 Modern psychology has grown within the framework of positivist tradition of science. The natural sciences provided the model to be followed and psychologist treated psychological phenomena as objective reality. They also took the stance of empirical observation to analyze behavior and psychological processes. They wanted to develop theories, which can make predictions, which can help us in controlling human behavior and such aspirations have provided the impetus for studies in different domains of psychology. We have various theories of personality, intelligence, motivation and if you examine the variation you will see that those notions, the way they are operationalized and the way they are assessed give an imprint of the cultural context in which those notions were identified by researchers. It is only in recent years that psychologists have paid attention to the contribution of culture, however the emphasis on culture cannot be considered as a new way to look at reality, because the work of Wundt included lot of analysis of culture. He used the term folk psychology and he emphasized not only experimentation, but also the contributions of culture and analysis of cultural products. Unfortunately, the tradition which paid attention to the role of culture was marginalized. That was a consequence of the major thirst on developing a science of behavior, which does not give attention to the subjectivity, which does not give attention to the cultural context. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on analyzing the contribution of culture and we have movements like cross cultural psychology, indigenous psychology, cultural psychology, ethno psychology and so on and so forth. It is being realized that culture provides basic material for psychological processes and it cannot be disregarded and in order to understand the processes and apply the findings applying the various kinds of theoretical formulations, one has to attend to the cultural context. Here it may be relevant to mention that the approach to psychology has been quite diverse. One approach has been that there are certain cultural processes, variations in cultural context, but the psychological processes are universal. So, human beings are similar everywhere. There are some variations across different cultural contexts in terms of the manifestation of psychological processes. So, this kind of psychic unity has been the foundation of cross cultural psychology. According to that, cultural psychology tries to understand the constitutive role of culture in formulating psychological processes, in forming psychological processes. It is interesting to see how culture and psychological processes relate to each other. Since this backdrop, today we are going to understand how culture and psychology relate to each other. I have taken the example of some work in the area of intelligence and the purpose is to demonstrate that how cultural context, how cultural symbolic resources can be used to promote psychological understanding. Let us focus on the notion of intelligence within the broad framework of psychological science. We are going to briefly examine what is the emphasis when we pursue knowledge from the traditional scientific perspective? What are the changes that are happening in the discipline of psychology? How culture and human behavior are related to each other? What are the major contributions of indigenous perspective? How Indian cultural context helps to develop understanding of various psychological processes and to illustrate the contribution of indigenous perspective, I am going to share some ideas about intelligence. If you examine the developments in psychology, you will notice that individual has been considered as the center of psychological processes and we have a kind of model which considers human mind as a central processor. Now, this provides a perspective and it has led to conceptualization of cognitive and affective processes and it has helped to understand some of the complexities. Unfortunately, this disregards the kind of embeddedness of these processes which is the reality. Human mind functions within the social context, human mind develops, grows within the socio-cultural context. As we know through the work of Fygotsky, that whatever happens in human mind takes place in the external social environment. So, mind is formed in society and then it comes to human mind, then it is internalized. Now, the notion has led to understanding that human mind is the critical locus of explanation. So, if you look at the psychological phenomena, if you look at the psychological terminology, you will notice that almost all terms interest, motives, values, personality are considered to be dispositions of individuals. So, we would like to explain that is the tradition of research that we try to explain various kinds of behavioral outcomes on the basis of various psychological dispositions. So, this is an important point of discussion that can we take all these concepts located within the individual irrespective of the cultural context. The second point which should be remembered is that most of the constructs which are used within the discipline of psychology are western cultural constructions. They maintain a kind of insularity where other cultural constructions are not given in entry. There is also a kind of hegemony of such constructs and they are used to map the reality in alien cultural contexts. Also because of power relationship, because of economic control, because of political structure, these notions, these constructs and these kinds of practices in developing understanding and creating knowledge maintain a kind of superiority as compared to the contributions from other cultures. We also notice that there is an implicit feature of entire psychological research that the goal is to find certain universals. So, we would like to develop theories which are applicable to almost all cultural contexts. In fact, if you read the writings, the language simply mentions phenomena. It may be based on a sample drawn from one American university, sophomore, white, young, male, student category, but it is not recognized. It is not explicitly mentioned that the findings are related to that particular kind of sample. So, there is implicit intention