Podcasts about Hindus

Direct Threat of Mamata to Hindus - Will Modi - Shah React? | TMC is Fearing Defeat in West Bengal

John 15:18-25,18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin,[a] but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.'We continue in our journey on this Thursday night, the longest Thursday night in history, and Jesus is preparing his men, and us, for the storm. As the cross approaches, the God-man speaks with new clarity and striking self-focus. Fourteen times in this passages Jesus says I, me, and my. These are not passing, incidental references; it's an emphasis.And the effect of this emphasis is to help us. This is love. We've seen how chapter 15 is like a battlefield speech. Jesus is getting his men ready for hell to break loose. And when the world's hatred shakes Jesus's disciples, the greatest danger isn't death. The greatest danger is falling away from Jesus.So, he gets us ready: stay with me, stay in the Vine, and bear fruit. Love each other, with an expansive love that longs to draw others in. And as you expand outward in love to be Jesus's instrument to bring others to him, and make room for others, be ready to encounter the world's hatred.The world's hate contrasts with Jesus's repeated summons to love (13:34–35; 15:12, 17). His disciples move toward the world in love and find themselves met with hatred. And notably absent is any sense of responding in kind. The implication is, keep loving even as your efforts to love are met with hatred.Why would the world hate Christians?Which raises the question, for Jesus's disciples and for us: Why would the world hate Christians?You might feel this very personally: Why would I be hated? I'm a Minnesotan. I'm nice. I don't want to upset people. I want them to be happy, and I've found in Jesus the great Treasure. I want others to know Jesus. Jesus is love, and teaches love. Why would someone hate me for that?It's an important question. And Jesus wants us to know why, and he wants us to know how to handle it. That's our focus this morning: Why would the world hate Christians, and what are we to do about it?We'll begin with the why, which is both simple, and has some layers to it. And we'll end with Jesus's two directives about how to handle it.The World Hates JesusAt one level, Jesus's answer is simple: the world hates you because the world hates me. Jesus is the focus. The followers of Jesus are hated because they are followers of Jesus. And the world hates Jesus. Listen again how Jesus is the focus of verses 18–21, with it all culminating at “on account of my name”:If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you…. 20 Remember the word that I said to you [in 13:16]: ‘A servant is not greater than his master [that is, Lord].' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things [hate you, persecute you, disregard your word] they will do to you on account of my name…“On account of my name” means because of me and what they think about me. They are mistaken, in some sense, as we'll see. But they know some true things about him, and what they know they don't like. Actually, they hate. It may often come out as dislike or indifference, but deep in the soul, it is hatred. (Their speech may be smooth as butter, yet war is in their heart, Psalm 55:21).So, Jesus says, the world hates you because it hates me. That's his simple answer and focus.Why Does the World Hate Jesus?But there's another layer. You can also ask, Why does the world hate Jesus? Verses 22 and 24:If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin…. 24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.The world hates Jesus because he, in a new way, exposes the sinfulness of their sin.Now, we need to say more about “world.” What does “world” mean here? This is not the world of Genesis 1–2, the world created by God and untainted by sin. This is the world of Genesis 3 and since, the world under the power of sin (“the created moral order in active rebellion against God,” Carson). This “world in rebellion” is the world in view in John 3:16: “God loved the world” — the world of sinners, set in opposition to God, loving sin, not loving him —God loved this hellbent, rebellious world in this way: “he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” That's love. And God's love in giving his Son is all the more stunning because the world he loved was the world dead set against him.That's the world in our passage: the world in love with sin, the world that hates God. No wonder such a world would hate Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate. He comes as the light, shining in the darkness. And in the light of his words and his works, the true nature of sin is exposed. The sin was there before he came, when the Light himself comes, then sin is exposed like never before, and seen to be what it is: an assault on God himself. There were lights for the exposing of sin before Jesus came: the light of nature, the light of Moses and the prophets. But the coming of Christ, the true light, so surpasses the previous lights, that his coming ushers in a whole new day. Yes, there was some light before, but the light of Christ is so strong, so pure, so bright, it's as if the previous lights hardly shone. Like twinkling stars at night compared the sun when day comes. And when Jesus comes, the sinfulness of sin becomes apparent: sin is rebellion against God. Hatred of God. Preferring of other things to God is cosmic treason. Longing for and loving created things over the Creator himself is treason.And remember, it's Thursday night. There will be no more outrageous display of the sinfulness of sin than when sinners conspire to put God himself to death the next day. The cross is the ultimate exposé of human sin: sin is an attack on God.So, why does the world hate Jesus? Because he exposes the true nature of sin, and takes away excuses for sin. That's one layer.No Longer “of the World”But Jesus gives us another layer in verse 19, for why the world hates Christians:If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.Jesus has talked before about choosing his disciples (John 6:70; 13:18), and as recently as verse 15:“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide…”It's not that the disciples first chose Jesus; he chose them. They were once of the world. They were born in rebellion against God. They loved darkness rather than light. Yet, Jesus took the decisive step to pluck them out from the world, and make them his own.But the sinful world, in rebellion against God, loves its own who love sin, not God, and affirm sin and celebrate sin. But when Jesus plucks his disciples out from the world, the world doesn't like that. The world hates that. And I know many in this room have experienced that hatred very personally.Jesus chose you. He opened your eyes. You came to faith in him and began to follow him — and your old friends or your family didn't like it. Maybe they kept up a veneer of Minnesota nice, and you didn't sense any deep hatred, but Jesus is telling us here what was, what is, going on: the world in its sin, with guilt-ridden conscience, desperately craves the affirmation of its sin, and fears the exposure of the sinfulness of its sin — and it hates when its fellows in darkness see the Light.This hatred can be stirred when we're plucked out, or when we refuse go back in, as 1 Peter 4:3–4 says,the time that is past [now that the Light has come] suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. 4 With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you [speak evil of you, say things that make you look bad].Yet, what's the posture of our hearts to be like in moments like this, when the veneer comes off, and hatred begins to seep out? We don't hate them in return. But we remember we were there, but for the grace of God. We were “of the world,” but Jesus drew us out. So, we have the spirit of Titus 3, which calls us…to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. 3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us… (Titus 3:1–5)The World Does Not Know the FatherWhich brings us to one last layer, the bottom layer, for why the world hates Jesus. Now, we pick up the final pieces:The end of verse 21: “because they do not know him who sent me.”Verse 23: “Whoever hates me hates my Father also.”End of verse 24: “now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.”The world's love for sin, and hatred of Jesus, shows that they do not know the Father.This is true of all who do not know Jesus: they do not know God. There are no “good people” who are honestly mistaken about God and not culpable in their sin. They may hide their hatred of the Father well (with speech smooth as butter), but if they are not in Jesus, they do not know God; and they will be “gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6).This is an exclusivist bottom layer. You know that term “exclusivist”? It means, as Jesus says here, he is the exclusive way to God. There aren't other ways around him or apart from him. Jesus is the Word, the revelation, of the one God who made this world, and over and against whom the world stands in its sin. Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah do not find other paths to God. Jesus is the one way, the one God provided, and all who reject Jesus reject the only God. So, in Jesus's words in verse 23 is a condemnation of all world religions, including secularism, except for the one Jesus brings.Which lands on the world as profoundly offensive. And lands on Jesus's people, who know themselves sinners and undeserving, as the best news in the world: you mean there's a way! In my sin, in my guilt, in my weakness, there's a way!So, we have the focus of the world's hate and the layers. The world of darkness hates Christians because it hates Jesus, the light. And it hates Jesus because he exposes the sinfulness of sin. And it hates his people because Jesus chose them out of the world. And at bottom, the world hates Jesus, and his people, because the world does not know the Father.So, what do we do about it? Jesus clearly means for verses 18–25 to have an emotional effect on us. There are six ifs in this section, which makes it read almost like poetry, with a rhetorical effect. Jesus wants us to be ready for the world's hate, and stay with him and love one another — and keep endeavoring to expand the circle of our love.In these verses are two imperatives, two commands, that lead us to what Jesus wants us to do about the world's hate. So, he's told us the why, with its focus and layers. Now what to do: he wants us to know in verse 18, and to remember in verse 20. So, know what? Remember what?1. Know this: the world hated Jesus first.What's that do? It helps us get ready. The world hated Jesus, so much so it put him to death; and we're his, we're with him. We should expect the world's hate, know it's coming, and not be surprised by it.The effect of the if in verse 18 is far more like a when: When the world hates you, and it does. The end of verse 19 says, “the world hates you.” Verse 20: they will persecute you. So, 1 John 3:13 says, “Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.” That's what Jesus is doing here: keeping us from getting caught off guard. Like 1 Peter 4:12:Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you…And to help us in John 15, verse 25, Jesus draws in a line from Psalm 69: “they hated me without