When a bird sings: Anthony de Mello in a Dispute

Ivana Noble 

‘A bird does not sing because he has a statement. He sings because he has a song.' [1]

Recent document ‘Notification Concerning The Writings of Father Anthony de Mello , SJ' from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [ID1] [2] in order to ‘protect the good of the Christian faithful' warns against de Mello's positions that ‘are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.'[3] As Anthony de Mello died 11 years ago and therefore cannot add anything to these accusations, let us attempt in his absence to look at three things: (1) the nature of de Mello's theological contribution; (2) the critical points in dispute; (3) and finally at the hermeneutics of the document from the Congregation. As Anthony de Mello's influence exceeded borders of Roman Catholic Church, I feel a need to elaborate these three points against ecumenical background of de Mello readers.

1. The nature of Anthony de Mello's theological contribution

The opening quotation from The Song of the Bird proposes that Anthony de Mello was not interested in writing Catechisms or several volumes long textbooks of Systematic Theology or extended commentaries on the Codex of Canon Law. Not that these things would be unimportant, but we have to look at other authors if we want to find this kind of theological statements. With Anthony de Mello we rather encounter a story-teller, a poet and a prayer companion. His main interest is to wake up people from lethargy by his "songs", to help them in rediscovering a sense of prayer, contemplative silence and human solidarity. For this purpose he uses what comes to his hand and seems to be useful, trusting that the loving God is present in all things.

Anthony de Mello, the Indian Jesuit priest was born in Bombay in 1931 and died in 1987 the first night of his journey to New York. He was buried in Bandara, in India, where he was baptised. Anthony studied philosophy, psychology and spiritual theology, and then his main involvement was in directing retreats, prayer seminars and therapy courses. In the Introduction to his book of exercises, Sadhana, he summarises a motivation for his work:

I have spent the last fifteen years of my life as a retreat director and a spiritual teacher, which helped people how to pray. I have heard from them many complaints that they do not know how to pray; that in spite of all trying they feel that they haven't made any progress in prayer; that prayer is boring and dripping. From the mouth of many spiritual directors I have heard their admitting to be helpless when they were to teach people how to pray or to clarify how to find satisfaction and fulfilment in prayer.[4]

Anthony de Mello communicated his experiences also in a number of books, which were translated into many languages. Having said that, it is important to mention, that not all the books which have appeared in book shops under his name were written by him, so in order to avoid confusion, the Society of Jesus published a list of his genuine writings, which consists of: Sadhana, The Song of the Bird, Wellsprings, One Minute Wisdom, The Prayer of the Frog (2 Vols), Contact with God, Call to Love, One Minute Nonsense.[5] And these are the works I will refer to, except in the next section, where the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Notification uses also other ones.

At the beginning of The Song of the Bird Anthony de Mello defines both: the audience he aims at and his standpoint:

‘This book has been written for people of every persuasion, religious and non-religious. I cannot, however, hide from my readers the fact that I am a priest of the Catholic Church. I have wandered freely in mystical traditions that are non-Christian and even non-religious and I have been profoundly influenced by them. It is to my Church, however, that I keep returning, for she is my spiritual home; and while I am acutely, sometimes embarrassingly, aware of her limitations and her occasional narrowness, I am also aware of the fact that it is she who has formed and moulded me and made me what I am today.'[6]

This extract documents de Mello's rootedness in the Catholic Church, which is clear about where he belongs to, yet without limiting his fellowship, his solidarity and his ministry only to those who belong there as well. For Anthony de Mello to belong fully to the Church does not mean to belong only to the Church, we are first people and then we are Christians or other believers or none. Thus our human spiritual heritage involves all religious and non-religious traditions, without demand to commit ourselves to all of them as practising believers. While de Mello refers to a wide variety of traditions, it is difficult to imagine him saying: Change Christianity for Buddhism or make a new syncretistic religion. Rather the questions which concern de Mello cut through all religious and non-religious traditions as they refer to our common humanity.