to project knowledge as universal. We also notice that there is one kind of model of man, the individualist model of man which has been considered as the model and other models which come from other cultural contexts are marginalized. So, the mainstream psychology maintains this kind of perspective which does not recognize the contribution from different cultures. It is high time that we attend to the variety in psychological constructs and the way we make pursuit to understand the reality, because the psychological constructs emerge and used in specific cultural contexts. The recent debate in analyzing the practices of science and the various elements of scientific method have led to some important realizations which indicate that scientific activity is also a kind of human activity and it is also subject to the kind of errors, the kind of limitations which are found in case of any social activity conducted by human beings. In particular, it has been observed that whenever one goes for observing any phenomenon, the observation is guided by a given theory. This creates a serious problem. The problem is that if an observation is theory-ledon, how that observation can be used to test a given theory? We know that the kind of theories which are used vary in terms of their preferences, their units, their constructs. If you take for example, the theories in personality, you will notice that what Alport says, what Freud says, what Jungs says are quite varied, they refer to different aspects of personality. So, there is no one single notion of personality which is addressed by these various theories. The notion of personality itself is subject to variation depending on the theoretical perspective. So, it is very difficult to examine the usefulness of a given theory on the basis of observations done by the data which are derived from another kind of theory. It is also important to note that the idea that mind works as a mirror of reality is a myth. Mind is not the true representation of reality. Mind is an active process and how we perceive the reality is construction made by the person, the past experiences, the cultural context in which someone is brought is going to contribute to the construction of reality. And there is considerable emphasis on the problems of society and there is considerable emphasis on seeing or examining the relevance of various theories. What kind of knowledge is being produced, who owns the knowledge and how knowledge is used, whose purpose is served by the kind of knowledge which is produced. This kind of social critique has emerged in recent years particularly from critical theorists and that requires rethinking about the received view of science. And we also notice that the kind of subjectivities which people have, they are rooted in the social context in which people live. Such subjectivities are also institutionalized by the cultural processes and one cannot ignore that when one tries to relate subjectivities to the observations. We also realize in terms of the developments of philosophy of science that phenomena are not independent of theories. As a matter of fact, there is growing realization the various phenomena are constituted by the theories that we develop. So, the interdependence of phenomena and theories needs to be recognized. Finally, scientific practice cannot be considered as something which is objective, rational, independent and free from errors. It is also a kind of social construction. The rules of the game called science have been developed by scientists. They define what is reliability, what is validity, what is meaning of a particular concept and such constructions work in a community of psychologists or scientists who are accepting that. So, the meaning is socially constructed. The scientific practices also emerge, maintained and sustained by the colleagues who share that perspective. Today, there is rethinking which is going on about the process of creating knowledge and there is a deep realization that creation of knowledge is a joint activity. It is a collaborative activity. There are many players in creation of knowledge and extension of that knowledge depends on the cooperation of a number of individuals. So, meaning is based on relationships. How a particular word is used by people is going to determine the meaning of that word and we find in almost all languages that different words have become more important or have lost their significance depending on the use. So, whatever is meaningful depends on the way people interact, the way people relate to each other. So, it is a kind of communal construction of meaning which has become an important feature of contemporary understanding. We also notice that there is a realization that we have to see knowledge as de-centered. It is not located in the individual mind. The understanding of reason and knowledge requires understanding and focus on the social context in which it emerges. As Gorgan has mentioned, it is the communication. It is the way we relate to others which defines a person. He says, I communicate, therefore I am. So, the central part of life is communication. Behavior is communication. Through behavior, we communicate our intentions, ideas and we live in a word which is an intentional word. There are objects for people and there are people for objects. A book is a book for a reader and a reader is a reader only if there is a book. So, this is a relational word in which we live and the meaningful discourse is a kind of joint interaction of individuals. It is not located in the individual. So, this kind of changing perspective emphasizes that we need to attend to the social processes and discourses that take place in society and in cultural context. If you look at the developing scenario within social science disciplines, there is growing discomfort about the mainstream paradigm. There is dissatisfaction with the way the objective detached empirical positivist perspective has been growing. And there are moves to go beyond that and to respect subjectivities, to understand contextualized knowledge and to broaden the scope of the discourse across different domains of psychology and social science in general. I have just mentioned here the emergence of critical theory, feminism and literary theory as