cause.” Psalm 69 is King David, “a righteous sufferer who is zealous for God but is persecuted by God's enemies for no good reason” (ESVSB). This is true of Jesus. And it will be true of us who are his.And critical to the pattern of Psalm 69 being true about Jesus, and being true about us, is that we don't give the haters any good reason.Twin dangers face us once we learn that the world, at bottom, hates Jesus, and hates us: we could try to avoid their hate or provoke it. As thoughtful members of a society, it's easy to figure out the fault lines between Jesus and the world — and we can easily avoid them or easily provoke them. Knowing that the world's hate is coming doesn't mean we seek to dodge it, nor that we try to prompt it. It's there, and it's coming; don't let the world's hatred steal the agenda one way or another.There's a vast difference between expecting it and trying to excite it. I expect the government to want more of my money, but I don't try to excite it. And there's a world of difference between the holy, Christlike expectation of the world's hate, and unholy, un-Christian attempts to excite the world's hate. Cities Church, we wanna be the right kinda hated. We are hated, and will be hated, and we want it to be for the reasons they hate Jesus, not because we're fools on Jesus's terms just as much as the world's.Contagious zeal for Jesus that accumulates detractors on account of him is one thing. Learning how to enrage people and garnish it with Jesus's name is another. And worse yet is falling away from Jesus because of his haters.So, know this: the world hated him first. We expect the world to hate us too. And we're pleasantly surprised and don't try to sabotage it, when the hatred ebbs at times.2. Remember this: Jesus is great.I love verse 20: Jesus says, “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.'” Which is not mainly about the lowliness of the servant, but about the greatness of Jesus.Don't miss this: Jesus is great. Remember this, he says: your Lord is great. Which may sound simple but is powerful.In 1856, Charles Spurgeon was preaching to more than 10,000 people in a packed-out hall when agitators interrupted the service by yelling fire. A stampede ensued, and seven were trampled to death; thirty were seriously injured. In the horror of it all, Spurgeon suffered a severe emotional breakdown, and the event left a mark on him the rest of his life. He faced critics, (haters) and went into depression over it. Years later he testified,I was pressed beyond measure and out of bounds with an enormous weight of misery. The tumult, the panic, the deaths, were day and night before me, and made life a burden.How did God rescue him? He says, From that [nightmare] I was awakened in a moment by the gracious application to my soul of the text, “Him hath God the Father exalted” (“God has highly exalted him,” Philippians 2:9). The fact that Jesus is still great, let his servants suffer as they may, piloted me back to calm reason and peace. (Lectures to My Students, 162 [1954])There it is: “Jesus is still great.” Seven are dead, thirty seriously injured. But Jesus is still great. When the storm comes, look for the greatness of Jesus.When for his sake, you sense their hate,Remember that your Lord is great.And part of that greatness is that you get to be with him. What holds John 15 together is that you're with him, on his side. Hated with him means loved by him! And united to him! You're with Jesus! Enjoy him.Cross of Hate and LoveIt's heavy to spend a whole sermon dwelling on the world's hate for Jesus, and for us. But then we come to this Table. The cross is a demonstration of the world's hate. Sinners conspired together to put God to death. And the cross is the ultimate demonstration of love. “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

TRANSCRIPT Robertson: [00:00:00] Gissele: Hello and welcome to the Love and Compassion podcast with Gissele. We believe that love and compassion have the power to heal our lives and our world. Gissele: Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more amazing content. And if you’d like to support the podcast, please go to buy me a coffee.com/love and compassion. Today we’re talking about how to become a more compassionate civilization in light of the world’s most recent events. Robertson Work is a nonfiction author, social ecological activist, and former UNDP policy advisor on decentralized government, NYU Wagner, graduate School of Public Service, professor of Innovative Leadership and Institute of Cultural Affairs, country Director, conducting community organizational and leadership initiatives. Gissele: He has worked in over 50 countries for over 50 years and is founder of the Compassionate Civilization Collaborative. He has five published books and has [00:01:00] contributed to another 13. His most well-known book is a Compassionate Civilization. Every week he publishes an essay on Compassionate Conversations on Substack. Gissele: Please join me in welcoming Robertson work. Hi Robertson. Robertson: Hi Giselle. How are you? Gissele: I’m good. How about yourself? Robertson: I’m good, thank you. I here in the Southern United States. I’m glad you’re in wonderful Canada. Robertson: great admiration for your country. Gissele: Ah, thank you. Thank you. Gissele: I wanted to talk about your book. I got a copy of it and it was written in 2017, but as I was reading it, I really found myself listening to things that were almost prophetic that seemed to be happening right now. What compelled you to write Compassionate Civilizations at this moment in history. Robertson: Yes. Thank You you so much, and thank you for inviting me to talk with you today. Robertson: And I wanna say I’m so touched by the wonderful work of the Matri Center for Love [00:02:00] and Compassion. I have enjoyed looking at your website and listening to your podcast and hearing Pema Chodron speak about self-love. If it’s okay, I’d like to start with a few moments of mindful breathing Gissele: Yes, definitely. Robertson: okay. I invite everyone to become aware of your breathing, being aware of breathing in and breathing out. Breathing in the here and in the now. Breathing in love. Breathing in gratitude. I have arrived. I am home. I’m solid. I am free breathing in, breathing out here now. Robertson: Love [00:03:00] gratitude. Arrived home solid free. Okay. And to your question, after working in local communities and organizations around the world with the Institute of Cultural Affairs and doing program and policy work with UNDP and teaching grad school at NYU Wagner, I felt called to articulate a motivating vision for how to embody and catalyze a compassionate civilization. Robertson: So each of us can embody, even now, even here, we can embody and catalyze a compassionate civilization in this very present moment. We don’t have to wait, you know, 50 years, a hundred years, a thousand years. we can embody it in the here and the now. So I was increasingly aware of climate change, climate disasters, [00:04:00] the rise of oligarchic, fascism, and of course the UN’s sustainable development goals. Robertson: I also had been studying the engaged Buddhism of Thich Nhat Hahn for many years, and practicing mindfulness and compassionate action. As you know, compassion is action focused on relieving suffering in individual mindsets and behaviors, and collective cultures and systems. The word that com it means with, and compassion means suffering. Robertson: So compassion is to be with suffering and to relieve suffering in oneself and with others. So, I gave talks about a compassionate civilization in my NYU Wagner grad classes and in speeches in different countries. Then in 2013, I started a blog called The Compassionate Civilization. So in 2017, there was a [00:05:00] new US president who concerned me deeply and who’s now president again. Robertson: So a Compassionate Civilization was published in July of that year, as you mentioned, 2017. The book outlines our time of crisis and provides a vision, strategies and tactics of embodying and catalyzing a compassionate civilization, person by person, community by community. Moment by moment it it includes the movement of movements, mom that will do that. Robertson: Innovative leadership methods, global local citizen, and practices of care of self and others as mindful activists. So there’s a lot in it. Yeah. The Six strategies or arenas of transformation are environmental sustainability, gender equality, socioeconomic justice, participatory governance, cultural tolerance and peace, and non-violence, socio. Robertson: So since then [00:06:00] I’ve been promoting the Compassionate Civilization Collaborative, as you mentioned, to support a movement of movements. The mom, Gissele: thank you for that. I really appreciated that. And I really enjoyed the book as well. It’s so funny that, the majority of people see a world that doesn’t work and they want things to change, but they don’t do something necessarily to change it. When did compassion shift from a private virtue to a public mission for you? Robertson: Great question. Thank you. I think it began the private part began very early in my Christian upbringing. I was raised by loving parents to love others. You know, love of neighbor is the heart of Christianity. And understand that love is the ultimate reality. You know, that you know, as we say in Christianity, God is love. Robertson: So then when I went off to college at Oklahoma State University, I found myself being a campus activist. So I shifted to activism for civil rights. We were [00:07:00] demonstrating for women’s rights and for peace in Vietnam. As you know, the Vietnam War was raging. And after that, I attended Theological Seminary at Chicago Theological Seminary, but. Robertson: My calling happened when I was still in college, and it was in a weekend course, just a one weekend in Chicago. Some of us drove up and attended a course at, with the ecumenical Institute in the African-American ghetto in Chicago. And my whole life was changed in one weekend. I mean, I woke up that I could make a difference and I could help create a world that cared from everyone, you know? Robertson: And here I was. I was what? I was a junior in college. So then after that, I worked after college and grad school. I worked in that African American ghetto in Chicago with the Ecumenical Institute. And then in Malaysia, I was asked to go to Malaysia and my wife and I did [00:08:00] that, Robertson: And then. We were asked to work in South Korea, which we did. And then the work shifted from a religious to secular is we now call our work the Institute of Cultural Affairs. And from there we worked in Jamaica and then in Venezuela, and then back in the US in a little community in Oklahoma Robertson: And then I also worked in poor slums and villages. So then with the UNDP. I worked in around the world giving policy advice and starting projects and programs on decentralized governance to help countries decentralize from this capital to the provinces and the cities and towns and villages to decentralize decision making. Robertson: Then my engaged Buddhist studies particularly with Han and his teachers and practice awakened me to a calling to save all sentient beings. what [00:09:00] an outrageous calling, how can one person vow to save all sentient beings? But that’s what we do in that tradition of the