The Prayer of the Frog II starts with a good example of that, Anthony de Mello shows that in spite of human desire for truth, there is also a permanent tendency to find sideways: ‘"A brilliant homily", evaluated a certain lady when she shook hand to her priest. „All that you said fitted in some way to some of the people I know."' [7] In order to break through this tendency to avoid truth about ourselves Anthony de Mello uses not only the language of stories but attempts to shift our awareness from norms and definitions to contemplation and action, to what was or is happening with-in and with-out his reader. He explains why he rather writes stories than theories: with regard to the readers stories can influence also their sub consciousness and reveal hidden meanings[8]; with regard to the Truth stories can help to direct readers to a deeper self-awareness, where the Truth is true about you De Mello insists in using a capital „T", as it is a personal Truth..[9] An example may be provided by the story, which links truth and solidarity together:

A faithful confessor of faith was supposed to be initiated and become a disciple. The guru whispered into his ear a holy mantra and warned him not to tell it anybody.

„And what happens, when I reveal it to anybody?" asked the pious believer.

„Everybody, whom you reveal the mantra, will be freed from the bonds of immaturity and suffering, but you yourself will no longer have the opportunity to be a disciple and you will learn what is it to be cursed."

When the novice heard the words of mantra, he rushed to the market place, called a big crowd of people and repeated the holy mantra again and again, so that all people would hear it.

Other disciples later complaint about him to the Master and wanted the man to be excluded from the monastery because of his disobedience.

The guru smiled and replied: He does not need anything more I could teach him. His action proved that he himself became a guru.[10]

After The Prayer of the Frog, where Anthony de Mello brings out stories from different countries, cultures and religions with the recognition that all these belong to our spiritual heritage, there is his last work, One Minute Nonsense, where in short anecdotes the figure of Master helps to unmask differences between genuine religious values and prejudice imprisoning people. This was published after de Mello's death. He left for publication small stories in which the figure of Master is not one person, but includes wisdom of Hindoo gurus, Zen's roshis, Taoist wise men, Jewish rabbis, Christian monks or Suffist mystics. However, rather than a syncretistic doctrine we are presented with jokes gently uncovering absurdities of the well established half-wisdom which prevent people from freedom and from life of the Spirit in any tradition.

‘"Why most people are not enlightened?"

„Because they do not search for truth, but for what fits them," said Master.

...„Is there anything like unselfish love?"[11]

These are the questions which concern de Mello. And the stories sketch the kind of answers, whose ambiguities once again invite the reader to invest into them his or her own life, experiences, fears, breaks through. Thus in his last work we encounter a similar desire as in Sadhana, however, as O. I. Stampach pointed out, de Mello is no longer willing to give explicit practical directions. [12] He is more content with the meaning embodied in the stories, and, perhaps, more aware of the danger of direct answers, as the beginning of another story proposes:

Master once saw at the Monastery gate a big crowd, people were singing praises and had a big note saying CHRIST IS THE ANSWER.

The Master went to a stubborn looking man and asked: „ Yes, fine, but what is the question?"[13]

Anthony de Mello became more and more aware of the fact that religion can make people hard, intolerant and fanatic, finished with their discernment before they had even attempted it. Such religion is dangerous, and also freedom of the Spirit which de Mello advocates is dangerous for such religion. Freedom of the Spirit is also granted by the Spirit. According to de Mello this is not something we can force or give to ourselves. Since the beginning till the end of de Mello's writings we encounter very strong practical sense of the need and reality of grace, although, as I mentioned, he does not write a theological tract on it. Thus, let me conclude this part with another poetic story:

To those disciples, who were naively convinced that there was nothing they could not gain

only if they wanted, the Master used to say: „The best things in life you cannot force."

You can force yourself to put food into your mouth,

but not to have an appetite for it.

You can make yourself to lay in bed,

but not to sleep.

You can force yourself to bow down,

but not to admire.

You can force yourself to tell a secret,

but not to trust.

You can force yourself to make an act of mercy,

but not to love."[14]

The critical points in dispute

‘The Notification Concerning the Writings of Father Anthony de Mello, SJ' places him to a position as if he were to defend his doctrinal statements in a Church Court. Yet, this involves a double difficulty: first, he cannot do it as he is dead; second, he never published tracts of theology including doctrinal statements. Taking this major problems into account, I attempt to identify the key reservations expressed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and look at how these are based in de Mello's texts.

