Out to sea with the master and a mangled young man By Stephen Fitzpatrick http://www.theaustralian.com.au/art...angled-young-man/story-e6frg8pf-1226506926857 Snip: "I never considered that we were doing anything about cults," he says. "It just never occurred to me. Anyway, one person's cult is another person's movement, is another person's hockey team ... I think the danger becomes when (a movement) is providing answers, when it's not about asking questions or getting people to investigate." 20 most controversial movies ever made: Exorcist, Clockwork Orange, more By Emma Dibdin http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/at...ever-made-exorcist-clockwork-orange-more.html Snip: "Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, which follows a young drifter's involvement in a cult, has been the subject of frenzied discussion ever since it was announced. Widely believed to be a thinly-veiled study of Scientology and its founder L Ron Hubbard, the film supposedly incurred anger both from the Church's senior members and from Tom Cruise, although some of its cast maintain that it isn't about Scientology at all."
You know, there are more celebrity Anons than there are celebrity Scilons (and we've got better celebrities, too). Awards season is approachin'. Speeches will be spochen. You heard it here first.
Another major difference is that now ex-Scilon celebrities speak out. It was usually the practice before that celebs were terrified of the reputation-wrecking ball that the cult wielded and just STFU. First, it was too embarrassing to admit having been a cultist. Second, the cult would fuck your shit up. There were certainly exceptions. William S. Burroughs is an obvious one, since he almost immediately wrote a book trashing the cult upon leaving. However, when you are a writer whose main claim to fame (other than being prosecuted for obscenity for one of the greatest novels ever written) is shooting your wife, and being a gay junkie before that qualified you to your own reality show, plus you carry around a shotgun underneath your overcoat, you just really don't give a flying fuck about what Scientology can do to your reputation. I think Jason Beghe was really the first to break this celebrity code of silence about Scientology, maybe just because the bastard has bowling balls in his scrote and spouts profanity like Popeye before he was in the funny pages. But even comparatively polite and PC celebs like Haggis now routinely trash the cult. The cult is now the subject of a major art house flick, even though everyone involved is still adhering to the decades-old code of pretending it's not about Scientology. The next big celebrity out will do the usual route of celebrities who stopped some bad habit that is now embarrassing: elaborate confessionals and redemption stories, all for the sake of attention, just like they do when they get off drugs, like it was somehow a better and nobler thing than having the sense not to get all fucked up on drugs in the first place.
Unfortunately, his latest film was in support of another cult, the cult of Ayn Rand. Thankfully, I heard it failed even harder than the first film. I've read Atlas Shrugged, and it's great if you're a teenager who hates the entire fucking world. If you want a truly great mind, however, read Yevgeniy Zamyatin, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Thorsten Veblen, Harlan Ellison, or Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.
When does this film come out on DVD? Not one fucking CAM/TS or DVD screener out there. Some of us haven't been able to see it yet, FFS...
Not sure, but you can pre-order it at Amazon now for $19.99 and they'll ship it to you as soon as it's available. (I was just there. Wanted to add something to the order to get free shipping, but I wasn't sure if that would work when one item is pre-ordered. Anyone know?)
Don't forget that he was shoved out into the spotlight by Marty Mark publishing his letter which supposed to limited distribution. (Naive of him to think it would stay that way.)
John Sweeney on the BBC's The Culture Show tonight: "I thought the film was extraordinary. I thought it was bold, and good. I'm still troubled by my experience with the Church of Scientology, and I found this film almost healing in some sense. What's wonderful for me about The Master, is it explains the birth of a cult. Because the thing that really, really gets me, and confuses all my friends, and people who think about it, ex-Scientologists, is how on earth do they fall for this? How on earth do they fall for this, this man, and this thing, this entity, this "church"? And the answer is - he had charisma. And what's so brilliant about this film The Master is you see how a man with immense charisma can mould people around him to believe that he is someone special. They call it "processing", Scientology calls it "auditing". What happens is you go into a trance-like hypnootic state and you talk through your past lives, on tape. The biggest thing of all is that, Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was massively charismatic, and a con-man. And in the film, the Master is massively charismatic, and a con-man. There's a film star called Jason Beghe, who's left the Church, and he says about Scientology that there's never been a mouse trap without some really good cheese in it. They love bomb you to death. And at the beginning of the film certainly, Phoenix is a wreck and the Cause does help him, they listen to him, they're some kind of weird family, and they look after him. The Cause feels like a good thing, for really quite a while, and then it's suddenly when the skeptic arrives and questions the Master that it turns nasty, and gets progressively darker and darker. It's not absolutely about Scientology, even for me. You don't have to be in the least bit interetsed in the Church of Scientology or have ever heard of it to find this film an amaxing piec of art. It's a love affair between two men. It's a film about a charismatic domineering personality. It could also be about other cults. I think Scientology used to have an octopus-like grip on Hollywood, and that is weakening. It should have been made twenty years ago, but it's great that they've done it now.
