversial subject and starting a thread that was orchestrated to inflame someone. For example: To start a thread about, hmmm, supporting the American position in Iraq. That might be considered unpopular or controversial. To start a thread that equates Americans to Hitler, that would be inflammatory. There is a difference. A thread that inspires debate or thought isn't a bad thing... a thread that makes a declaration that women are inferior, that's an attack and an affront to legitimate posters in my view.

After these 2 threads ... I'd just think you were a troll

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=76759&hl=

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=77327&hl=

Is a troll someone who asks unpopular or controversial questions? Is that what it means?

did you look at the 2nd link?

I did and it was a troll post....he didn't leave.

[Ijustwannateach]

The opening question is still an interesting one, especially when one looks at Buddhism in other countries and in other schools of thought... there are plenty of anecdotes and traditional stories in which Buddhist monks and the enlightened help other people in their communities.

I seem to remember some Zen story where a monk was accused of being the father of a child whose mother died in childbirth. At a village meeting, his only response was, "you don't say?" and he accepted the village's command to take care of the child without comment. Years later, the real father turned up again (a travelling soldier) asking for the girl. Those who had accused the monk came by abashed to apologise- "the real father has arrived, and we have accused you falsely." The monk's only response? "You don't say?"

I would hope that even if a devout Buddhist believed in this rule about avoiding touching women, that it would be for his salvation's sake and not as a result of anything "dirty" or objectionable about the woman. Viewed that way, it would be perfectly all right to help a woman even if it required physical contact (to save her from a danger, for instance).

"Steven"

[jdinasia]

The opening question is still an interesting one, especially when one looks at Buddhism in other countries and in other schools of thought... there are plenty of anecdotes and traditional stories in which Buddhist monks and the enlightened help other people in their communities.

I seem to remember some Zen story where a monk was accused of being the father of a child whose mother died in childbirth. At a village meeting, his only response was, "you don't say?" and he accepted the village's command to take care of the child without comment. Years later, the real father turned up again (a travelling soldier) asking for the girl. Those who had accused the monk came by abashed to apologise- "the real father has arrived, and we have accused you falsely." The monk's only response? "You don't say?"

I would hope that even if a devout Buddhist believed in this rule about avoiding touching women, that it would be for his salvation's sake and not as a result of anything "dirty" or objectionable about the woman. Viewed that way, it would be perfectly all right to help a woman even if it required physical contact (to save her from a danger, for instance).

"Steven"

sorry folks ... some people refuse to seee reality ... scroll up and see the 2nd referent

[JRingo]

The opening question is still an interesting one, especially when one looks at Buddhism in other countries and in other schools of thought... there are plenty of anecdotes and traditional stories in which Buddhist monks and the enlightened help other people in their communities.

I seem to remember some Zen story where a monk was accused of being the father of a child whose mother died in childbirth. At a village meeting, his only response was, "you don't say?" and he accepted the village's command to take care of the child without comment. Years later, the real father turned up again (a travelling soldier) asking for the girl. Those who had accused the monk came by abashed to apologise- "the real father has arrived, and we have accused you falsely." The monk's only response? "You don't say?"

I would hope that even if a devout Buddhist believed in this rule about avoiding touching women, that it would be for his salvation's sake and not as a result of anything "dirty" or objectionable about the woman. Viewed that way, it would be perfectly all right to help a woman even if it required physical contact (to save her from a danger, for instance).

"Steven"

sorry folks ... some people refuse to seee reality ... scroll up and see the 2nd referent

Why are some of you so obsessed with this “troll” label.

I told a true story that was on topic.

How is this a troll?

I guess call it what you want, but it makes you sound shallow.

[JRingo]

I believe that you have made the problem your own. You know the monk, you know what's going on, you are at least minimally on friendly terms with the monk. You also said that he confided the message to you. I would say that it would be up to YOU to ASK that monk if YOU can place a sign near those pipes. You have seen the percieved danger, and if YOU do nothing, it would be YOU that would be guilty of the "sin". By telling everyone here, you think that you made us complicit, the fact is, you've made us bear witness to a grave misdeed. YOU as a compassionate individual should excersize your free will and resolve the situation.