being a BofA. Robertson: So through mindfulness and compassionate actions. So then I continue my journey by teaching at NYU Wagner with grad students from around the world. I love that so much. Then to the present as a consultant, speaker, author, and activist locally, nationally, and globally. So Gissele has been quite a journey, and here we are in this moment together, in this wild, crazy world. Gissele: Yeah, for sure, One of the things that I really loved about your book that you emphasize that we need to have a vision for the world that we wanna create. If we don’t have a vision, then we can’t create it, right? many of us are, focusing on anti, anti-oppressive, anti crime, anti this, anti that. Gissele: But we’re not really focusing on what sort of world do we wanna create? and I’ve had conversations with so many people, and when I ask the question, if people truly [00:10:00] believe. The human beings could be like loving and compassionate, and we could create a world that would be loving and compassionate for all many people say no. Gissele: And so I was wondering, like, did you always believe that civilization could be compassionate or did you grow into that conviction? Robertson: Great question. I definitely grew into it. Yeah. even as a child, I was awakened, you know, by the plight of African Americans in my country, in our little town in Oklahoma. Robertson: So I kind of began waking up. But I wasn’t sure, how much I or we could do about it. So I really grew into that conviction through my journey around the world working in over in 55 countries, it’s interesting the number of people your podcast goes to serving people and the planet. Robertson: So. Everywhere I worked Gissele, I was touched by the local people, that people care for each other, you know, in the slums and squatter settlements, in villages, in cities, the, the rich and the [00:11:00] poor. everywhere I went regardless of the culture, the language, the races, the issues the, the local people were caring. Robertson: So my understanding is that compassion is an action. It’s not just a feeling or a thought. It’s an action to relieve suffering in oneself and in others. but suffering is never entirely eliminated. You know, in Buddhism, the first noble truth is there is suffering, and it continues, but it can be relieved as best we can with through practices, through projects, through programs, and through policies. Robertson: So what has helped me is to see, again, a deep teaching in Buddhism that each person is influenced by negative emotions of greed, fear, hatred, and ignorance. And yet we can practice with these and to become aware of them and just, and to let them go, you know, and to practice evolving into loving kindness as [00:12:00] you, as you do in in your wonderful center. Robertson: Teaching more loving, kindness, trust and understanding. We can embrace inner being that we’re all part of everything. We’re all part of each other. You know, we’re part of the living earth. We’re part of humanity. I am part of you, you are part of me. And impermanence, you know, that there is no separate permanent self. Robertson: Everything comes and goes, and yet the mystery is there’s no birth and death. ’cause you and I. we’re part of, this journey for 13.8 billion years of the universe, and yet we can, in each moment, we can take an action that relieves our own suffering and in others. So, as you said, a vision is so, so important. Robertson: I’m so glad you touched on that, that a vision can give us a calling to see where we can go. It can motivate us, push us, drive us to do all that we can to realize it, you know, if I have a vision for my family. To care for my family. If [00:13:00] I have a vision for my country, if I have a vision for planet Earth, that can motivate me to do all I can do to make that really happen. Robertson: So right now there are so many challenges facing humanity, climate disasters. Oh my, I’m here in Swanno where we’ve had a terrible hurricane in 2024. We’re still recovering from it. Echo side, you know, where so many species are dying of plants and animals. It’s, it’s one of the great diebacks of in evolution on earth, oligarchic, fascism. Robertson: Right now, we’re in the midst of it in my country. I can’t believe it. You know, you’re, you’re on 81. I, I thought I was, gonna die and still live in a country that believed in democracy and freedom and justice. And so now here we, I have to face what can I do about oligarchic, fascism and social and racial and gender injustice. Robertson: Other challenges, warfare. And here we are in this crazy, monstrous war [00:14:00] in the Middle East. You know, what can we do? What can I unregulated? Artificial intelligence very deeply concerns me. we’ve gotta regulate artificial intelligence so it doesn’t hurt humans and the earth. Robertson: It doesn’t just take care of itself. So, you know, it’s easy Gissele to be despairing and to give up, you know, particularly at this moment. But actually at any time in our life, we’re always tempted to say, oh, well, things will be okay, or There’s nothing I can do, you know, but neither of those is true. Robertson: There are things we can do. We can stop and breathe and continue doing what we can where we are. with what we have and who we are. We do not have to be stopped by despair or by cynicism or by hopeism. We don’t. So thank you for that question about vision. I vision still wakes me up every day and calls me forward. Robertson: I’m sure it does. You as well. Gissele: Yeah. I [00:15:00] mean, without vision, it’s like you don’t have a map to where you’re going to, right.what’s our destination if we don’t have a vision? And so this is for me, why I loved your book so much. you are helping us give a vision Gissele: I mean, the alternative is what is the alternative? there’s my next question. What happens to a society that abandons compassion? Robertson: Exactly. Well, I sort of touched on it before. it falls into ignorance and into greed. Wanting more wealth, more power. for me for my tribe and, and falls into hatred, falls into fear, falls into violence, and that’s happening now, she said. Robertson: But I love what Thich Nhat Hahn reminds us of, of is that if there is no mud, there is no lotus. And that, that means is, you know, if there is no suffering, there can be no compassion . So without suffering and ignorance, there is no compassion or wisdom, because suffering calls us to relieve it. when I see [00:16:00] my wife or children in pain, I want to help them. Robertson: or when I see others, neighbors, you know, during the pandemic, our neighbors took food and water to each other. You know, after the hurricane, neighbors brought us water. suffering calls the best from us, it can, it can also call, call other things. But again, there’s no mud. Robertson: The lotus cannot grow. So we can continue the journey step by step and breath by breath. So that’s what I’d say for now. but that’s an important question. Gissele: you said some key things including that, people have a choice. They can choose to be compassionate, or they can choose to use that fear for something else, right. Gissele: But I often hear from people, well, you know, they want institutions to change. why are the institutions more, equitable, generous, compassionate and you know, like. I don’t know if we have a vision for what compassionate institutions look like, [00:17:00] what would compassion look like at that level? Robertson: Oh, that’s where those six areas you know, the compassion would look like practicing ecological regeneration or sometimes called environmental sustainability. You know, that we we’re part of the living Earth gazelle, We’re not separate from the earth . We breathe earth air, we drink earth water. Robertson: We you know, the earth. Hurricanes come. The earth. Floods come We are earthlings. I love that word, earthlings, and so, how do we help regenerate the earth as society? And that’s why, you know, legislation aware of climate change, you know, to reduce carbon emissions. Robertson: The Paris Accord, and that’s just one example, how do we have all laws for gender equality so that women receive the same salaries as men and have the same rights. as men, we gotta have the laws, the institutions you know, and the participatory democracy, that we have a constitution. Robertson: a constitution is a vision. of what we are all about. Why are, we’re [00:18:00] together as a country, so that we can each vote and express our views and our wishes, and that government is by foreign of the people. It is. So it’s, it’s critical, you know, that we vote and get out the vote again and again and again. Robertson: And to create those laws, those institutions they care for everyone. And the socioeconomic justice. we need the laws and institutions that give full rights to people of color to people of every culture and every religion, and every gender every transgender, every human being, every living being has rights. Robertson: That’s why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so important. I’m so grateful that it was created earlier in the last century in my country our country cannot go to war without congressional approval. Robertson: Aha. did that just not happen? Yes. But it’s in the Constitution. the law says that we must talk about it [00:19:00] first. We must send the diplomats. We must doeverything we can before we harm anyone. War is hell. there are other ways of dialogue and diplomacy. Robertson: we can do better. But again, it takes the laws and institutions. Gissele: thank you for that. I do think that we have some sort of sense in terms of what we find doesn’t work for us, right? these institutions don’t work, they’re based on separation, isolation, punishment, and we see that they don’t work. We see that, like inequality hurts everyone. Gissele: We see that all of these things that we’re doing have a negative impact, including war. And yet we don’t change. What do you think prevents societies from becoming more compassionate? Robertson: if we’re in a society that if harming people through terrible legislation and laws and policies that makes it hard for people then have to either rebel and then they can be you know, killed. Or they have to form movements peaceful movements like the [00:20:00] Civil Rights Movement in my country, you know, with Martin Luther King leading peace marches and our peaceful resistance, in Minneapolis, the peaceful resistance to ice, so what one big thing that’s, that makes people think they can’t be compassionate again, is the, larger society, you know, the institutional frameworks and legislations and laws and government practices. Robertson: But even then, as we’re seeing, you know, in Minneapolis and everywhere, and Canada is leading in so many ways, I think I, I’m so grateful for the leadership of your, your prime minister, calling the world thatwe must not let go of the international rules rules based international practices that we’ve had for the last 80 years, my whole life. Robertson: You know, we’ve had the, the UN and the international rules and now some powers want to throw those out, but no, no, we are gonna say no. we’re [00:21:00] surrounded by forces of wealth and power as we know. And however we can each do what we can to care for those near hand, far away, the least the last, and the last for ourselves, moment by