The Notification starts with recognition of ‘some valid elements of oriental wisdom[15] in de Mello's stories, which can help people psychologically in achieving self-mastery over disordered feelings and illusions. It appreciates in particular his earlier writings for teaching how to pray, however, at the same time it says that already there the author of the document and its signatories recognise ‘a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith'[16]. What are the claimed de Mello's faults? The Notification brings three main accusations, de Mello is said to distance himself from: (i) the explicit authorities of the Scripture and of the Church; (ii) the uniqueness of Jesus; (iii) the personal God. This is claimed to lead de Mello to declaring the destiny after death to be irrelevant and to relativism concerning good and evil: ‘Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.'[17]

i) The first point of critique links together the problem of whether de Mello takes the Scripture and the Church to be bounding authorities for a Christian, and the method of his writings, which is identified as apophatic. The Notification states: Nothing can be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing. To pose the question of his existence is already nonsense. This radical apophaticism leads even to a denial that the Bible contains valid statements about God. The words of Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a person to silence.[18]

Let me first shed some light to the problem of the method. The distinctions between apophatic and cataphatic theology come from the Orthodox tradition and correspond to the Catholic via negativa via (the way which proceeds by negation) and via affirmativa (the way which proceeds by affirmation). The apophatic theology in dispute is by Vladimir Lossky linked to unknowing: It is by unknowing (agnwsia) that one may know Him who is above every possible object of knowledge.[19] And apophaticism is then defined as follows: Apophaticism teaches us to see above all a negative meaning in the dogmas of the Church: it forbids us to follow natural ways of thought and to form concepts which would usurp the place of spiritual realities. For Christianity is not a philosophical school for speculating about abstract concepts, but is essentially a communion with the living God.[20] Hence, de Mello clearly represents apophatic way of theology, yet unless we want to break with the fundamental method of the Orthodox Church as well as the Catholic Church, the mystic tradition in particular, it is difficult to deny that apophaticism, which is indeed radical, is in fact rooted in the Bible[21]. However, what the Notification may invite us to do, is to také seriously that apophatic way has to be complemented by the cataphatic way, which is the way of taking seriously the symbolic truth and the truth embedded in stories and the fact that these contain valid statements about God, yet, as the apophatic way clarified, are not descriptive. To separate the apophatic way from the rest of our understanding of God's revelation, would, indeed do away with the authorities of the Church and of the Scriptures and would establish religious individualism. So this is a valid point. Yet I cannot see Anthony de Mello distancing himself from this. Also, when the Notification says that de Mello takes the words of Scriprure, as any other religious text, as something that can ‘prevent people from following their own common sense and cause them to become obtuse and cruel.' [22] And that ‘The Church, making the Word of God in Holy Scriptures into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.'[23] I see it as a complement to what de Mello has written in the Preface to The Song of the Bird: It is to my Church, however, that I keep returning, for she is my spiritual home; and while I am acutely, sometimes embarrassingly, aware of her limitations and her occasional narrowness, I am also aware of the fact that it is she who has formed and moulded me and made me what I am today.'[24]

