For those practicing some other religion, should KC be presented analytically or synthetically?
So synthetic and analytical ways, most people are not following anything in this time. So for them the analytical way is good. But if somebody is following something like Christianity or Islam, will the analytical way work for them? It's not that the synthetic and analytical way have to be rigorously differentiated.
See, one of the fundamental principles of taxonomy, taxonomy is a system, any system of classification. For example, we classify species into vertebrates into vertebrates. Or we classify the continent into various countries.
Now on a map, we can say this is the boundary. But actually geographically, it is not that every country will have a fence at each boundary. So any system of classification at the junctions, there is always blurring of boundaries.
That is just the natural way things work. The blurring of boundaries at the junctions enables, that is the way reality exists. And it reflects the reality.
So just as any taxonomical system, when translated into real life, will not be as clear-cut. We may say whites and blacks. But even along, Indians are not black.
They are not white, they are brown. We could say they are brown. But even among brown, there are fair, there are dark.
So these are all systems of classification which all will have subtleties and nuances. So it's not necessarily analytical or synthetic. Both are required.
Even, if you see for example, when the Krishna Consciousness Movement started in America, from the cultural point of view, most of the devotees seem to be cultists. They are wearing a weird robe. They are wearing weird marks on their faces.
I don't want Australian numbers. One Mataji, she is an Australian devotee. She was telling, if I had seen devotees first in a devotee garb, wearing clay on their faces, I would never have joined such a group.
So she met devotees who were wearing similar clothes without any emotional markers. And she understood the philosophy and afterwards she took it. So the point I am making here is, that it's not that the analytical and synthetic, it's not necessary that the two will be separate.
So when the Britishers, when ISKCON started in America initially, we see they are cultists. I mean, what has happened to these people? What are they doing? But there were Christians, Christian scholars who wanted to study. And there were some Harvey Cox and other scholars.
They came and stayed in the temples. And they saw how sincerely the devotees are practicing. How they wake up in the morning, how straight their hair is.
Their overall mood of devotion to God is similar to what we find in the most austere branches of Christianity. So they appreciated that. Some people may appreciate things when they come and live amongst us.
Others may appreciate when they understand the philosophy. So this can happen differently for even different religions. People from different religions.
So some people may find our cultural practices alienating. This is your own. Many Christians may find it.
You worship idols? What is this? But there is Francis Cruley. He is the world's, among the top authorities on Hindu-Christian dialogue. He wrote a review for Maharaj's book also.
So he studied, he did his, he's done a lot of studies on Sri Vaishnavas. So he says that he stayed amongst Sri Vaishnavas for many years. Not many years continuously, but keep in mind.
He said once he was at a Sri Vaishnava festival. And he said, I felt the same spiritual vibrations that I had felt in the most intense Christian festivals. So what is this? How do I explain this experience in terms of my philosophy? And then he wrote books trying to explain that.
So of course, he's a Jesuit. Jesuits are among the most intellectual Christians. Normally you can become a Christian father in 4-5 years.
But those who are intellectuals, they have a special course, special degree. They take almost 15 years to become a Jesuit father. It's a long, long course.
So in India when you become a Jesuit, out of 15 years, 10 years they study Hinduism actually. Because they say you have to respond to the local culture. And many of these Jesuit scholars, they know our texts better than we know them.
They don't know them in a synthetic way. So my point is here overall that people, different people appreciate different things. So some people, you just send them some emails, some nice quotes, some nice articles, some nice analysis like that.
Some people you invite them to questions, you ask them, they like that. Every person is different. And how you can get different people to get connected, that's what we call life-life circumstances.
So it's not necessarily only analytic or only synthetic. It will be a combination. And what combination will work for whom? What is to become more prominent in which case? That's what we call life-life circumstances.
We have to observe. Just like a patient. A doctor tests the pulse of a patient and then gives prescription accordingly.
Like that we have to test a pulse. We invite somebody to come to temple ten times and they never come. Maybe that's not their interest.
But you send them a small email with some good content and then they say, yeah, I like this. And you can send more of that. So like that we can address based on their level of interest and their mode of thinking and living.
What they would like that we are trying to do. That aspect of Krishnamurti we are trying to do.