important indicators of the new vision that is taking place. Now there is a kind of effort by these people to demystify the claims made by science and to see the implications of engagement with power and control. How science works through the mechanisms of power and control and how one needs to attend to the limitations of scientific practice. Here I would like to mention that I am referring to the positivist science scientific tradition. So, the mechanisms of power and control are being seriously questioned and today there are multiple biases and one can hear such biases in almost all domains of psychology. Increasingly there is also an emphasis on the role of interpretation. We live in a world where we use interpretation and we do not base our judgments or our conduct on the basis of objective reality. We have some object before us and how we interpret that object will determine our response to that object. So, the interpretation becomes an important determiner of behavior within the behaviorist and positivist tradition interpretation becomes a source of error, but in the post-positivist view it is interpretation which matters and we live in a world of interpretations called hermeneutic circle. So, we need to understand how these interpretations are used, how we relate to these interpretations. There is also development of discursive psychology which tries to examine the role played by discourses, the way through discourses people engage in creating realities. Finally, there is also a question that science has to be socially relevant and contribute to problem solving. The institutions of higher learning like universities and other institutions need to respond to the demand of accountability. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is one perspective, but today it is being seriously questioned and knowledge must lead to understanding which helps in problem solving. So, the kind of emphasis which has emerged in recent years brings in a different disciplinary matrix in which one has to be open to subjectivities, one has to be open to discourses, one has to be open to the demands of accountability. This presentation has tried to put psychological science in a context which has emerged in recent years and which takes psychology in relation to the socio-cultural context and the demands of contemporary society. It also tried to look at the developments in related disciplines and discourses in scientific method. In this context, the central concern has been to bring culture back within psychology. When we look at the notion of culture, we find many difficulties. It is a difficult concept, it is difficult because it has been treated in so many ways, it is difficult because it is very intimately related to our life and at times it becomes very difficult to understand things which are known to us. I have tried to summarize the key perspectives when we look at the notion of culture. One perspective is that culture refers to a geographical location, a kind of community and people belong to culture and we use the expressions like Indian culture and consider people who belong to India as a representative of that culture. Then there is another notion that culture belongs to people, that culture is in the mind of people, the meanings which they have, the way they think about the world. So it is largely in terms of shared meanings and finally, there is another perspective which treats culture in terms of a process which relates people to environment. I personally think that culture constitutes the way we think, culture constitutes the way we act, culture provides certain kinds of practices, culture also provides certain meaning systems and we conduct ourselves according to those meanings and practices. So it is perhaps more appropriate to understand culture as a process which mediates between people and environment. Now when we talk about culture, we find that there is variety in terms of meanings and practices, the meanings and practices which are shared by a community, the meanings and practices which are transmitted from one generation to the other provide the framework to think, to organize thoughts, goals and how to live, how to organize everyday life, how to pursue various goals have an imprint of culture. In recent years, there is emphasis on understanding how specific cultures contribute to development of various psychological processes and this perspective has been treated as indigenous perspective. It respects native knowledge, it also respects the reality as it is lived by the people. In a sense, it is an inductive approach, it tries to understand reality from insiders perspective. So far, we have been trying to impose the template or conceptual framework borrowed from a different culture and alien culture and try to look at the reality of a different group on the basis of the categories and constructs borrowed from other culture. So, an indigenous perspective tries to develop knowledge which reflects socio-cultural reality. Such knowledge is designed by the people and for the people of a particular community or nation. There is variety of views about indigenization. Some psychologists have considered that indigenization can be considered as a way to transform the constructs, measures, tools to suit a recipient culture. We have adaptations of psychological tests developed by researchers in North America or in any other country or cultural setting and we translate it in an Indian language. We develop norms for the Indian population but the conceptual framework remains the same. I do not think that this is going to help us in the process of indigenization. It is going to create a different version of the perspective which has been proposed in one particular culture. It remains imposition of an alien perspective. Now, when we talk about indigenous psychology, the right way will be to treat psychological phenomena in their ecological, historical and cultural context. If you are not able to do that, then we are not moving towards indigenous psychology. indigenous psychology has to go beyond the given methods. One can illustrate this point by taking use of scales and psychological tests on samples from village, where it will be very difficult to instruct them in using scales of 7 point or 10 point for measuring