'The Master' review: Paul Thomas Anderson directs mesmerizing drama By Simon Reynolds http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/re...homas-anderson-directs-mesmerising-drama.html Snip: "Dodd's wife Peggy (Amy Adams), a devout follower of the religion, hovers on the periphery, deeply suspicious of Quell. "I don't think Freddie is as committed to the cause as the cause is committed to him," she tells her husband." Snip: "By the end, The Master seems to run a little out of steam, like it's something of an unfinished thought. A trailing ellipsis rather than a full stop might just be the point, though, because this is a film that lingers in the mind and asks questions long after the end credits roll." Good review, imho. This is a film that will may or will may not have a sequel. And either way is ok.
In the shadow of Scientology By Garry Maddox The Master explores Scientology through the eyes of a WWII vet. While there has been much media attention on the parallels between Dodd and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, Anderson says the genesis of the movie was the Freddie Quell character. ''That was something I had for a long time - a sailor's story, a kind of aimlessness, postwar stuff, various jobs,'' he says. ''I had a character that was in search of a story. ''I got to know him pretty well, but it reached a point where it was like driving along in your car: you stop and you run out of gas and you need something else. That L. Ron Hubbard portion of it, that character that I created for Phil, was fuel in the gas tank to get the whole thing moving forward.'' While Anderson insists he had no interest in chronicling the history of Scientology, he became excited reading stories about its creation, including ''people that were inspired by it but ultimately very quickly disillusioned with it [and] people who were inspired by it and did stick with it and have passed it on to other generations''. But Anderson is still bothered by how people describe these movements. ''Scientology isn't crazy, [the former personal development organisation] EST isn't crazy - people are fuckin' crazy,'' he says. ''We're the ones [that] create things, then we point at something else and say, 'Look at that, that's horse shit over there. How can that possibly be true?' But who's to say?'' More, a video clip, and open comments: www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/in-the-shadow-of-scientology-20121101-28l0i.html
A cult classic? Never! Based on the story of Scientology, The Master is topped for Oscar glory... but Chris Tookey refuses to be brainwashed | Mail Online By Chris Tookey Verdict: There will be boredom Rating: Five years after his Oscar-nominated There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest epic is attracting five-star reviews and predictions of Oscar glory. At 137 minutes, it’s three minutes shorter than Skyfall. But while the Bond film flies by, when The Master finally grinds to its end, you may feel you’ve sacrificed days, if not weeks, of your life. Booed at the Venice Film Festival and the cause of audience walkouts at Toronto, it will surely suffer a speedy demise at the box office. More at www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2226594/A-cult-classic-Never-Based-story-Scientology-The-Master-topped-Oscar-glory--CHRIS-TOOKEY-refuses-brainwashed.html
The film wasn't booed, Joaquin Phoenix was booed by paparazzi for not spending long enough posing for their photos. The audience walkouts in Toronto were for another film, Brian De Palma's "Passion".