ii) The anxiety not to separate the apophatic from the cataphatic way constitutes also the second point of criticism, namely that de Mello distances himself from the uniqueness of Jesus. The Notification states: Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares himself to be a „disciple." But he considers Jesus as a master alongside others. The only difference from other men is that Jesus is „awake" and fully free, while others are not. Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God.' [25] The ‘Explanatory Note' documments this in de Mello's Sadhana, where it says, it is ambiguous, whether Jesus occupies the central place or not. It points out that besides the parts where he speaks explicitly of Christ's name and its invocation, of Christ's heart or of Christ the Saviour[26], there are also passages, which, according to Lao-tse example hold: Silence is the great revelation. [27] However, while for de Mello awareness of the revelation in silence is interconnected with the revelation of the Scriptures and Lao-tse is not a rival to Jesus, as he says: In order to understand the revelation presented in Scripture, you must expose yourself to the working of Scripture.' [28] For the Notification the reference to Lao-tse is without further exploration taken for a proof that for de Mello ‘the concept of Christian revelation is equated with that of Lao-tse, with a certain preference for the latter'.[29] Once again, the silence is treated as the enemy. The Notification does not see a way how to reconcile silence with a profession of Christ's uniqueness and disclaims this silent awareness to Christianity. Against de Mello's references to Christian mysticism, the Notification insists that knowing God directly, silently gazing at God as a reality without images and forms and the whole moment of ‘awakening' as interior enlightenment or knowledge are not reconcilable with the doctrine of the Church [30]. This strong statement invites further consideration, namely which role the Notification ascribes to the Holy Spirit and her works in terms of grace? Isn't it then also in the silence, where the Spirit breaths, in the imageless and formless silence when one accords with the breath of the Spirit to be able to know the Father not only in one's brain and to follow Christ not only as a moral example, but as the Son of God, the Saviour? This is what I read in de Mello. It accords with the Second Vatican Council, which inspired by the patristic theologies and by the dialogue with the Orthodox Churches, returned to more explicit Trinitarian approach both in liturgy, and in doctrine, and thanks to the dialogue with Protestantism elaborated more inclusive teaching on grace. Thus the fathers of the Council were able to say: God is not far away even from those who search unknown God in foggy traces and images, as God gives life and breath and all to all (comp. Acts 17:25-28) and as a saviour wants all people to be saved (comp. 1 Tim 2:4). Eternal salvation can be gained by all those who without their own fault do not know the gospel of Christ and his church, but with a sincere heart and under influence of grace truly try to fulfil God's will as they recognise it in the voice of conscience.[31] This recognition opened not only ecumenical, but also inter-religious dialogue, and dialogue with all people of good will, while non of these were expelled from the realm of the Spirit.[32] In this light the non-Christian and non-religious traditions whose influence de Mello recognises, did not oppose either the central role of Christ or the freedom of the flowing of the Spirit also outside of the Christian tradition, as Vatican II accepts. Now I am aware that I am more explicit than Anthony de Mello in his writings, which, as I stated at the beginning, do not provide us with theological discussions. And it also has to be recognised that Anthony de Mello was not a zealous missionary eager to gain converts from other religions to Christianity. Conversion in his terms seemed to be a change happening at the roots of our humanity - towards freedom and unselfish love, as the Notification correctly points out, rather than in changing of our religious belonging. Yet, as I quoted earlier, precisely these things belong to the realm of what we cannot force or give to ourselves and are dependant on grace.[33]

iii) Now the problem with the personal God. The Notification states: At one point, he speaks of a „dissolving" into the impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water.. Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth. [34] However, a reader of the Notification may find difficult to trace this „consistency". Anthony de Mello speaks about claimed personal access to truth e.g. in the Warning with which he opens The Prayer of the Frog II. He speaks there of the Truth which is desired by a human heart, which liberates and brings happiness, yet people often respond to the Truth by fear and rejection. This Truth is, according to de Mello, personal - this is why he insists in using a capital „T". It is the Truth embodied in stories, the Truth of God's Spirit.[35] How is it impeded by any belief or profession of faith in God and in Christ, I do not see. But another thing comes to my attention, namely that a reference to the Spirit is again missing. As I mentioned in the last paragraph, a sound Trinitarian theology holds both the uniqueness of Jesus, the true man and true God, as well as that Jesus is not exhaustive of God. In the Creed we profess faith in God the Father, as well as the Son and the Spirit. Thus when we speak of a Christian belief in one God and its profession, we must keep in mind, that it involves three divine persons, including the Holy Spirit. Instead, in the Notification we read: Father de Mello makes statements about God which ignore his personal nature, if not explicitly denying it, and reduce God to a vague and omnipresent cosmic reality.[36] The problem of in which sense God is personal is then extended to a personal response to God. The Notification quotes writings ascribed to de Mello, where it is hold that human response to God does not constitute who God is: Dag Hammarskjöld, the former UN Secretary-General, puts it so beautifully: "God does not die on the day we cease to believe in a personal deity[37]. However this quotation is place into the text of the Notification, as if it were to document that de Mello does not believe in personal God. This is preceded by a reference to de Mello's metaphorical accounts of personal relationship with God, which no one can do on behalf of other person: According to the author, no one can help us find God just as no one can help a fish in the sea find the ocean[38]. This image is treated as literal description of how de Mello ignores God's personal nature. I will return to the problem of metaphorical and descriptive language in the final part, now I want to search for whether there is any valid point in the critique presented by the Notification. Perhaps, when we extend its critique and underline that when we avoid Truth, which is personal, the Truth about our lives, and direct it only to other people, like the woman praising the brilliant homily: "A brilliant homily", evaluated a certain lady when she shook hand to her priest. „All that you said fitted in some way to some of the people I know." [39] we dissolve God, and make obstacles for the person of the Holy Spirit to come in and dwell in us. As a side effect of this interpretation, the antagonism to de Mello's theology would disappear.