I was asked not too long ago how I felt about Accountability Drills in our Camp. The Employee Relations officer thought that I would side with him against my boss, as is the popular thing with many of my colleagues. I surprised him by totally agreeing with my boss and going one step further. He became irate and said that none of the other camps were doing anything like that, "How could I feel justified in wanting to do it anyway?" My answer... " I would rather be in trouble for doing something right, than to be lauded for doing something wrong!" Just because some others don't feel compelled to do the right thing, won't stop me from doing what I feel is right. I have to live with MY OWN conscience. I don't have to live with yours, or you with mine.

You have to do what YOU KNOW to be the right thing...

I should also add that the locals are quite touchy about water and water rights

and some protestors not far away (Mae Ai) have been killed.

So be careful if you get involved.

I don't agree. I am in no different position than you are.

The monk chose not to do anything but he told me.

So, I heard about it.

I chose not to do anything about it myself at this time.

Now I have told you.

We are both equally "guilty of sin" if that is what you want to call it.

It is my responsiblity only if I choose to make it so.

With your line of reasoning I suppose I should also post signs on the mountain road to warn

people of the dangers at the corners?

In my opinion, if anyone should take responsibility it is the farmer.

No doubt the monk has pointed out this danger to him.

If the farmer chooses not to do anything and the monk chooses not to do anything and the

locals choose not to do anything and you choose not to do anything, how on earth do you

figure it is my responsibilty to do something?

I am sure if I saw someone drinking this water I would immediately speak up but you are

suggesting I trespass on private property and post a poison sign, which is a different thing

altogether...and definately intervention.

Edited August 10, 2006 by JRingo

[banchang]

The opening question is still an interesting one, especially when one looks at Buddhism in other countries and in other schools of thought... there are plenty of anecdotes and traditional stories in which Buddhist monks and the enlightened help other people in their communities.

I seem to remember some Zen story where a monk was accused of being the father of a child whose mother died in childbirth. At a village meeting, his only response was, "you don't say?" and he accepted the village's command to take care of the child without comment. Years later, the real father turned up again (a travelling soldier) asking for the girl. Those who had accused the monk came by abashed to apologise- "the real father has arrived, and we have accused you falsely." The monk's only response? "You don't say?"

I would hope that even if a devout Buddhist believed in this rule about avoiding touching women, that it would be for his salvation's sake and not as a result of anything "dirty" or objectionable about the woman. Viewed that way, it would be perfectly all right to help a woman even if it required physical contact (to save her from a danger, for instance).

"Steven"

Thank you for adding to the debate Steven. It apears that its a very hard question to graple with and im dissapointed that there isn't more debate on this point.

If you think that was a good question I'm saving my best one till last

[banchang]

Looks like a hard one to answer.

Maybe a bit uncomfortable to get your head round but from my understanding the monks would just observe and not intervine they sertanly wouldnt pull the girl away as this would mean touching a femail.

Christian teaching would say you had to help this girl "the good sermaritan" Not to say that all christians would help just as most Buddhists would help but how many monks would help?

You could widen this out to the careing christian church in Pattaya that looks after unfortunate babies and children without parents or homes.Selfless work to care for others.

Are there any Thai temples that do the same? none that I have heard of but I stand to be corrected.

Temples seem to be the last refuge for soi dogs , cats , monkeys ,tigers, But what about children?

I think you are looking to much in to this and your question as already been answered. It's individuals you are talking about here. I have met many Christians who would not give the time of day to the own kids, let alone help someone else in need.

Your quote about knowing christians that don't have the time of day for there kids was covered in my second paragraph. So on that point we agree.

[thaibebop]

Looks like a hard one to answer.

Maybe a bit uncomfortable to get your head round but from my understanding the monks would just observe and not intervine they sertanly wouldnt pull the girl away as this would mean touching a femail.

Christian teaching would say you had to help this girl "the good sermaritan" Not to say that all christians would help just as most Buddhists would help but how many monks would help?

You could widen this out to the careing christian church in Pattaya that looks after unfortunate babies and children without parents or homes.Selfless work to care for others.

Are there any Thai temples that do the same? none that I have heard of but I stand to be corrected.

