{"id":4464,"date":"2013-07-13T01:56:11","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:56:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=4464"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:56:11","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:56:11","slug":"33-21-october-1953-vol-05-questions-and-answers-volume-05","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/02-works-of-the-mother\/01-cwmce\/05-questions-and-answers-volume-05\/33-21-october-1953-vol-05-questions-and-answers-volume-05","title":{"rendered":"-33_21 October 1953.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n

 <\/span><\/b>21 October 1953 <\/font><\/b> <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

When a true artist concentrates and sees
\nthe Divine in himself, can he use art to express the Divine? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

And why
\nnot? Whom do you call an artist, first of all? A painter, a sculptor \u2013 Is that
\nall? What else? What meaning do you give to the word \u201cartist\u201d? Of whom do you
\nthink when you speak of an artist? Of a painter or a sculptor? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Someone who can draw. <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, a
\npainter, someone who can draw, it is the same thing. Of a painter, a sculptor,
\nthat\u2019s all? Painter and sculptor? Not of a musician or a writer or.. I am
\nasking you because the answer would be different according to the instances <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I had thought of someone who can draw. <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

For
\ninstance, there were in the Middle Ages – there still are today, but they were
\nalready there in the Middle Ages men who made stained-glass windows, designs with
\npieces of coloured glass and in various forms. In the churches, in cathedrals,
\nthere were always stained-glass windows. Instead of ordinary windows, there
\nwere these coloured panes which made designs. It is a wonderful material, for
\nthere is the sun behind (in any case the full light), and these glasses were
\ntransparent; so they gave out a colour which was as though self-luminous, and
\nthese men made designs, made pictures with these coloured glasses cut out, you
\nknow, in special forms and painted in different colours. And that indeed was
\nart. In all the cathedrals, the big churches, there were stained-glass windows;
\nsome of them were quite marvellous. And they expressed, for instance, the life
\nof a saint or scenes from the life of Christ or\u2026 all kinds of things like that.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 321<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

So, what is
\nyour question? Put it clearly. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Whether one can express the Divine
\nhimself.. <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Whether one
\ncan express the Divine himself in art? But in what can one express Him? I mean,
\nwhat exactly do you call \u201cexpressing the Divine\u201d? In words? In teachings? In
\nbooks, finally? Or how else? Who has expressed the Divine completely in the
\nmaterial world?.. It is only when the material world is transformed that it
\nwill be possible to express the Divine in his purity. And I don\u2019t see what
\ndifference there can be between art and any other activity. It is something
\nwhich has the capacity to become fused, but not entirely, and it remains (how
\nto put it?) an instrument for giving a form. And I don\u2019t see what difference
\nthis makes, whatever may be the form. If one can express the Divine with words,
\none can express Him with colours, express Him with sounds, express Him with
\nforms. But in none of these instances is the expression perfect, for the union
\nis not perfect. But when the world is transformed and the Divine is able to
\nmanifest Himself without being deformed, the expression will be perfect. But
\nfor the moment all expressions are on the same plane. None of them is better
\nthan any other. One mode of expression (I mean in itself) is not better than
\nanother. There is always something<\/i> of
\nthe human personality, the being in form, which is there to give a limitation
\nor deformation to what has to be expressed. <\/span><\/p>\n

Art
\nis just one activity like all others. Truly speaking, I was too polite to tell
\nthat lady <\/span>\u00b9<\/span>
\nthis, but I thought: \u201cWhy do you make distinctions like that, all this is the
\nsame thing.\u201d Do you catch what I mean?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

When one is identified with the Divine,
\ndoes one see Him in the form one thinks He has? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

\u00b9<\/font><\/span> <\/font> <\/span>
\nThe one who asked the question in the conversation of
\n28 July: see Questions and Answers 1929.<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/font> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

  <\/span>Page \u2013 322<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

Usually. It
\nis very rare – unless one is able to get rid of one\u2019s mental formation
\ncompletely – it is very rare to see Him quite objectively. Besides, Sri
\nAurobindo always used to say that the relation with the Divine depended on what
\none wanted it to be. Everyone aspires for a particular form of relation, and
\nfor him the relation takes that form. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Then,
\nwhat is it in truth? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Probably something
\nthat escapes form totally – or that can take all forms. There is no limitation
\nto the expression of the Divine. He can express Himself without form and He can
\nexpress Himself in all forms. And He expresses Himself in everyone according to
\neach one\u2019s need. For even if somebody succeeds in becoming sufficiently
\nimpersonal so as to identify himself completely with the Divine, at that moment
\nhe will not be able to express it. And as soon as he is in a condition to
\nexpress it, there will be something of the limited personality intervening and
\nthrough this the experience has to pass. The moment of the experience is one
\nthing and the expression of this experience is another. It may be simultaneous:
\nthere are people who while having the experience express what they feel in some
\nform or other. Then it is simultaneous. But that does not prevent that which
\nhas the experience in its purity and that which expresses it from being two
\nfairly different modes of being. And this difference is enough for one to be able
\nto say in truth that it is impossible to know the Divine unless one becomes the
\nDivine. <\/span><\/p>\n