I could go on elaborating that Anthony de Mello does not declare the destiny after death to be irrelevant, first simply because he does not make any systematic theological declaration, second, because this is not his theme, he does not concentrate on the life after, but on this life, and it is difficult to accuse him of the fact that he did not chose this topic, as if we were accusing someone that he is a medical doctor and not a futurologist. Then, to read his stories as examples of relativism, seems to me a strongly prejudiced reading, which misses the point that while each story is embedded in different context there is a strong common thread. A systematic theologian may call it life in grace. The emphasis in de Mello's stories that the most important things we cannot give to ourselves does not meet the accusation that ‘Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.'[40]

3. A Hermeneutic Note on the Notification

St Ignatius in the Preface to the Spiritual Exercises proposes a hermeneutic rule that is based in a need of a charitable interpretation of the words of the other. He says:

it should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor's statement than to condemn it. Further, if one cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.' [ID2] [41]

This hermeneutics is implicitly present when Anthony de Mello tells stories of different traditions and is careful not to distort meaning they carry.

The Notification seems to rely on different hermeneutic rules. It has its set agenda and fills into it what comes to hand. Its strong "fore-understanding" says more about the problems of the one who has written the document than about the one on whom it is written. The Explanatory Note of the Notification summarise the previous accusations as follows:

Clearly, there is an internal connection between these different positions: if one questions the existence of a personal God, it does not make sense that God would address himself to us with his word. Sacred Scripture, therefore, does not have definitive value. Jesus is a teacher like others; only in the author's early books does he appear as the Son of God, an affirmation which would have little meaning in the context of such understanding of God. As a consequence one cannot attribute value to the Church's teaching. Our personal survival after death is problematic if God is not personal. Thus it becomes clear that such conceptions of God, Christ and man are not compatible with the Christian faith. For this reason, those responsible for safeguarding the doctrine of the faith have been obliged to illustrate the dangers in the texts written by Father Anthony de Mello or attributed to him, and to warn the faithful about them. [42]

In the previous part I have taken issue with these accusations and demonstrated the difficulty of the Notification's assumptions, namely that the above mentioned positions are so clearly found in de Mello's writings. Now, the tone and the sequence of the argumentation of the Notification shows an anxiety that the authoritative expression of Christian faith, as the author of the Notification sees it, is in danger. The zeal to find someone responsible for the anxiety makes the author to lapse into two major hermeneutic mistakes. First, it does not také sufficiently into account the forms of de Mello's texts and treats them as if they were doctrinal manuals that were supposed to touch every major dogmatic question. Although on a general level the Notification accepts that many of his books do not také the form of discursive teaching,[43] it deals with them as if they did, although in a hidden form, of the underlying ideas [that] can easily pass unnoticed. [44] E.g., The teaching of the Church on God's universal salvific will and on the salvation of non-Christians is not presented correctly[45], says the Notification. But the whole point is that the writings of Anthony de Mello are different in form, and thus have different focus of attention and different task than doctrinal writings. Here we have collections of prayers and advice of how to pray, poetic stories and anecdotes and a deeper awareness of that would prevent the Notification from commenting on what Anthony de Mello does not speak about. Second, the Notification attempts to „explain" de Mello's metaphoric language, turns it into literal descriptions and destroys it. Against the spirit of the initial quotation: A bird does not sing because he has a statement. He sings because he has a song, [46] the Notification says that Father Anthony de Mello makes statements about God which ignore his personal nature... According to the author, no one can help us find God as no one can help a fish in the sea find the ocean.[47]