moment. Robertson: Breath, breath by breath. And sometimes we, the people can change history and the powerful can choose compassion. And, we’ve changed history many times. We’ve created democracy. We, the people who have created civil right. Universal education and healthcare of the UN and much more. Robertson: you touched a moment ago on the pillars of a compassionate civilization. You know, there are 17 UN sustainable development goals, as you know, but I decided 17 was a big number, so I thought, why don’t we just have six? That’s why my book, it has six arenas of transformation for ease of memory and work. Robertson: and they are environmental sustainability, gender equality, socioeconomic justice, participatory governance, cultural tolerance, peace and nonviolence. So modern [00:22:00] societies can be prevented from being compassionate also by Negative emotions as we were talking about, of ignorance, greed, hatred, and violence. Robertson: Greed thinking, I need more wealth. I’m a billionaire, but I need another billion. You know, I’m the richest billionaire in the world, but I wanna buy the US government hatred, violence. So these all for me, all back into the Buddhist wisdom of the belief that I’m a separate self. Robertson: Therefore, all that’s important is my ego. Hell no, that’s wrong. You know, my ego is not separate. When I die, my ego’s gone. You know, all that’s gonna be left when I die, or my words and my actions, my actions will continue forever. my words will continue forever. May I, ego? No. So the, if I believe my ego is all there is, and I can be greedy and hateful and fearful and violent, but ego, unlimited pleasure and narcissism, fear of the other, ignorance of cause and effect, these don’t have to drive us. So [00:23:00] structures and policies based on negative emotions and the delusion of a separate self and harm for the earth. We don’t have to live that way. We don’t have to believe propaganda and misinformation and ignorance, and we can provide the education needed and the experience. Robertson: We don’t have to accept wealth hoarding. You know, why do we have billionaires? Why isn’t $999 million enough? Why doesn’t that go to care for everyone and to care for the earth? So again, we have to let go of wealth hoarding of power hoarding. Robertson: we don’t need all that wealth. We don’t need all that power. We can, we can care for each other. We can care for the earth. Gissele: There, there are so many amazing things that you said. I wanted to touch on two the first one is that I was having a conversation with an indigenous elder, and he said to me, you know, that greed is just a fear of lack, right? Gissele: And it really stopped me in my tracks because, when we see people hoarding stuff in their [00:24:00] house, we think, well, that’s abnormal. And yet we glorify the hoarding of wealth. But it isn’t any different than any sort of other mental health issue in terms of hoarding. And so that really got me to think about the role of fear. Gissele: And, if somebody’s trying to hoard money, it’s not getting to the root of the problem, issue. It’s never gonna be enough because they’re just throwing it into an empty hole. It’s a a billion Jillian, it’s never gonna be enough because it’s never truly addressing the problem. Gissele: But one of the things that you said as we were chatting is, that the wealthy, the elite, they can choose compassion, they can always choose it, which is an amazing insight. And yet I wonder, you know, in terms of people’s perspectives of compassion and power, do you think that the two go hand in hand or can they go hand in hand? Gissele: Because I think there might be some worries around, well, if I’m more compassionate, then I’m gonna be, taken advantage of, I’m gonna be, a mat. what is your [00:25:00] perspective? Robertson: Oh, I agree with everything you said and your question is so, so important. Thank you so much. Robertson: there are billionaires and then there are billionaires like Warren Buffet. Look, he’s given. Tens of billions of dollars away, hundreds of billions of dollars away, and other billionaires have done that. And then there are the billionaires, who think 350 billion isn’t enough. Robertson: You know, I need more. Well, that’s crazy. That is sick. That is sad that, that is a disease. And we have to help those people. I feel compassion for billionaires who think they need another 10 billion or another a hundred billion, or they need five more a hundred million dollars yachts, or they need another 15 $200 million houses around the world and that that is very sad. Robertson: And that they’re really suffering. They’re confused. Yeah. They forget what it means to be human. They’ve forgotten what it needs to be. An earthling that we’re just here for a moment. Gissele: Agree. Robertson: We’re just here for a moment, for a [00:26:00] breath, and we’re gone. Breathe in, we’re here, breathe out, we’re gone. And so we can stop. Robertson: We can become aware of that fear, as you said. We can take good care of that fear. I love the way Thich Nhat Hahn says. He says, hello, fear, welcome back. I’m gonna take good care of you. Fear. I’m gonna watch you take care of you. You’re gonna Evolve. ’cause everything is impermanent. Everything changes. So fear will change. Robertson: Fear can change. Fear always changes It evolves into Another emotion, another feeling, So let it go. Let it go. In the truth of impermanence. ’cause everything is impermanent. Fear is impermanent. So we also can remember the truth of inter being that I am part of what I fear, I am part of. Robertson: This current federal administration. You know, I’m part of the wealthy elite, and it is part of me. I fear of the US administration right now, but it is part of [00:27:00] me and I’m part of it. I fear climate change, but it is part of me. I’m part of it. I fear artificial intelligence , unregulated. I fear old age, but boys, I’m 81 and a half, it’s here. Robertson: So I’m gonna take care of it. I’m gonna say, Hey, old man, I’m gonna take care of you. And they’re all me. There’s no separation. I love Thich Nhat Hahn’s word. We enter are, we enter are now, how can I stop, become aware of fear, breathe in and out, and know the truth of inter being and impermanence and accept it. Robertson: Care for it. get out to vote, care for the self, write , speak, do what I can to care for what I can. My family, my neighbors, my city, my county, my country, my world. And everything changes. Everything passes away. Everything comes in and out of [00:28:00] being, what happened to the Roman Empire? Gissele: Mm, Robertson: what’s happening to the American Empire. Everything comes in and goes out like a breath, breathing in and breathing out. And then everything transforms into what is next? What is next? what is China going to bring? Ah, there is so much that we don’t know, Robertson: I love Thich Nhat Hahn’s teaching that. when we become aware of a negative emotion, we should Stop, breathe, smile. And then say, oh, welcome. Fear. Welcome back. Okay, I’m gonna take care of you. Okay, we’re in this together. Robertson: And then you just, you keep breathing in awareness and gratitude and things change. Your grandkid calls you, your baby calls you, your dog, your cat. You see the clouds, you see the earth, the sun. You see a star. You realize you’re an [00:29:00] animal. You know the word animal means breath. Robertson: We are animals. ’cause we breathe. We’re all breathing. So I love that. You know it. I love to say I am an animal. ’cause I, you know, we, human beings are often not, we’re not animals. We’re superior To animals, you know? Right. we are animals, that’s why we love our dogs and cats and we can love our, the purposes and the elephants and the tigers and the mountain lions and, and the cockroaches and the chickpeas and the cardinals we are all animals. Robertson: We’re all breathing. So I love that. Gissele: Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that was so beautiful. I felt that also, I really appreciated the practice too. In this time when we, like so many us are, are feeling so much fear and so much uncertainty and not knowing how things are gonna pan out, to just take a moment to breathe and reconnect to our true selves, I think is so, so fundamental. Gissele: And I hope that listeners are also doing it with us. you know, as I have [00:30:00] conversations with people around the world we talk a lot about, the way that the systems are set up, the institutions. Gissele: And it took a lot of hard work for me to realize that we are the institutions, just like you said, so the institutions are made up of people. And I was so glad to see that in your book, that you clearly say, you know, like it’s about people. It’s about us. It’s like we make up these institutions, you know? Gissele: And when I’ve looked at myself, I’ve asked myself, who do I wanna be? What do I really, truly wanna embody? And my greatest wish for this lifetime is to embody the highest level of love and to truly get to the point where I love people like brothers and sisters, that I care for them and that we care for one another. Gissele: And yet, there are times when I wanna act from that place, but the fear comes up, the not wanting or not trusting or believing when the fear comes up, how can compassion really help us change ourselves so that we can create a [00:31:00] different world? Robertson: What you said is so beautiful, and your question is so powerful. Thank you. Yes. And I’m gonna get personal here. we can do what we can, we can take care of ourselves, we can take care of others as we can, but we shouldn’t beat ourselves up when we can’t. You know? Robertson: So I, here I’m 80, I’m over 81, and I have issues with balance and walking, and I have some memory issues and some low energy issues. So I have to be kind to myself. I, so I’ve just decided that writing is my main way of caring for the world. That’s why I publish one or two essays a week on Substack, on Compassionate Conversations for 55 countries in 38 states. Robertson: And so I said, you know, I used to travel around the world all the time. Not anymore. I don’t even want like to travel around the county. Robertson: Anyway, I’m an elder , so I have to say , okay, elder, be kind to [00:32:00] yourself, but also do everything you can, write everything you can speak with Gazelle if you can. Robertson: I also have to decide who I’m gonna care for. I’ve decided I’m gonna care for my wife who just turned 70 and my two kids and my two grandkids, my daughter-in-law, my cousins and nieces and nephews, my neighbors here and North Carolina. Robertson: The vulnerable, you know, I give to nonprofits who help the hungry and the homeless to friends and to people around the world through my writings and teachings And so the other day I drove to get some some shrimp tacos for my wife and me for dinner. Robertson: And a lady came up and she had disheveled hair. And she just stood by my car and I put the window down a little and she said. can you drive me to Black Mountain? that’s not where we were. I was in another town. ‘ cause I’m out of my medicine. Robertson: She just, out of the blue said, stood there and said that. And I thought, [00:33:00] oh, oh, hmm. Oh, so, oh yes. So I, I wanted to say, but who are you? How are you? Do you live here? Do do you have any friends or family? Do you, you, can I give you some money? Do you have, but I was kind of, I was kind of struck dumb, you know? Robertson: I thought, oh, oh, what should I do? And so I said, oh, I’m so sorry I don’t live in Black Mountain. And she said, oh. And she just turned and walked away and she asked two other cars and they said no. And then she walked away. And then she walked away. I thought, oh, Rob, Rob, is she okay? Does she have a family? Robertson: Did she have a house? What if she doesn’t get her medicine? How can she walk to that town? Could you have driven her and delayed taking dinner home to your wife? And then I said, but I don’t know. And then I thought, oh, but she’s gone. And I then I said, okay, Rob. Okay, Rob, [00:34:00] you’ve lived 81 years. You’ve cared for people in the UN in 170 countries. Speaker 3: Yeah. Robertson: And you’ve been in 55 countries, you’re still writing every week, you’re taking care of your neighbors and family and friends. Don’t beat yourself up. Old guy. Don’t beat yourself up. But next time, you know what Rob, I’m gonna say, Hey, my dear one, are you okay? I don’t have any money, but I can I buy you? Robertson: We are here at the taco shop, Can I buy you dinner? I would, I’m gonna say that next time, Rob. I’m gonna say that. and then I also gazelle,I’m gonna support democratic socialist institutions. You know, some people are afraid of that word, democratic socialist. Robertson: But you know, the happiest countries in the world are democratic socialist countries. Finland is the world’s happiest country. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, those are in the top 10 [00:35:00] when they’ve, when there have been analysis of, if you, if you Google happiest countries in the world, Robertson: those Nordic countries come up every year. Why? They are democratic socialist countries. You pay high taxes and everybody gets free college. You know, free education, free college, free health everybody gets taken care of in a democratic socialist country in the Nordic countries and New York City. Robertson: I’m so proud that our new mayor in New York City Zoran Mai is a democratic socialist. He is there to help everybody, but particularly those who are hurting the poor, the hungry , the sick, or the people of color, women, the elderly, the children. I’m so proud of him and I write about him on my substack and I write him Robertson: I he’s one of my heroes just like Bernie Sanders is one of my heroes. And Alexandria Ocasio Cortes, a OC is one of my, my heroes, CA [00:36:00] Ooc. So, and you know, I used to never tell anybody I was a Democratic socialist ’cause I was afraid. I thought, oh, they’ll think I’m a socialist. Hell no. I am now proud to say I’m a democratic socialist. Robertson: I’m a Democrat. I vote the Democratic ticket, but I’m always looking for progressives, progressive Democrats, you know, democratic socialist Democrats. because, you know, our country can be more like Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland New York City. New York City is showing us the way America can be like a New York City. Robertson: I’m so proud of New York City and I used to live in New York City so as an old person. I can only do what I can do. and I’m not saying, oh, I poor me. I can’t do anything. No, no. I’m not saying that. I’m saying I can do a hell of a lot as this 81-year-old, it’s amazing what I can do, but that is why I write and speak and care for my family, neighbors, friends, the poor. Robertson: [00:37:00] Donate to nonprofits for the homeless and the hungry vote. Get out the vote. So yes, that’s my story. Gazelle. Gissele: I totally relate. I mean, I’ve been in circumstances like that as well, where you wanna help. But the fear is like, what if a person kills you? What if they don’t really have medication? Gissele: What if you get hurt or they try to rob you or they have mental health problems? Mine goes to protection and it is very human of us to go there first. And so, so then we get stuck in that ping pong in that moment and then the moment passes and you’re like, you know, was it true? Could I have driven that person? Gissele: And that would’ve been something I wanted to do for sure. But in that moment, you are stuck in that, yo-yo, when the survival comes in. And so helping ourselves shift out of that survival mode, understanding and learning to have faith and trust. And for me that’s been a work in progress. Gissele: It really has been a work in [00:38:00] progress. The other thing I wanted to mention, which I think is so important that we need to touch on. It’s the whole concept of socialism. So I was born in South America before I came to Canada and so I remember lots of my family members talk about this, there’s many South American countries that got sold communism, as socialism we’re talking about approaches that instead of it being like a democratic socialism that you’re talking about, which is the government, make sure that people are taking care of and that the people are probably taxed and provided for what would happen in those countries was that. Gissele: Everything got taken away. People were rationed certain things, and, it was horrible. it was not good, but it was not socialism. And there was many governments that took the majority of the money, then spent it on themselves, left the country, took it themselves, and so especially the Latin American community is very much afraid of socialism because they think back to that, the [00:39:00] rationing of electricity, the rationing of food, the rationing of all of that stuff, it wasn’t provided openly. Gissele: It was, everybody gets less. And so you have these people with this history that then have come to the US and think they don’t want socialism. They think democracy means that people aren’t gonna take stuff away from them, but that’s not what it means either. ’cause I don’t even know if like in North America we have a true democracy. Robertson: so thinking about reframing of how we think or experience democratic socialism, that it doesn’t mean less for everybody and in everything controlled by the government. It means being provided for abundantly and, also having the citizens be taxed more, which means we are willing to share our money so that we can all live well, Beautiful. Beautiful. Oh, thank you. Hooray. Wonderful. What country are you? May I ask where you coming? Gissele: Yeah, of Robertson: course. Gissele: Peru, I Gissele: [00:40:00] Yeah. Robertson: Wonderful. I’ve been to Peru a few times. A wonderful, beautiful country. And I, I lived in Venezuela for five years. ‘ cause I love, I have many friends in Venezuela. Robertson: But anyway I agree with everything you just said. That’s why I said what I said that I now can, I can confess that I am a democratic socialist. And that’s not socialism. It’s a social democracy is what it’s called. Yeah. That’s what they call it in Finland and Denmark and so on. Robertson: They call it social democracy. It’s democracy. But it, as you say, it’s cares for everyone and for the earth. We have to always add and the earth, ’cause you know, all the other species and, and the other life forms and the ecosystems, the water, the soil, the air, the minerals the plants, the animals. Robertson: and we have the money, as you said. I mean, if I had $350 billion, think of what taxes I could pay if the tax rate was, you know, 30%. [00:41:00] And rather than nothing, some of these, some of these folks pay, Gissele: well, I think we have glorified that we all wanted that, right? Like we got sold this good that oh, we should all want to be as wealthy as possible, right? And so we normalize the hoarding of money. Not the hoarding of other stuff, right? Gissele: And so we have allowed that, which gets me to my, next point, you talk about the environmental impact as part of a compassionate society, which absolutely is necessary. Gissele: And as human beings, we can be so lazy. We want convenience. We want to, have our package the next day. We don’t wanna wait. are we willing to pay higher wages? Are we willing to wait? Longer for our packages, like, are we willing to, invest in our wardrobe instead of buying fast fashion? Gissele: We don’t do these things and these have environmental impacts, and it also have human impacts, and at the end, they have impact on us. What can we do to ensure that, that we address that [00:42:00] complacency so that we are creating a fair, affordable , and compassionate world. Robertson: So important. Thank you. Robertson: It’s, it’s a life and death question. So yes, we should always ask about ecological and social impacts and take actions accordingly. That’s why I recycle every day. You know, some people say, oh, recycling is stupid. What do they really do with this, with it? You know, are they, are they really careful when you, they pick it up? Robertson: but I recycle religiously every day That’s why I support climate and democracy through third act. There’s a group that Bill McKibbon has started here in the US called Third Act. It’s a group of elder activists, activists over 60 who are working on climate and democracy issues. Robertson: So I’m doing that. That’s why I vote and get it out to vote. And as I said, I vote for Democrats and Democratic socialists. That’s why I write and speak and vote for ecological regeneration for social justice, for peace, for [00:43:00] democratic governance. It’s so critical that we keep questioning our actions like. Robertson: Okay, why am I recycling? Is it really worth the time? You know, deciding about every item, where it goes, and then putting out it out carefully and rinsing it first. And is that really going to help the world? ’cause you also know we need systemic changes, because you can always say, oh, but what the individual does doesn’t matter. Robertson: We need laws, we need institutions of ecological regeneration, and we need laws on caring for the climate and stopping climate change. So you can talk yourself out of individual responsibility when you realize that we need laws and institutions that protect the environment. Robertson: But it’s both. It’s both. what each person does, because there are millions of us individuals. So if there are millions of us act responsibly, that has, is a huge impact. And then if we [00:44:00] also have responsible laws and institutions that care for the environment as well as all people, then that’s a double win. Robertson: So I agree with you. We have to keep asking that question over and over and making those decisions and they’re hard decisions. We have to decide. Gissele: Yeah, I’ve had to look at myself like one of the commitments I’ve made to myself is not buying fast fashion. And so, investing in pieces, even though sometimes I feel lack oh my God, spending that much money on this, you know? Gissele: Yeah. It all comes back to me. if I am not willing to pay a fair wage, that means that the next person doesn’t get a fair wage, which means they don’t wanna pay a fair wage and so on and so forth. And then it comes back to me, you know, my husband has a business and then, you get people that don’t also wanna pay a fair wage. Gissele: It’s all interconnected. And so we have to be willing, but that also goes to us addressing our fear, our fear of lack, that we’re not gonna have enough. All of those things. And the biggest fundamental [00:45:00] fear, and you mentioned death to me, is the ultimate