various dispositions including happiness or life satisfaction or anxiety or stress, because the kind of mindset which is required to rate these subjective interpretations demands a particular way to understand and it requires a practice of a different kind. So there is a mismatch between the method used and the assumptions which are shared by the people. So, we need to integrate insiders as well as outsiders. Perhaps we have to be open to multiple perspectives and see how these different perspectives are going to contribute to our understanding. But kind of knowledge will be gained if we are going to use these different perspectives. We have not made serious effort to see whether we can compare the insiders and outsiders perspective and what are the possible implications of that. We also note that in almost all cultural settings, people do have a fairly complex understanding of themselves, their motives, their intentions and the way they organize their life. We also find that psychology has maintained insularity and has not connected with the disciplines which are included within humanities and social sciences. If you are going to adopt indigenous psychological perspective, we need to relate to the developments in these fields. We talk about indigenization from without and indigenization from within. These two terms refer to the processes which emerge within the cultural context or which lead to adaptation from the external context. In psychological literature, we find that a lot of work is following indigenization from without perspective. There is need to move towards indigenization from within. When we go for indigenization and try to attain to the indigenous perspective pertaining to the Indian context, we need to see what are the shared views of the people. Here I have tried to summarize the main features of Indian word view. This perspective maintains holistic view of the world. As a matter of fact, there is a shared view that whatever is happening at the macro level also happens at the micro level and everything takes its meaning within the context in which it occurs. Any statement has to relate to the context if one has to understand the meaning of that particular concept. Similarly, the notion of person is relational. It treats the individual as constituted by the relationships as some psychologists have preferred. It is the relationality which is important rather than personality. How an individual relates to other individuals provides the meaning to personhood of an individual. We also recognize that development in one's life is non-linear and we need to see the kind of variations that take place in the kind of changes which happen in life. This is very important. Normally psychological constructs are skewed in some way. If you read literature, you will notice that everything which is internal is very important. All the characteristics which are considered to be good or those which are located in the individual, the context is not getting enough importance. In the Indian way of thinking, it is the joint contribution of individual and context which is considered to be the determinant of behavior. So, the development becomes non-linear. We also find an emphasis on mutual care and reciprocity in social relationships. As I have indicated earlier, it is the relationship which is central to the notion of self-hood and through that, it is the achievement of well-being which is inclusive, which includes other individuals, which is central to Indian thought. There is considerable work, which emphasizes that familial values are more important in maintaining the goals and organizing activities because of the stability in various communities. There has been limited social mobility and perhaps family becomes the basic unit for many Indians and an individualistic notion may not help to understand the complexity of human behavior. I remember studies which have shown that the goals of achievement which people emphasize include the goals of family in terms of welfare of family members and contributing to the well-being of the elderly. So, what we find is that the person is a decentered person. It is largely relational and it maintains relationship as an important goal in life. As an illustration of indigenous approach to psychology, I would like to present some of the ideas which have emerged in the course of understanding intelligence. Let me mention that the domain of intelligence has been a major domain in the disciplinary development of psychology. It is important in two respects, it has led to several kinds of theories and it has also led to application in different areas. Let me remind you that the whole effort to understand intelligence started with the emphasis on understanding variations in individual's capacity or ability to solve various problems and it started in a set up which was a school set up. The purpose was to see how students are doing well and how students differ in terms of their academic achievement and what can be done with those who are not doing well. From that orientation, the work which has been done in the last one century has provided several perspectives. It will be very difficult to summarize all the theories, but one can recognize the key elements in the growth of our understanding in the field of intelligence. We started with the notion that while there is one element which is common to almost all kinds of abilities and there is a kind of variety in intellectual abilities. So we have certain specifics and there is a general ability. Then there was a move to identify diverse abilities. We have factorial theories, we have models which organize abilities in hierarchy, but the most crucial development that has taken place recognizes that intelligence is not a disposition, but relates to processing and using the information processing approach many theorists including Sternberg and JP Das have offered ways to look at how we deal with information. The last interesting development has been by Gardner who has tried to see that while intelligence is not limited to academic or intellectual domain. Intelligence may be reflected in many areas. So one can be highly effective in performing one domain. So intelligence can be in dance, it can be in the domain of social interaction or it can