As
\nfor expressing Him, there is always a shifting; it always causes something like
\nthis (gesture of changing levels), whatever the mode of expression. <\/span><\/p>\n

There
\nremains only one field in which the experience has not been totally achieved,
\nthat is the purely material field. And there, it may be asked if truly, when
\nthe divine Consciousness descends into the body, the transformations will not
\nbe sufficient <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 323<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

for there
\nto be a possibility of integral expression But that is yet to come; it has not
\nyet been done. And so long as it is not done, one cannot know. For even in the
\nhighest mental expression there is something which intervenes, due to the
\nphysical body. For the inspiration to come right down to the paper, for
\ninstance, well, despite everything, it must pass through very material
\nvibrations which may change it. But if these very vibrations are transformed,
\nthen in that case it is possible that the outer expression is absolutely
\nidentical with the inner; that is, the corporeal manifestation truly becomes a
\nmanifestation of the divine essence. <\/span><\/p>\n

Is
\nthat all? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Aren\u2019t the incidents of the Mahabharata
\nand the Ramayana true? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

True, in
\nwhat sense? Whether it all really happened on earth like that? Hanuman and the
\nmonkeys and the?.. (laughter) I can\u2019t tell. I have the feeling that it is
\nsymbolical; that, for instance, when one speaks of Hanuman, this represents the
\nevolutionary man, and Rama is the involutionary being, the one who comes from
\nabove. But.. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

What do you mean by the involutionary and
\nevolutionary being? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nevolutionary being is the one that\u2019s the continuation of the animals, and the
\nother is a being from higher worlds who, when the earth was formed,
\nmaterialised itself upon earth – it does not come from below, it has come from
\nabove. But in the evolutionary being there is that central light which is the
\norigin of the psychic being, which will develop into the psychic being, and
\nwhen the psychic being is fully formed, there is a moment when it can unite
\nwith a being from above which can incarnate in it. So this being from above
\nwhich descends into a psychic
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 324<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

being is an
\ninvolutionary being \u2013 a being of the Overmind plane or from elsewhere. <\/span><\/p>\n

That
\nis all? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Was Anatole France\u2019s \u201cjongleur\u201d an artist?
\n<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t
\nknow. That depends (that\u2019s just what I was asking Parul, it depends on the
\ndefinition you give to the word \u201cartist\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

If
\nyou ask me, I believe that all those who produce something artistic are
\nartists! A word depends upon the way it is used, upon what one puts into it.
\nOne may put into it all that one wants. For instance, in Japan there are
\ngardeners who spend their time correcting the forms of trees so that in the
\nlandscape they make a beautiful picture. By all kinds of trimmings, props, etc.
\nthey adjust the forms of trees. They give them special forms so that each form
\nmay be just what is needed in the landscape. A tree is planted in a garden at
\nthe spot where it is needed and moreover, it is given the form that\u2019s required
\nfor it to go well with the whole set-up. And they succeed in doing wonderful
\nthings. You have but to take a photograph of the garden, it is a real picture,
\nit is so good. Well, I certainly call the man an artist. One may call him a
\ngardener but he is an artist All those who have a sure and developed sense of
\nharmony in all its forms, and the harmony of all the forms among themselves,
\nare necessarily artists, whatever may be the type of their production. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

You did not finish telling us about Rama
\nand Hanuman. (Laughter) <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I did not
\nfinish? But yes, I said.. Oh! because he asked what difference there was
\nbetween an involutionary and an evolutionary being. But that\u2019s enough as it is.
\nOnce you know that you have the key to the whole story. Besides, I don\u2019t know
\nwhether there is a single authentic text or many texts of the Ramayana. For I
\nhave heard different versions. There are different versions,
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 325<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