Gissele: fear That we must overcome I think once we do, like, I think once we understand that we are not, this human vessel. Gissele: that we’re not just this bag of bones and live in so much constrained fear that perhaps we could. really open up ourselves to be willing to be more compassionate . What do you think? Robertson: Absolutely. I’m with you all the way. Yes. We fear death because we’re caught in that illusion of a separate permanent self. Robertson: You know, it’s all about me. Oh, this universe is all about me. The universe was created 13.8 billion years for me. Robertson: Yeah. But it’s all about me and particularly my ego, honoring my ego. Building up my ego, praising my ego being, you know, that’s why I wanna be rich and famous. Robertson: Fortunately, I never wanted to be rich or famous, but that’s another story. We’ll talk about that some other time. But everything and [00:46:00] everyone is impermanent. When I realized that truth and it, it came to me through engaged Buddhism, but you could, you could get that truth in many, many ways. Robertson: That everything and everyone is impermanent. we’re part of the ocean. But the waves don’t last forever, do they? But the ocean lasts forever. Robertson: So My atoms, are part of the 13.8 billion year old universe. my cells are part of the living earth. Yes, they remain When I die, you know, go back into the earth. back into the soil and the water and the air but My ego doesn’t remain. What, what remains, as I said before, are my actions. Robertson: Everything I did is still cause and effect. Cause and effect. Rippling out. Rippling out. Okay. Rob, what did you do? What did you say? did you help that, did you touch that? Did you say that? so my actions and words continue rippling forever. So Ty calls that, or in the Plum Village tradition of engaged Buddhism, it’s called my continuation. Robertson: Your actions and your words [00:47:00] are your continuation that last forever as your actions and words will continue through cause and effect touching reality forever. So when my ego does not remain so I can smile and let it go. I often think about my continuation. You know, I say, well, that’s why, maybe why I’m writing so much and speaking so much. Robertson: And caring for so many people every day, you know, caring to care for my wife and my children and grandchildren and friends and neighbors, and the v vulnerable and the hungry, and the homeless, and the, and my country, and my city, and my county, and my, and why do I write substack twice a week? Robertson: And containing reflections on ecological, societal, and individual challenges and practices. And so every, week I’m writing about practices of mindfulness and compassion. So I’m trying to be the teacher. I’m trying to send out words of mindfulness and compassion so that they will continue reverberating when I’m dust, Robertson: So [00:48:00] I’m reaching out. In my substack to just those 55 people in 55 countries, in 38 states, touching hearts and minds and even more on social media. every month I have like 86,000 views of my social media. Why do I do it? It’s not just about ego, you know? Robertson: Oh, Rob, be famous. No, Rob is not famous. I’m a nobody. I gotta keep giving and giving and giving, you know, another word, another action, so I can, care for people around me through personal care, donations, voting, volunteering workshops, I’m helping start a workshop in our neighborhood on environmental resilience through recycling, through group facilitation. Robertson: I’m trained in, facilitation. I’ve been trained my whole life to ask questions of groups so they can create their own plans and strategies and actions. that’s some of my answer. Robertson: I hope that makes some sense. Gissele: Thank you very much. I appreciated your answer and it made me really think you are one of our compassionate leaders, right? [00:49:00] You’re, you’re kind of carving the way and helping us reflect, ’cause I’ve seen some of your substack, I’ve seen like your postings. Gissele: That’s actually how I kind of reached out to you. ’cause I was so moved by the material that you were sharing, the willingness to be honest about what it takes to be compassionate and how hard it can be sometimes to look at ourselves honestly, because we can’t change unless we’re willing to look at ourselves. Gissele: All aspects of ourselves, like you said, we are the billionaires, we are the oligarchy, we are all of these people. The racism that voted that in the, the racism that continues to show the fear, all of that is us. And so from your perspective, what do compassionate leaders do differently? Robertson: Yes. Well, it great question. Robertson: what do compassionate leaders do differently? Well, he or she or they. Robertson: are empathic. I think it starts with empathy. What are like, what are you feeling? What are you thinking? Robertson: What are you, what’s happening in your life? So an empathic [00:50:00] leader listens to other people. They see where other people are hurting. They care. They ask questions and facilitate group discussions, enable group projects. They let go of self-importance, you know, that it’s not all about me. Robertson: They let go of narcissism. They let go of, the ego project. They help others be their greatness. They care for their body mind so that they can care for others. and they donate and vote and recycle and more and more and more and more. did you know in Denmark. In elementary school every week, children are taught empathy. Robertson: You know, they have courses on empathy, Robertson: when I was growing up, I,didn’t have courses in school on empathy in church school, you know, in my Sunday school at, in my church. I was taught to love my neighbor and to love everyone, and that God was love. But in school, in my elementary [00:51:00] school and junior high and high school, we didn’t talk about things like empathy and compassion. Gissele: Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. I did know about Denmark ’cause my daughter and I are co-writing a book on that particular topic. The need to continue to teach love and compassion in, Gissele: being a global citizen. Right? And, and I’m doing it with her perspective because she just graduated high school, so she has like the fresher perspective, whereas mine’s from like many moons ago. Gissele: We need to continuously educate ourselves about regulating our own emotions, having difficult conversations, hearing about the other, other, as ourselves. Because that’s, from my perspective, the only way that we’re gonna survive. a friend of mine said it the best that we were having a conversation and she does compassion in the prison system and she says, I can’t be well unless you are well. Gissele: My wellness depends on your wellness. And that just hit me in my heart, like, ugh. Not that I live it every day, Robertson, Gissele: every day I have to choose and some [00:52:00] days I fail, and other days I do good in terms of like be more loving and compassionate and truly helping the world. But it’s a choice. It’s a continual choice. So this goes to my biggest challenge that maybe you can help me with, which is, so I was having this conversation with my students. We were talking about how. In order to create a world that is loving and passionate for all, it has to include the all, even those who are most hurtful, and that is really difficult . Gissele: I’m just curious as to your thoughts on what starting point might be or what can help us look at those who do hurtful things and just horrible things and be able to say, I see God within you. I see your humanity. Even though it might be hard. Robertson: Yes, It is hard. several years ago when I would hear [00:53:00] leaders of my country speaking on the media, I would get so repulsed that I would turn it off but I began practicing. Robertson: I practiced a lot since those days and I realized, you know. People who hurt, other people are hurting themselves. they’re actually hurting. they’re suffering. People who hurt others have their own suffering of, they’re confused. they’ve forgotten what it means to be human. Robertson: They’re, full of, greed, of their own fears, all about me. Maybe they’re filled with hatred they become violent. they’re suffering. I still find it very difficult to read or listen to certain people. Robertson: But what I do is I stop and I breathe and I smile and I say, okay. Robertson: I care. I’m concerned about you. I don’t know what I can do, but I am gonna do everything I can to care for the people, being hurt, you know, like my fellow activists in [00:54:00] Minneapolis are doing, or elsewhere, we could mention many places around the world where people are risking their own lives. Robertson: You know, in Minneapolis, two activists were killed, Ms. Good Renee Good, and Alex Pretty were killed because they went beyond their fear, you know? they got out there in the street because the migrants were being hurt and they got killed. Robertson: So, you know, At some point you have to come to terms with your own death, I don’t know if I have a, a minute to go or 20 years, I still have to let go. And so how do I care for my wife, my family, my friends, my neighbors my country, the vulnerable, the homeless, the hungry, and, as you said, for the wealthy and powerful who are hurting others, you know, starting wars attacking migrants, killing activists. Robertson: It’s hard. You know? So I have to say, I love the story of [00:55:00] when during the Vietnamese war Thich Nhat Hahn and his monks. They did not take sides. They did not say we’re on the side of the Vietnamese or the us. They did not take a side in the war. This is hard for me ’cause I, I usually take sides. Robertson: The practice was, okay, we’re not going to support we’re Vietnamese or the us. Were going to care for everyone. So they just went out caring for people who were getting hurt and during the war, people who were hungry, people who needed food, people who were bleeding, Robertson: So they decided their role was to care for those who were hurt not to attack. To say, I’m for the blue and I’m against the red. They said, I’m just gonna, care . Like, the activists in Minnesota, They’re, they’re not attacking ice, they’re singing to ice. Robertson: And so yes, we have to acknowledge our own anger. [00:56:00] I’m angry with these politicians. sometimes I want, to hate them, but I have to say, I do not hate you, my friend. You are confused. You’re so confused. You’re hurting others. So you’re so hurtful. Robertson: You don’t realize how you’re hurting others. But, I’ve got to try to stop you from hurting others. I’ve got to try to help those who are hurt and maybe I’m gonna get hurt, you know, because in the civil rights movement, if you’re out there doing on a peace march, you might get beaten up. Robertson: as I said, I’ve lived in villages, poor villages, and. Urban slums in several countries. And some people could say, well, that’s stupid. You could get hurt. You know, you could, you could as a white person living in a African American slum or in a Korean village or in a Venezuelan village, Robertson: So, you know, I say, was I stupid? Was I risking and I was with my wife and children? Was I risking the lives of my wife and children by living in slums and, and villages? Yes. Was I stupid? I mean, [00:57:00] no, I wasn’t stupid, but I was