be in terms of problem solving. So there is no limit to the notion of intelligence. When I am saying this what I mean is that intelligence is quite varied and as Gardner uses the expression there are multiple intelligences. There is no single intelligence and you have many components of it, but there is a possibility of diverse kinds of intelligences. There is also recognition in recent years that there is an element of activity involved in intelligence and how we use our emotions that also reflects intelligence. So we have the notion of emotional intelligence. It is also a proposal to understand how we relate to the higher consciousness and people have started talking about spiritual intelligence. So we have moved from a general notion of intelligence which constituted intellectual ability to variety of intelligences. Intelligence provides a scenario that the understanding of intelligence depends on the kind of metaphors that we use. In an interesting book Sternberg takes the position that various theories are rooted in different metaphors. So the factorial theories are rooted in one kind of metaphor, Sternberg calls it geographical metaphor. Piaget has a different kind of metaphor for intelligence or Jensen has a different kind of metaphor of intelligence. Similarly Gardner has a different metaphor for intelligence. So there is a variety of thinking about intelligence. There is another component to this emerging interest in intelligence and that is one which relates to cultural variation in conceptualizing intelligence. And what I am going to share with you is that there are different emphases in different cultures on what is considered to be intelligence. Now if you look at the Indian thought tradition it is well established that it is ignorance it is avidya which is the cause of suffering and troubles in one's life. And that brings us to the question that how this ignorance can be removed. It is also emphasized that everything is possible if someone has knowledge, if someone has understanding, vidya or knowledge is considered as the tool to achieve human goals. The understanding which has emerged in Indian tradition also emphasizes a very important point that this world is organized it is not chaotic it is cosmos where things are interrelated and they follow certain laws. So understanding in a broader context relates to relating to the context and it is possible. Then there is another important emphases in Indian tradition and that tells that knowledge transforms the knower as human beings learning understanding changes the person in terms of the values which they have. I think it is reflected in the notion that knowledge is emancipatory knowledge leads to liberation. So when you have knowledge then your vision has changed you are a different person. In order to develop an indigenous perspective on understanding intelligence we took up a small project and in that project we wanted to use a variety of approaches. We tried to go to the scholarly tradition available in various philosophical texts. We tried to go to the representations of intelligence in different languages. And we also went to common man and we used samples who are illiterate, who are literate and who lived in different parts of India. So we wanted to have some kind of triangulation and we wanted to see whether any meaningful organization of the notion of intelligence is possible from these various perspectives. Let us see what the scholarly tradition offers about the notion of intelligence. The Indian scholarly tradition which is available in different shastras is very rich and a very brief and selective view which comes from such treatments of the theme tells many facets of intelligence. It considers intelligence as Pratibha, flash or revelation by the seeker and it is something which is genetically present in an individual it leads to intuitive understanding. The term which has been frequently used is buddhi. As a matter of fact in one analysis three terms have been used pragyan, mati and buddhi. You have an understanding which comes from the past experiences, past learning. We have an understanding which relates to the present and we have also an understanding which relates to the future. So human beings can think about past, present and future. They can use their learning. You have smrti or memory and you utilize past learning to solve problems faced in present. You also anticipate future and you also deal with immediate problems. So buddhi is a term which refers to a complex set of processes which incorporate effective dealing with past, present and future. Buddhi has been analyzed by many thinkers and we try to collect the various ways in which buddhi or intelligence has been used. We find that it refers to mental vigor to form and retain concepts. It deals with reason, intellect and judgment. It is also used to refer to perception, comprehension and understanding. Then finally, we find other important sense which is quite different and unique and that is presence of mind ready with alertness and skill in performing different activities. Now if you recollect the traditional intelligence theorization treated intelligence as a single entity or disposition, but the growing evidence from different cultures indicates that intelligence has many facets. In particular, it has a social facet, an emotional facet and also a practical facet. It is interesting to note that some of the contemporary theorists like Sternberg has tried to incorporate some of these ideas in the notions of practical intelligence. Another concept which he has introduced is successful intelligence and in these two notions creativity is also incorporated. So, broadening social relationships is also incorporated and intellectual abilities also incorporated. So, broadening the scope of the notion of intelligence is now in vogue. So, in west there is emphasis on development of technological intelligence. This is observation by cultural psychologists where the emphasis is on attention, observation and speed of learning. Contrary to that, there are studies from Asia and Africa which indicate the social nature of intelligence where an intelligent person is considered to be one who maintains harmony, who likes some kind of coexistence with nature which emphasizes cooperativeness