The question I want to conclude with is: Which authentic theological impulses gives the Notification and its underlining agenda? Three points have re-appeared: If we want to remain Christians, in which way do we have to be rooted in the explicit authorities of the Scripture and the Church? What can be authentic forms of Christian mission in today's multi-religious world, if we do not want to distance ourselves from Christ's uniqueness? How profession of belief in personal God may be challenged by taking seriously the Trinitarian nature of all Christian theology, worship and practice ?

Anthony de Mello's example of dealing with these problems may be of inspiration, yet it is not exhaustive, and other, maybe more explicit and more systematic ones may enrich the spectrum of legitimate responses.

[1] Anthony de Mello, The Song of the Bird,Gujarat Sahitza Prakash, Anand, India, 1982:5

[2] ‘Notification Concerning The Writings of Father Anthony De Mello, SJ' from June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist. Signed by the Pope John Paul II, the Prefect Joseph Card. Ratzinger, the Secretary, Tarcisio Bertone, SDB.

[3] English translation , Z-WebMaster...(I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE THIS REFERENCE), p.2.

[4] Sadhana, Cesta, Brno, 1996:13. (CHANGE FOR THE ENGLISH REFERENCE)

[5] Cf. Vida Neuva, no. 2155 (3 Outubre 1998), ‘Anthony de Mello', pp.24-29 (here 25).

[6] The Song of the Bird, 1982:xiii.

[7] The Prayer of the Frog II, Cesta, Brno, 1996:11. GIVE ENGLISH VERSION

[8] The Prayer of the Frog II, 1996:10.

[9] The Prayer of the Frog II, 1996:11.

[10] The Prayer of the Frog II, 1996:107.

[11] One Minute Nonsense, Cesta, Brno,1995:129.130.

[12] Cf. ‘Preface to the Czech Edition', of Sadhana, Cesta, Brno, 1989:8.

[13] One Minute Nonsense, 1995:162.

[14] One Minute Nonsense, 1995:125.

[15] Notification:1.

[16] Notification:1.

[17] Notification:2.

[18] Notification:2.

[19] Lossky, V., The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, James Clarke & co, Cambridge, 1991:25.

[20] Lossky:42.

[21] Compare: Gn 32:25-32; Ex 3:1-14; 1 Kings 19:4-14; 1 Cor 13:12.

[22] Notification:2.

[23] Notification:2.

[24] The Song of the Bird, 1982:xiii.

[25] Notification:2.

[26] Cf. the last part of Sadhana entitled ‘Devotion'.

[27] Sadhana:19.

[28] Sadhana, 1996:19 (change for the ENGLISH VERSION, PROBABLY P.9)

[29] Explanatory Note to Notification:3.

[30] The Explanatory Note makes references to Sadhana: 25, 26; 29-30; Walking on Water: 77-78; Call to Love 96-97; Prayer of the Frog I: 86-87.

[31] LG 16.

[32] Cf. GS 92.

[33] One Minute Nonsense, 1995:125.

[34] Notification:2.

[35] The Prayer of the Frog II, 1996:11.

[36] Notification:3.

[37] Notification: 5; it refers to Awareness:126; ‘La iluminación es la espiritualidad':60.

[38] Notification:4, making references to One Minute Wisdom:67, Awareness:103.

[39] The Prayer of the Frog II, Cesta, Brno, 1996:11. GIVE ENGLISH VERSION

[40] Notification:2.

[41] Ignatius of Loyola: The Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works, ed. G.E. Ganss, 1991:129. CHANGE FOR PHILIP'S TRANSLATION

[42] Notification:9-10.

[43] Notification:4.

[44] Notification:4.

[45] Notification:7.

[46] The Song of the Bird, 1982:5

[47] Notification:4; it refers to One Minute Wisdom:67; Awareness:103.

[ID1]

[ID2]