risking our lives. But I somehow, I was, called I wanted to do it. I said, okay. Robertson: but my point is it’s risky, you know? And you have to keep working with yourself. That’s why I love the word practice. Robertson: You know, in Buddhism we keep practicing, and I love your, the teaching of that you have on your website of Pema Chodron, you know, on self-love. You know, you have to keep practicing. How do I love myself? Say, okay, I’m afraid and I’m just this little white person, but or I’m this little old white person, but I’m gonna do everything I can and be everything I can. Robertson: I really appreciated the story of Han not choosing sides. I mean, you’re right. If we are going to see each other’s brothers and sisters and is is one global family, we can’t pick a side over the other, even though we so want to. Gissele: And, and I’m with you. when I think that there’s a [00:58:00] unfairness, when there’s people that are vulnerable or suffering, I’m more likely to pick to the side that is like, oh, that person is suffering. They’re the victim. But what you said is spot on. People that truly lovewho have love in their heart, like when you were raised with love. Gissele: You had love to give others because your cup was full. So it overflowed to want to help others, to want to love others. People that are hurting, that don’t have love in their hearts are those that hurt other people. Robertson: Mm-hmm. Gissele: They must because they must be so separated from their own humanity. Robertson: Yes, yes, yes. Gissele: And yet things are changing. You mentioned Minnesota, and I wanted to mention that I love that they’re doing the singing chants, and they’re not making them wrong. they’re singing chants like you can change your mind. You don’t have to be wrong. You don’t have to experience shame and guilt for the choice you’ve made. You can always change your mind. And in your book, you talk a lot about movements. Do you wanna [00:59:00] share a little bit about the power of movements and helping us create a compassionate civilization? Robertson: Oh, yes. Thank you. I’m, I’m a big movement fan. it started in college with the Civil Rights Movement. I realized, wow, you know, if a lot of people get together and do something together, it can make a difference. Like the Civil Rights movement. Gissele: Yeah. Robertson: And the women’s movement and peace movement. Robertson: And like in Vietnam, the peace movement, we could really make a difference if we get out in March. I think that being an individual or part of an organization that is part of a movement can be a powerful force. And so I focus in my life and that, that book on the six movements that I’ve mentioned, and those movements can work together. Robertson: And when they work together, they become a movement of movements. They become mom. Hmm. I like that because I I’m a feminist and I think that we need so [01:00:00] desperately we need more feminine energy inhumanity and in civilization. Robertson: So I’m a unapologetic feminist. And so that’s why I like that the movement of movements, the acronym is Mom, you know, and so it’s the Moms of the World will lead us like you. And so they’re the movements of ecological regeneration, socioeconomic justice, I’m repeating gender equality, participatory governance, cultural tolerance, peace and non-violence. Robertson: And you know, we also have the Gay Rights Movement, the democracy movement. there’s so many movements that it made a huge difference. So. I began saying that I, after writing the book, I said, okay,now my work is the work of the Compassionate Civilization Collaborative. Robertson: And I decided I wouldn’t make an organization, I it, wouldn’t have a website, I wouldn’t register it. I wouldn’t raise money for it. It would just be anybody and everybody [01:01:00] who was part of the movement of movements who was working to create a compassionate civilization. Robertson: So that’s what I did. And that’s where I am. I’m this old guy in my home. I don’t get out a lot. I don’t drive a lot. I just drive to nearby town. I have a car, but I don’t use it a lot. I don’t like to walk up and down hills. Robertson: IAnd sometimes I can’t remember things and I say, Hey, but look, you have so many friends all over the world and you can keep encouraging through your writing. So that’s why I keep writing, you know, it is for the movement of movements. Robertson: I guess that’s why I write. here’s something I want to share, something I thought or felt or something that I wrote about. And maybe it will touch you. Maybe it’ll encourage you. Maybe we’ll help you in your life. Robertson: I live in a homeowners association neighborhood. It’s a neighborhood that has a homeowners association. We’re 34 families and we have straight families, gay families. we have white families and non-white families. [01:02:00] We have Democrats, Republicans and Socialists. Robertson: We have Christians and Buddhists and Hindus. And so what I do, I say, Hey, we’re all neighbors. We all helped each other during the pandemic. We all helped each other after the hurricane. It doesn’t matter what our politics are or our religion or our sexuality, we’re all human beings. Robertson: We’re all gonna die. we all want love. We all want happiness. And We can be good neighbors. We don’t have to have ideology, you know, we don’t have to quote the Bible, we don’t have to quote Buddha. We can just be good neighbors. So we’re gonna have a workshop this spring And so we’re all going to get together down the street in this big room, in the fire station, and we’re gonna have a two hour workshop. And will it help? I don’t know. Will it make us better neighbors? I don’t know. Why am I doing it? I’m driven to do it. I’ve done workshops all over the world and I wanna do a workshop in my neighborhood. Robertson: I’ve done workshops with the un, I’ve done [01:03:00] workshops with governments, with cities So I love to facilitate. I love getting people together to solve problems together to listen to each other, respect each other, to honor each other. Gissele: so I’m just gonna ask you a couple more questions. But I’m just gonna make a comment right now about what you said because I think it’s so important. Gissele: Number one is I love that your neighborhood is a microcosm of what our world could be like . The fact that people got together to help and make sure that people were taken care of. If we could amplify that, that could be our world. I think that’s such a beautiful thing. Gissele: And the other thing that I think is really fundamental is that even through your life, you are showing us that some people are going to go pickett. And that’s okay. Some people are gonna write blogs to help us, and that’s okay. Some people are gonna do podcasts, and that’s okay. There are things that people can do that don’t have to look exactly the same. Gissele: Some people are going to have more courage, and they’re going to put their bodies in front and potentially get hurt. Other people, maybe they can’t do [01:04:00] that. So there are many different ways to help. The other thing that you said that was really, really key is the importance of moms . And that was one of the things that really touched me about your book, the acronym. Gissele: I was like, oh my God, I so resonate with this. Because I do feel that we need more feminine energy. We really kind of really squash the feminine energy. But the truth of the matter is we need more because fundamentally, nurturance is a mother energy is a feminine energy. Gissele: Compassion’s a feminine energy. Yes, yes, yes, Robertson: yes, yes, Gissele: so if I can share my story. Last night I was at hockey game. My son was playing hockey. Robertson: Mm-hmm. Gissele: And our team they don’t like to fight. Gissele: We play our game and we have fun and we’re good. And so the previous teams that were there, it was under Youth 15, most of the game was the kids fighting. And taking penalties. And so the game ends, the people come off the ice and two men that are starting to get like into a fight [01:05:00] now, woman got in front of them. Gissele: Wow. and said, we all signed a form that said, this is just a game. Remember who this is for? even though she was elevated, she totally stopped that fight between two men that we were not small. And So it was, it was really interesting. Robertson: Wonderful. Gissele: it was a woman who actually stopped a fight Gissele: It’s the feminine power. And that doesn’t mean, and I wanna make this clear, that doesn’t mean that men have to be discarded or have to be treated the same way that women are treated. ’cause I think that’s a big fear. That’s a big fear that some white males have. It’s no, you don’t have to be less than, Robertson: right. Robertson: We need Gissele: to uplift the feminine energy. So there’s a balance. ’cause right now we’re not balanced. Robertson: Exactly. Exactly. Oh, boy. Am I with you there? there’s a whole section in my book, as you noticed on gender equality I’m gonna read a tribute to Mothers I. Robertson: Tribute to Mothers Giving Birth to New Life, nurturing, [01:06:00] sustaining, guiding, releasing, launching, affirming Love. Be getting Love a flow onwards. Mother Earth, mother Tree, mother Tiger, mother Eve. My grandmother’s Sally and Arie, my mother, Mary Elizabeth, my children’s mother, Mary, my grandchildren’s mother, Jennifer, my grandchildren’s grandmothe

In this conversation, Mat McDermott and Devala Rees delve into the complexities of Hinduism, particularly focusing on the Vedas and their role within various Hindu traditions. They explore the misconceptions surrounding the Vedas, the differences between Vedic and non-Vedic traditions, and the significance of Agamas in Hindu practices. The discussion also touches on the legal definitions of Hinduism as interpreted by the Indian Supreme Court, emphasizing the diversity and fluidity of Hindu identity.TakeawaysThe Vedas are ancient compilations of spiritual teachings and philosophies.Not all Hindus view the Vedas as authoritative; many traditions exist outside of Vedic influence.The Vedas are not a singular source of moral commandments like the Bible in Christianity.Hinduism encompasses over 300 different traditions, each with its own sources of knowledge.Agamas, or tantras, are significant texts that many Hindu traditions follow instead of the Vedas.The Indian Supreme Court's definition of Hinduism is not universally accepted among Hindus.Many Hindus practice spirituality without adhering to the Vedas.The concept of temples in Hinduism originates from Agamic traditions, not Vedic ones.Hindu identity is complex and cannot be reduced to a single definition based on Vedic adherence.The Vedas serve as a historical touchstone but do not dictate the practices of all Hindus.Chapters00:00 Understanding the Vedas: An Introduction09:41 The Role of the Vedas in Hinduism19:54 Diverse Perspectives: Vedic vs. Non-Vedic Traditions29:51 Agamas and Their Significance in Hindu Practices39:44 Legal Definitions and the Supreme Court's PerspectiveKeywordsHinduism, Vedas, Agamas, Hindu traditions, spirituality, non-Vedic, religious practices, Indian culture, philosophy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this conversation, Mat McDermott and Devala Rees delve into the complexities of Hinduism, particularly focusing on the Vedas and their role within various