The Master – a masterclass in film The Master confirms Paul Thomas Anderson as the only American film-maker of his generation who could be mistaken for a junior member of Hollywood's golden age. www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/nov/02/the-master-paul-thomas-anderson
Good film, just don’t mention the ‘war’: interview with Paul Thomas Anderson | Cinetology Luke Buckmaster | Nov 06, 2012 I assumed acclaimed filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson would be happy to discuss correlations between his new film, The Master, and the Scientology movement on which it was partly based. I was wrong. He would have known. He would have known before he landed in Australia to promote his new film. He would have known before he yelled “action”. He would have known before he started working on the screenplay. Acclaimed writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film, The Master (which opens in Australian cinemas November 8) has been associated with the word “Scientology” since the vaguest outlines of its storyline surfaced. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Lancester Dodd, a character inspired by L. Ron Hubbard. Dodd is the flamboyant leader of a movement called ‘The Cause’ who takes on the challenge of reforming drunkard Naval veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) through various unorthodox measures based in part on techniques described in Hubbard’s 1950 book on Dianetics, as Anderson himself has stated. The film’s links to Scientology go well beyond overarching themes or peripheral ideas. The early years of Scientology took place on Hubbard’s boat, a former cattle trawler called ‘The Sea Org’. A significant chunk of the film is based on Dodd’s former cattle trawler, ‘The Aletheia’. Hubbard operated a counselling centre in Phoenix. So does Dodd. Hubbard referred to Scientology as the “religion of religions”. Dodd refers to his movement using exactly the same words. Hubbard labelled dissenters “squirrels”. Dodd uses the same (somewhat obscure) slur. Hubbard bought a mansion in England and moved management of his ‘religion’ there. Same as Dodd. The list goes on and on; check this Daily Beast story, written by a former Scientologist, for a detailed comparison. So Anderson would have known. He would have known he’d be asked questions about to what extent the film is based on real-life. You can understand my surprise, then, when, after asking what I thought was a straight-forward question about whether The Master was entirely fictitious — prompted by an apparently erroneous disclaimer in the credits — his face scrunched up and he snapped back “that’s like you know, the Munchicans, fuckin’, I don’t know. What are you getting at? Come on.” The Master is meditative and beautiful. Despite interior-heavy set design it is lusciously shot (like all Anderson’s films), very well acted (ditto) and has an elusive, airy quality, with lots of space to breathe in and reflect on the characters. Examine the end credits and you’ll see a familiar couple of sentences (these words are par for the course) stating that events depicted on screen are entirely fictitious and not in any way related to real-life movements or people. I ask Anderson whether this statement is 100% accurate. Suddenly the air gets a little tense. He looks annoyed, like I’d just prodded him with a stick or put a banana in his car’s exhaust pipe. “No. What do you mean? You know the answer to that!” And he’s right. I do know the answer. But the PR circuit — which, as I soon discover, Anderson is obviously not completely comfortable with, at least in relation to talking about his own work — doesn’t rest on assumptions and implied knowledge. You ask questions. You get people talking. You create a discussion. I expected the highbrow, intuitively skillful auteur whose stunning body of work includes Boogie Nights (1997), Magnolia (1999), Punch Drunk Love (2002) and There Will Be Blood (2007) would be happy to talk about — at least cover off on — the film’s links to the controversial religion and its founder. I was wrong. To be fair, when myself and four other journalists trundled into the 42-year-old director’s hotel room, the first words he spoke after “hello” were “I think I’ve hit a wall.” When one of my colleagues asked whether the PR circuit was tiring, Anderson half-joked “you fucking do this!” Responding to Anderson’s reverse-question about what I meant by asking about that bit on the credits, I say the film couldn’t have existed, could it, without the Scientology movement. He pauses. For an uncomfortably long time. “Could this film exist without the — I mean I don’t know.” He mentions the Munchicans. Grumbles. Asks me what I’m getting at. I say he’s drawn correlations. Connected bits of the film to the movement of Scientology. “Yeah.” I say Scientology is like the elephant in the room, which seems obvious given the tetchy tone of the conversation. This interview suddenly feels very “don’t mention the war.” But if there is an elephant in the room, Anderson isn’t acknowledging its presence. “There’s no