aren\u2019t
\nthere? Above all, for two very important facts (Mother turns to Nolini<\/i>) concerning the end: the defeat and death of
\nRavana, and then the death of Sita. I have heard it narrated very differently,
\nwith different significances, by different pandits. According to their turn of
\nmind, if I may say so, some who were very very very orthodox told me certain
\nthings and others who were not orthodox told me something very different. So I
\ndon\u2019t know if there are several texts or whether it was their own
\ninterpretation. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini) There are several texts. There is one text
\nin the North and another in the South. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Ah! as for
\nBuddhism. The people of the South and the North have different kinds of
\nimagination. The southern people are generally more rigid, aren\u2019t they?.. I
\ndon\u2019t know, but for Buddhism, the Buddhism of the South is quite rigid and
\ndoesn\u2019t allow any suppleness in the understanding of the text. And it is a
\nterribly strict Buddhism in which all notion of the Godhead in any form
\nwhatsoever, is completely done away with. On the other hand, the Buddhism of
\nthe North is an orgy of gods! It is true that these are former Buddhas, but
\nstill they are turned into gods. And it is this latter that has spread into
\nChina and from China gone to Japan. So, one enters a Buddhist temple in Japan
\nand sees.. There is a temple where there were more than a thousand Buddhas, all
\nsculptured – a thousand figures seated around the central Buddha – they were
\nthere all around, the entire back wall of the temple was covered with images:
\nsmall ones, big ones, fat ones, thin ones, women, men – there was everything, a
\nwhole pantheon there, formidable, and they were like gods. And then too, there
\nwere little beings down below with all kinds of forms including those of
\nanimals, and these were the worshippers. It was.. it was an orgy of images. But
\nthe Buddhism of the South has the austerity of Protestantism: there must be no
\nimages. And there is no divine Consciousness,
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 326<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

besides.
\nOne comes into the world through desire, into a world of desire, and abandoning
\ndesire one goes out of the world and creation and returns to Nirvana \u2013 even the
\nnought is something too concrete. There is no Creator in Buddhism. So, I don\u2019t
\nknow. The Buddhism of the South is written in Pali and that of the North in
\nSanskrit. And naturally, there is Tibetan Buddhism written in Tibetan, and
\nChinese Buddhism written in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism in Japanese. And each
\none, I believe, is very very different from the others. Well, probably there
\nmust be several versions of the Ramayana. And still more versions of the
\nMahabharata \u2013 that indeed is amazing!<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini) Of the Ramayana also. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Then texts
\nhave been added later. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Did it exist, Mother, the Mahabharata? <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

I suppose something
\ndid exist. In all these things, there is \u201csomething\u201d that\u2019s true and then what
\nhas been made of it. These are two very different things. But in all religions,
\neverywhere, it is the same thing: there is something which is there, something
\nexists, and then one makes quite a different thing of it. That\u2019s the difference
\nbetween history and legend – but history itself is a legend. <\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nsame story, even taken quite objectively, when it is repeated several times,
\nchanges; and so after thousands of years it is altogether deformed. Which are
\nthe original texts – I mean the first recognised original texts – of the
\nMahabharata? It was related orally for a very long time, wasn\u2019t it? So you can
\nimagine how it could have changed. These were oral traditions for a very long
\ntime. But who wrote the first version? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini)
\nVyasa. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Ah! <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 327<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

(Nolini)
\nAt first there were 36,000 verses. Now it
\nis more than a lakh or two. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Oh! Oh! it
\nhas grown: from 36,000 it has become quite inflated! But the Gita – are there
\nseveral versions? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini)
\nNo. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But the
\nGita is a part of the Mahabharata. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini)
\nYes<\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Is the
\nRamayana more recent? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini)
\nNo. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Is it of
\nthe same period? And is the author known? <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini)
\nValmiki. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, and
\nthis has not changed so much. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini)
\nNot as much as the other. Not so much as
\nthe Mahabharata. <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

But there
\nare differences. There is one tradition which says that Ravana died
\ndeliberately, that it was deliberately he chose the role of the Asura and that
\nhe died willingly in order to shorten his \u201cstay\u201d outside the Divine. He
\ndissolved into Rama when he died, saying that thus he had succeeded sooner in
\nuniting with him definitively. Which version is this? Is it orthodox or not?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

(Nolini)
\nEverything is orthodox! <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

It is
\northodox. The idea (it is an idea, isn\u2019t it?) is that the Asuras
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 328<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

have chosen
\nto be Asuras because they will be dissolved by the Divine and thus return more
\nquickly, unite more swiftly with the divine essence than the gods or sages who
\ntake a big round of labour before being able to return to the Divine. The
\nAsuras, on the other hand, having chosen to be very wicked, will be destroyed
\nmuch more quickly, they will return much faster. It\u2019s one way of looking at it!
\n(Laughter<\/i>) <\/span><\/p>\n