Temples seem to be the last refuge for soi dogs , cats , monkeys ,tigers, But what about children?

I think you are looking to much in to this and your question as already been answered. It's individuals you are talking about here. I have met many Christians who would not give the time of day to the own kids, let alone help someone else in need.

Your quote about knowing christians that don't have the time of day for there kids was covered in my second paragraph. So on that point we agree.

So, then you see that this a dead topic. It will go no where, because the only examples that can be talked about are what "individuals" do in that certain instance. To continue to generalize people is a waste of time and a disservice anyway.

[Ijustwannateach]

There are some topics best approached philosophically (from the point of view of generalisation) and there are others in which specific stories are more useful. It's hard to make a moral rule that covers *every* situation. I think that may be why specific anecdotes are so important in moral and religious discussions.

[robitusson]

did you look at the 2nd link?

I did. Didn't think anything about that one really. I thought the "are Farangs who own bars pimps?" was a very pertinent question. Of course a lot people got all bent out of shape about that but it was perfectly legitimate IMO.

[soic]

If you had taken the time to read... I said ask. You pose a moral dilemma then hide behind excuses. You are there, near the situation. You would expect people to trek across Thailand or halfway around the world to fix something that's in your own back yard. It's all about taking personal responsibility. The fact that anyone else knows what the problem is, you are there, you know what the problem is, and you do nothing.

This whole debate about Buddhism versus Christianity, it's too easy to argue the philosophy. Why bother, I look at the whole thing as personal. It doesn't matter what the religion would do or say, it matters what the individual would choose to do. It wouldn't matter if an entire church congregation or a temple full of monks sat by and did nothing while someone innocent was hurt. It would matter that each INDIVIDUAL was guilty if they did nothing. Religions aren't punished for wrong doing, people are. It's easy to hide behind a religion, safety in numbers right? It's more difficult to act on your own. Hitler went after the Jews with a vengeance, millions of innocent Jewish people were killed, but Judaism is still going strong. The Holocaust didn't hurt the religion, it hurt the people. Religions set moral boundries that people choose to follow, individuals stay the course or break away all by themselves.

I believe that you have made the problem your own. You know the monk, you know what's going on, you are at least minimally on friendly terms with the monk. You also said that he confided the message to you. I would say that it would be up to YOU to ASK that monk if YOU can place a sign near those pipes. You have seen the percieved danger, and if YOU do nothing, it would be YOU that would be guilty of the "sin". By telling everyone here, you think that you made us complicit, the fact is, you've made us bear witness to a grave misdeed. YOU as a compassionate individual should excersize your free will and resolve the situation.

I was asked not too long ago how I felt about Accountability Drills in our Camp. The Employee Relations officer thought that I would side with him against my boss, as is the popular thing with many of my colleagues. I surprised him by totally agreeing with my boss and going one step further. He became irate and said that none of the other camps were doing anything like that, "How could I feel justified in wanting to do it anyway?" My answer... " I would rather be in trouble for doing something right, than to be lauded for doing something wrong!" Just because some others don't feel compelled to do the right thing, won't stop me from doing what I feel is right. I have to live with MY OWN conscience. I don't have to live with yours, or you with mine.

You have to do what YOU KNOW to be the right thing...

I should also add that the locals are quite touchy about water and water rights

and some protestors not far away (Mae Ai) have been killed.

So be careful if you get involved.

I don't agree. I am in no different position than you are.

The monk chose not to do anything but he told me.

So, I heard about it.

I chose not to do anything about it myself at this time.

Now I have told you.

We are both equally "guilty of sin" if that is what you want to call it.

It is my responsiblity only if I choose to make it so.

With your line of reasoning I suppose I should also post signs on the mountain road to warn

people of the dangers at the corners?

In my opinion, if anyone should take responsibility it is the farmer.

No doubt the monk has pointed out this danger to him.

If the farmer chooses not to do anything and the monk chooses not to do anything and the

locals choose not to do anything and you choose not to do anything, how on earth do you

figure it is my responsibilty to do something?

I am sure if I saw someone drinking this water I would immediately speak up but you are

suggesting I trespass on private property and post a poison sign, which is a different thing

altogether...and definately intervention.