elephant in the room,” he retorts. “I’ve been nothing but forthcoming and forthright about what this film is inspired by. I’ve said it over and over again and I dare say you’ve probably read it, right? So it’s completely clear what we’ve done. When I made There Will Be Blood, nobody wanted to talk about Edward Doheny. How come? How come you didn’t want to find out the details about Edward Doheny that were similar or dissimilar? Nobody fucking cared.” He’s got a point, but Anderson is smart enough to understand why the world’s most controversial religion, populated by some of Hollywood’s biggest stars, is a hotter topic than the life of an oil tycoon who died in 1935. The elusive nature of Anderson’s responses mirrors, in a sense, his approach to developing the character of Dodd, who hovers like a jolly, slightly nutty spectre around the film’s edges. Vivid but vague. Presented as more mystic than man. The role is well played by the ever-bankable Seymour Hoffman, but seemed to me cautiously developed — as if Anderson were aware the character’s actions would inevitably draw comparisons. That people would one day construct connections due to real-life baggage. I ask him if that in any way affected his writing process. “No. You’re assuming that you have your feet on the ground or you’re thinking about doing an interview when you’re writing something and that’s no way to write. “You just have to write what’s coming out of you. You can’t really give a fuck about anything like that. You have to submit yourself to an auto-hypnosis and get to that place and really not give a fuck. Really. You have to…. What are you — I don’t know.” At this point, I feel a bit like one of those straight-as-a-dial journalists Bob Dylan played verbal ping pong with in Don’t Look Back (1965), asking him questions about the meaning of Blowing in the Wind. But the truth is, Paul Thomas Anderson does give a fuck. You can tell that by the pin-precise manner he folds the frame, the deftness of touch he brings to The Master and the graceful manner with which he develops the characters’ relationships. After the interview, in the elevator on the way down to the ground floor, I think maybe it’s true. Maybe Anderson didn’t consider any real-life baggage when the wrote the film. Then I think… Nah. He would have known. The Master’s Australian theatrical release date: November 8, 2012. From http://blogs.crikey.com.au/cinetolo...-the-war-interview-with-paul-thomas-anderson/
Paul Thomas Anderson reveals unseen scenes from 'The Master' Snip: "There is a rather dazzling moment in which Freddie opens a wooden box said to contain Dodd’s unpublished manuscript of a book that has the power to kill men who read it. Flames leap from the box, and Freddie stares at it intently before calming closely the lid. Freddie is bequeathed a special jacket and named first lieutenant of “The Cause.” http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...master-unseen-scenes-20121103,0,4679035.story
Yes, Matthew Crow really said this: What we mean when we say Scientology The religion L. Ron Hubbard founded in 1952 is the toast of Hollywood and the butt of everyone else's jokes, but we should be grateful to Scientology for the deeper understanding of religion it affords us. By Matthew Crow Filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson is a man renowned for delivering. Having crafted the coke and cock epic Boogie Nights by the age of 27, he also elicited from Tom Cruise perhaps the best performance he is ever likely to give, in his 1999 masterpiece Magnolia. Now his sixth feature, The Master, is already being hailed as the greatest film of the 21st century to date. Charting the path of a lowly drifter who falls for the charms of dramatist-turned-demagogue-turned-demigod Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), The Master mirrors, opaquely, the story of L. Ron Hubbard and the blistering ascent of his Scientology movement. While Anderson has downplayed his film's connection to Scientology, the only thing more certain than The Master's success is the ensuing flagellation of its assumed source of inspiration. The contempt with which Scientology is discussed is fascinating. Yet in many ways it is no different to the older religions which many of us are so reluctant to malign in print or in mixed company. On paper, if anything, Scientology is less controversial. It does not condone the mutilation of genitals in the name of sanctity. There have been relatively few accusations of sexual abuse brushed under the carpet to maintain an illusion of propriety. No children have been shot in the head in its name because of their reasonable and fundamental desire to seek an education. That said, it is far from golden. Primarily there are the persistent suggestions that Scientology is a commercial enterprise masquerading as a spiritual one, as well as (strongly denied) allegations of intimidation campaigns launched against naysayers (try Googling “Operation Freakout”). The most interesting aspect of Scientology, however, is that it grants us a three dimensional view of religion, one