which includes obedience as well as social responsibility. One can see the emphasis one which is technological and the other which is social where living life in the social context in relationships is considered to be an important component of life. I think it is very interesting to note that entire intelligence testing has been focusing on intellective part and the social part was not considered as a genuine component of intelligence. We had some work on social intelligence, we also had some work on social competence but it did not receive attention from the group of researchers who were dedicated to intelligence. Let me share what we have done in our study. This study included a variety of approaches. Here I have summarized the kind of approach which was followed in this study. What we did was that we tried to look at the various kinds of social representations available in Sanskrit and in Hindi. And for that we used proverbs. So we tried to create a list of proverbs where intelligence has been used and referred. We also collected something called sukthi, good words or good phrases which summarize certain statements reflecting socially accepted ways of relating to various problems of life. They are available in Sanskrit and using these two resources we wanted to see what is the content of intelligence as reflected in these materials. And from that we included young adults, adolescents and elderly people from both the genders, from five areas in India that listed here Delhi, Ajmer, Gorakhpur, Rayapur and Mysore. And we used local language and we interviewed them and we wanted to see what is considered as intelligence, what behavior, what attribute or what characteristic is understood in terms of intelligence. And we used this set of data to develop a notion of intelligence, what are its components. So it was a kind of an inductive approach which derives its data from three sources, the social representations, the textual analysis and interviews of people. Here I would like to summarize the results of analyzing the data from these sources. The analysis indicated four major dimensions in intelligent people. Those individuals who show intelligence, they vary along these dimensions. And what we find is that there is an element of cognitive competence, there is an element of social competence, there is an element of entrepreneurial competence and finally there is an element of emotional competence. Based on the analysis, we noticed that cognitive competence includes how people relate to their context, their ability to reflect, ability to communicate well, ability to comprehend various issues and finally ability to discriminate between right and wrong, discriminate across different stimuli and planning for future. You can see that the cognitive competence which is before us is quite varied than what we find in the usual intelligence tests. So in order to live effective life, we need to attend to a variety of demands and the social demands and intellectual demands are interrelated. The second component which dealt with social competence includes observing social norms. A person is considered as intelligent if he is able to observe the social norms. The norms dealing with interacting with other individuals, following rules, etc. Then respecting parents, elders and guests. A socially competent person performs, organizes and relates to individuals who are in hierarchical relationship in different ways. So how one relates to a parent or a friend or somebody else, it depends on the hierarchical position. So, an understanding of that is required, helping the needy ones, it is an altruistic emphasis remaining in company of good people, satsangati that one must prefer to have good people as friends. So social competence emphasizes on relating to other individuals and organizing behavior which maintains harmony and facilitates pursuit of social goals. Then we find an important component which I do not find in most of the notions of intelligence which seems to be very different I think which requires our attention. We have tentatively termed it as intrapreneurial competence that a tendency to put in hard work, patience, being vigilant, maintaining a practical stance that is looking at implications of activities, commitment to work, maintaining secrecy till the work is completed, use of multiple strategies. These were certain elements which were mentioned by people in their interviews that intelligent person is one who is capable of utilizing the situation and preparing according to the demands of that situation and I think it is an interesting learning. Similarly, there is an element of emotional competence in the construal of intelligence that is emerging and it is quite comprehensive. It emphasizes on ability to control emotions, jitendra, this was the word used by some people that those who are able to regulate their emotions. When one has to show anger, when one has to express love, when one has to express appreciation or forgiveness or gratitude, these are the elements to make judgment and engage in related activities is something which deals with emotional competence. Then there is another emphasis that an emotionally competent person always maintains moderation in behavior, he does not go to extremes. The third is kindness and politeness, a realistic self appraisal. I think this is an emphasis which relates to understanding oneself and it demands that one should not emphasize the egoistic tendencies and maintain a real appreciation of one's ability. You can contrast it with the notion of self esteem, where it is presented that one must perceive oneself positively and high self esteem has been considered to be a very important component of effective personality. Here the emphasis is on realistic appraisal rather than very high self esteem. Speaking truth, but restraining from that truth which is harmful to society. Now emotional competence is something which also engages with the way we relate to reality and the understanding is that the reality is constructed, it is going to change and one must attend to the kind of context one is living. Actually, it reflects the saying that one should speak truth, satyam buru yad, priyam buru yad, maa buru yad, satyam apriyam, perhaps one has to develop this kind of competence.