In
\nthe same way, I have heard two versions (but as I said, one was broad-minded
\nand the other extremely orthodox) about the end of Sita; one said that Sita
\nchose to be swallowed up in the earth to prove her innocence, whilst the very
\northodox version said that it was just because she was not innocent that she
\nwas swallowed up! (Laughter<\/i>) <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Flowers fell from the skies, didn\u2019t they?<\/span>\u00b9<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Ah! that
\nagain is another story I heard the Ramayana from a man called Pandit, and he
\nwas the son of a pandit and had come to Paris to study Law. But he had remained
\northodox, as orthodox as one could be, it was tremendous! And he had with him a
\nRamayana translated into English, with pictures, and he showed it to me. And he
\ntold me the story. And then, when he came to the end he told me that. So I
\nsaid: \u201cWhat do you mean?\u201d He told me: \u201cYou understand, for an Indian, if a
\nwoman has lived even for a few hours in another man\u2019s house, she is
\nimpure….\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cOh! it is terrible.. So, it
\nwas because she was impure that she was swallowed up I remember, he was quite
\nshort. He was from a Bombay family \u2013 not Bombay proper but from that side. He
\nwas a Gujarati. I believe he spoke Gujarati.<\/span><\/p>\n

And
\nthen the other version, I heard that from\u2026 that man was called Shastri. He was
\nanother pandit. He was in Japan. There we are, then. <\/span><\/p>\n

Is
\nthat all? No questions? You.. Be quick, it is late.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

\n\u00b9<\/font><\/span> According to the texts, it seems, flowers
\nfell from the skies after Sita\u2019s disappearance, proving her innocence. <\/font>
\n <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 329<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

In one of your writings you have said that
\nbeauty is universal and that one must be universal in order to see and
\nrecognise it. <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes. I mean
\none must have a universal consciousness in order to see and recognise it. For
\ninstance, if your consciousness is limited to one place, that is, it is a
\nnational consciousness (the consciousness of any one country), what is
\nbeautiful for one country is not beautiful for another. The sense of beauty is
\ndifferent. For example (I could make you laugh with a story), I knew in Paris
\nthe son of the king of Dahomey (he was a negro \u2013 the king of Dahomey was a
\nnegro) and this boy had come to Paris to study Law. He used to speak French
\nlike a Frenchman. But he had remained a negro, you understand. And he was asked
\n(he used to tell us all kinds of stories about his life as a student), someone
\nasked him in front of me: \u201cWell, when you marry, whom will you marry?\u201d \u2013 \u201cAh! a
\ngirl from my country, naturally, they alone are beautiful….\u00a0 <\/span>\u201c(Laughter<\/i>)
\nNow, for those who are not negroes, negro beauty is a little difficult to see!
\nAnd yet, this was quite spontaneous. He was fully convinced it was impossible
\nfor anyone to think otherwise\u2026 \u201cOnly the women of my country are beautiful!\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

It
\nis the same thing everywhere. Only those who have developed a little artistic
\ntaste, have travelled much and seen many things have widened their
\nconsciousness and they are no longer so sectarian. But it is very difficult to
\npull a person out of the specialised tastes of his race \u2013 I am not even
\nspeaking now of the country, I am speaking of the race. It is very difficult.
\nIt is there, you know, hidden right at the bottom, in the subconscious, and it
\ncomes back without your even noticing it, quite spontaneously, quite naturally.
\nEven on this very point: the woman of your race is always much more beautiful
\nthan the woman of other races \u2013 spontaneously, it is the spontaneous taste.
\nThat\u2019s what I mean. So, you must rise above that. I am not even speaking of
\nthose who find everything that\u2019s outside their own family
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 330<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

or caste
\nvery ugly and bad. I am not speaking at all of these people. I am not even
\nspeaking of those for whom one country is much more beautiful than another. And
\nyet, these people have already risen above the altogether ordinary way of
\nthinking. I am not even speaking of a question of race It is very difficult,
\none must go right down, right down within oneself into the subconscious – and
\neven farther – to discover the root of these things. Therefore, if you want to
\nhave the sense of beauty in itself which is quite independent of all these
\ntastes, the taste of the race – you must have a universal consciousness.
\nOtherwise how can you have it? You will always have preferences. Even if these
\nare not active and conscious preferences, they are subconscious preferences,
\ninstincts. So, to know true beauty independent of all form, one must rise above
\nall form. And once you have known it beyond every form, you can recognise it in
\nany form whatsoever, indifferently. And that becomes very interesting. <\/span><\/p>\n

So
\nthat\u2019s all. Au revoir<\/i>, my children.
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

\nPage \u2013 331<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

 21 October 1953   When a true artist concentrates and sees the Divine in himself, can he use art to express the Divine?   And…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[126],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4464","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-05-questions-and-answers-volume-05","wpcat-126-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4464","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4464"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4464\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4464"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4464"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4464"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}