which wasn't available until now. Most of us accept as fact the strength that faith can bring, having witnessed it firsthand. Nonbelievers may liken this to the proven benefits of placebos in medicine, yet even the most ardent atheist would be unlikely to initiate a discussion on the existence of God in, say, a hospital waiting room. But whereas many of us know somebody who has found solace in a hurried grasp of the rosary beads or a passage from the Koran are high, in Britain at least, not so many of us are in contact with those that have achieved the same serenity from the teachings of Mr. Hubbard. Scientology is a religion of widespread renown, yet it has little bearing on most of our everyday lives, and so it allows us to separate the ritual from the personal with minimal collateral damage. Because Scientology was founded within living memory, we feel we have some kind of authority over it. It was invented before our very eyes. Scientology came to be in a world that had already mastered medicine, television, advertising, rock and roll. We have an understanding of the Universe both before and after Scientology's genesis in 1952, and an understanding too that it just doesn’t fit. Because the 21st century world in which we live does not need this abstract thing. Does not need the theories and the maybes and all those what ifs. We have evidence. We have roots. We have a beginning and a middle and an end already worked out. With Scientology the curtain was pulled back once and for all. And there was not a wizard, but an angry old man - zealous, feverish from his own didactics - fractured and fallible and all too human. Scientology has provided many of us with the framework, the vocabulary, and the certainty with which to deconstruct and criticise all the other religions of the world. For this - and this alone - we should be grateful. From www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-we-mean-when-we-say-scientology-8289364.html
It's pretty good. Why is it surprising though? It's an idea we've seen repeated in many many comments: "Scientology shows us that all religions are bad."
I made that comment after having only skimmed the article, at six in the morning. I take exception to anyone - cult member or not - writing about Scientology and minimizing some of its its crimes and not mentioning others. The tone of one paragraph of the article isn't far from a defense attorney in a rape case saying, "Hey - at least he didn't cut her head off." Scientology has absolutely ruined the lives of so many people and it's because of its policies and practices that it just shouldn't be given any slack at all, by anyone, in any context. And since we know that Scientology is a money-making scheme that isn't even actually a religion, it isn't correct to be comparing it to "other religions".
Given, but show how, for instance, the Catholic Church/Vatican is not a disingenuous money-making scheme, only much older.
No argument there. And it's disappointing to me that this site doesn't have a forum just for those pricks. www.facebook.com/ArrestThePopeStencils www.facebook.com/pages/1-Million-People-against-Child-Abuse-in-the-Catholic-Church/104773239556947
Interesting analysis of cults in general using The Master as a starting point, but a little light on actual knowledge of the COS... http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN...iology-of-cults-and-the-nee#comment-707016829
Just got back from finally seeing The Master. Way, way to slow. Almost painful. If I was not with my friends I would have walked out. The Scientology stuff was good. Watching them show the nonsense of the TR's was a highlight but it would have been missed by people without a deep understanding of the subject. Hoffman - brilliant as "Hubbard". At times watching him you almost thought it was ol Elron. But his performance alone was not enough to save a very poor movie.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/dec/13/best-films-the-master-paul-thomas-anderson The 10 best films of 2012, No 1 – The Master
Still haven't been able to see it, as it never showed here, and I can't get a copy online. Fuck it. /sourgrapes
It appears Dodd is based on Hubbard. I recall Hana, the lady anonymous interviewed in Hamburg, writing on Tony's site that she did not know who Quell was based on. http://tonyortega.org/2012/10/08/your-thoughts-on-the-master-who-was-freddie-quell/ I think the Quell character and part of the film is somewhat based on some of the characters from the documentary "Let There be Light." I heard that this film was listed as part of the "inspiration" for the Master. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038687/
'The Master' named best film by Toronto critics | NOLA.com www.nola.com/movies/index.ssf/2012/12/the_master_named_best_film_by.html
Associated Press critics pick top 10 movies of 2012 Christy Lemire’s picks: 6. “The Master” — Paul Thomas Anderson, long a master himself of technique and tone, has created a startling, stunningly gorgeous film shot in lushly vibrant 70mm, with impeccable production design and powerful performances from stars Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams. But this story of a wayward man and the charismatic cult leader who guides him — which may or may not have been inspired by Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard — is also his most ambitious film yet. From www.saratogian.com/articles/2012/12/22/entertainment/doc50d4d3bf6d029766959411.txt
Oscars Q&A: Paul Thomas Anderson - Yahoo! Movies AwardsLine: There are so many different themes in the film, but a lot of attention has been on the Scientology aspect. If anything, it’s the beginnings of that, but it’s not really Scientology as it is now. Was part of the attraction to the story the notion of people looking for some kind of connection? Anderson: A lot of it, but those are the kinds of things that you discover after you’ve started writing. In many ways, it’s about trying to find ways to justify what I’m writing. Maybe you read something that got into your head a long time ago, and you find it coming back out of you. My dad came back from World War II, so there was an attraction to that era on a surface level in terms of cars and music. Anything that I was reading or learned about L. Ron Hubbard kind of tied into this era. It was very clear that (Scientology) was a result of a postwar hangover. And I read a line somewhere—I wish I could remember so I could give them credit — and it said something like, “Anytime is a good time for a spiritual movement to begin, but a particularly strong time is after a war.” It felt like a particularly good hook. It’s good for you as a writer when you get something like that to hang your hat on, to help guide you with what you’re doing. More at http://movies.yahoo.com/news/oscars-q-paul-thomas-anderson-210042799.html
Paul Thomas Anderson, on Preparing for and Following Up ‘The Master’ - NYTimes.com By Dennis Lim — December 27, 2012 Excerpt: To prepare for “The Master” — a story about the intense, symbiotic bond between Lancaster Dodd, a charismatic cult leader in post-World War II America (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and Freddie Quell, a tormented veteran (Joaquin Phoenix) — he tracked down as many books as he could find on the teachings of the Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard. They included “Dianetics in Limbo,” a personal account by Helen O’Brien, an early follower of the movement (and the inspiration for Laura Dern’s character in the film), and Hubbard’s own “Mission Into Time” (1973), about a sea voyage involving treasure hunts and past lives. (“He was really starting to lose his marbles by this point,” Mr. Anderson said.) He skimmed the writings of ex-Scientologists and pioneers of offshoot movements like Dianology and Dianotes, and perused several years’ worth of The Aberree, a Scientology newsletter. Mr. Anderson said he still retains a fascination for the subject, which consumed him for years. “Laughing at it or being negative, that goes away so quickly when your head is inside it,” he said, “and you see how people are talking about getting better and taking control of their lives.” While the Cause, Lancaster Dodd’s quasi-religion, is clearly a parallel version of Scientology, “The Master” is less interested in mocking it than in evoking the larger American tradition of spiritual questing and its endlessly regenerating cast of dreamers, visionaries, quacks and self-styled prophets. Mr. Anderson’s research was informed equally by scholarly tomes (Fawn Brodie’s “No Man Knows My History,” about Joseph Smith and the founding of Mormonism) and self-help pseudoscience (books like “Living Your Past Lives” and “Are Your Troubles Psychosomatic?”). “This stuff, it’ll make your head spin,” he said, pulling out books on psycho-cybernetics, the est movement and the theosophy of Madame Blavatsky. More at www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/movies/awardsseason/paul-thomas-anderson-on-preparing-for-and-following-up-the-master.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
'Amour' Takes Top Awards From National Society of Film Critics | The Wrap Movies By Lucas Shaw Excerpt: "Lincoln" fielded the runners-up in both supporting acting categories, where Matthew McConaughey of "Magic Mike" bested Tommy Lee Jones and Amy Adams of "The Master" surpassed Sally Field. Spielberg's slice of Americana did come out on top in the screenwriting category, where Tony Kushner's adaptation of Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" bested Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master." Critics honored Anderson's divisive film, a character study of the leader of a self-help cult and a potential disciple, with Best Cinematography. The film, loosely based on Scientology, has left many feeling cold, but it has a cadre of staunch advocates among critics. It placed second to "Amour" in the Best Picture category. More at www.thewrap.com/movies/article/amour-sweeps-national-society-film-critics-awards-71556
I know it will probably never happen, but I want to see PTA's sequel to "The Master". 2014? Meditating to PTA, Annapurna and the Universe.