Hindu traditions. They explore the misconceptions surrounding the Vedas, the differences between Vedic and non-Vedic traditions, and the significance of Agamas in Hindu practices. The discussion also touches on the legal definitions of Hinduism as interpreted by the Indian Supreme Court, emphasizing the diversity and fluidity of Hindu identity.TakeawaysThe Vedas are ancient compilations of spiritual teachings and philosophies.Not all Hindus view the Vedas as authoritative; many traditions exist outside of Vedic influence.The Vedas are not a singular source of moral commandments like the Bible in Christianity.Hinduism encompasses over 300 different traditions, each with its own sources of knowledge.Agamas, or tantras, are significant texts that many Hindu traditions follow instead of the Vedas.The Indian Supreme Court's definition of Hinduism is not universally accepted among Hindus.Many Hindus practice spirituality without adhering to the Vedas.The concept of temples in Hinduism originates from Agamic traditions, not Vedic ones.Hindu identity is complex and cannot be reduced to a single definition based on Vedic adherence.The Vedas serve as a historical touchstone but do not dictate the practices of all Hindus.Chapters00:00 Understanding the Vedas: An Introduction09:41 The Role of the Vedas in Hinduism19:54 Diverse Perspectives: Vedic vs. Non-Vedic Traditions29:51 Agamas and Their Significance in Hindu Practices39:44 Legal Definitions and the Supreme Court's PerspectiveKeywordsHinduism, Vedas, Agamas, Hindu traditions, spirituality, non-Vedic, religious practices, Indian culture, philosophy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ahead of her new book What's So Great About the Great Books? coming out in April, Naomi Kanakia and I talked about literature from Herodotus to Tony Tulathimutte. We touched on Chaucer, Anglo-Saxon poetry, Scott Alexander, Shakespeare, William James, Helen deWitt, Marx and Engels, Walter Scott, Les Miserables, Jhootha Sach, the Mahabharata, and more. Naomi also talked about some of her working habits and the history and future of the Great Books movement. Naomi, of course, writes Woman of Letters here on Substack.TranscriptHenry Oliver: Today, I am talking with Naomi Kanakia. Naomi is a novelist, a literary critic, and most importantly she writes a Substack called Woman of Letters, and she has a new book coming out, What's So Great About the Great Books? Naomi, welcome.Naomi Kanakia: Thanks for having me on.Oliver: How is the internet changing the way that literature gets discussed and criticized, and what is that going to mean for the future of the Great Books?Kanakia: How is the internet changing it? I can really speak to only how it has changed it for me. I started off as a writer of young adult novels and science fiction, and there's these very active online fan cultures for those two things.I was reading the Great Books all through that time. I started in 2010 through today. In the 2010s, it really felt like there was not a lot of online discussion of classic literature. Maybe that was just me and I wasn't finding it, but it didn't necessarily feel like there was that community.I think because there are so many strong, public-facing institutions that discuss classic literature, like the NYRB, London Review of Books, a lot of journals, and universities, too. But now on Substack, there are a number of blogs—yours, mine, a number of other ones—that are devoted to classic literature. All of those have these commenters, a community of commenters. I also follow bloggers who have relatively small followings who are reading Tolstoy, reading Middlemarch, reading even much more esoteric things.I know that for me, becoming involved in this online culture has given me much more of an awareness that there are many people who are reading the classics on their own. I think that was always true, but now it does feel like it's more of a community.Oliver: We are recording this the day after the Washington Post book section has been removed. You don't see some sort of relationship between the way these literary institutions are changing online and the way the Great Books are going to be conceived of in the future? Because the Great Books came out of a an old-fashioned, saving-the-institutions kind of radical approach to university education. We're now moving into a world where all those old things seem to be going.Kanakia: Yes. I agree. The Great Books began in the University of Chicago and Columbia University. If you look into the history of the movement, it really was about university education and the idea that you would have a common core and all undergraduates would read these books. The idea that the Great Books were for the ordinary person was really an afterthought, at least for Mortimer Adler and those original Great Books guys. Now, the Great Books in the university have had a resurgence that we can discuss, but I do think there's a lot more life and vitality in the kind of public-facing humanities than there has been.I talked to Irina Dumitrescu, who writes for TLS (The Times Literary Supplement), LRB (The London Review of Books), a lot of these places, and she also said the same thing—that a lot of these journals are going into podcasts, and they're noticing a huge interest in the humanities and in the classics even at the same time as big institutions are really scaling back on those things. Humanities majors are dropping, classics majors are getting cut, book coverage at major periodicals is going down. It does seem like there are signals that are conflicting. I don't really know totally what to make of it. I do think there is some relation between those two things.Ted Gioia on Substack is always talking about how culture is stagnant, basically, and one of the symptoms of that is that “back list” really outsells “front list” for books. Even in 2010, 50 percent of the books that were sold were front-list titles, books that had been released in the last 18 months. Now it's something like only 35 percent of books or something like that are front-list titles. These could be completely wrong, but there's been a trend.I think the decrease in interest in front-list books is really what drives the loss of these book-review pages because they mostly review front-list books. So, I think that does imply that there's a lot of interest in old books. That's what our stagnant culture means.Oliver: Why do you think your own blog is popular with the rationalists?Kanakia: I don't know for certain. There was a story I wrote that was a joke. There are all these pop nonfiction books that aim to prove something that seems counterintuitive, so I wrote a parody of one of those where I aim to prove that reading is bad for you. This book has many scientific studies that show the more you read, the worse it is because it makes you very rigid.Scott Alexander, who is the archrationalist, really liked that, and he added me to his blog roll. Because of that, I got a thousand rationalist subscribers. I have found that rationalists at least somewhat interested in the classics. I think they are definitely interested in enduring sources of value. I've observed a fair amount of interest.Oliver: How much of a lay reader are you really? Because you read scholarship and critics and you can just quote John Gilroy in the middle of a piece or something.Kanakia: Yeah. That is a good question. I have definitely gotten more interested in secondary literature. In my book, I really talk about being a lay reader and personally having a nonacademic approach to literature. I do think that, over 15 years of being a lay reader, I have developed a lot of knowledge.I've also learned the kind of secondary literature that is really important. I think having historical context adds a lot and is invaluable. Right now I'm rereading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. When I first read it in 2010, I hardly knew anything about French history. I was even talking online with someone about how most people who read Les Miserables think it's set in the French Revolution. That's basically because Americans don't really know anything about French history.Everything makes just a lot more sense the more you know about the time because it was written for people in it. For people in 1860s France, who knew everything about their own recent history, that really adds a lot to it. I still don't tend to go that much into interpretive literature, literature that tries to do readings of the stories or tell me the meaning of the stories. I feel like I haven't really gotten that much out of that.Oliver: How long have you been learning Anglo-Saxon?Kanakia: I went through a big Anglo-Saxon phase. That was in 2010. It started because I started reading The Canterbury Tales in Middle English. There is a great app online called General Prologue created by one of your countrymen, Terry Richardson [NB it is Terry Jones], who loved Middle English. In this app, he recites the Middle English of the General Prologue. I started listening to this app, and I thought, I just really love the rhythms and the sounds of Middle English. And it's quite easy to learn. So then, I got really into that.And then I thought, but what about Anglo-Saxon? I'm very bad at languages. I studied Latin for seven years in middle school and high school. I never really got very far, but I thought, Anglo-Saxon has to be the easiest foreign language you can learn, right? So, I got into it.I cannot sight read Anglo-Saxon, but I really got into Anglo-Saxon poetry. I really liked the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Most people probably would not like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle because it's very repetitive, but that makes it great if you're a language learner because every entry is in this very repetitive structure. I just felt such a connection. I get in trouble when I say this kind of stuff, because I'm never quiet sure if it's 100 percent true. But it's certainly one of the oldest vernacular literatures in Europe. It's just so much older than most of the other medieval literature I've read. And it just was such a window into a different part of history I never knew about.Oliver: And you particularly like “The Dream of the Rood”?Kanakia: Yeah, “The Dream of the Rood” is my favorite Anglo-Saxon poem. “The Dream of the Rood” is a poem that is told from the point of view of Christ's cross. A man is having a dream. In this dream he encounters Christ's cross, and Christ's cross starts reciting to him basically the story of the crucifixion. At the end, the cross is buried. I don't know, it was just so haunting and powerful. Yeah, it was one of my favorites.Oliver: Why do you think Byron is a better poet than Alexander Pope?Kanakia: This is an argument I cannot get into. I think this is coming up because T. S. Eliot felt that Alexander Pope was a great poet because he really exemplified the spirit of the age. I don't know. I've tried to read Pope. It just doesn't do it for me. Whereas with Byron, I read Don Juan and found it entertaining. I enjoyed it. Then, his lyric poetry is just more entertaining to read. With Alexander Pope, I'm learning a lot about what kind of poetry people wrote in the 18th century, but the joy is not there.Oliver: Okay. Can we do a quick fire round where I say the name of a book and you just say what you think of it, whatever you think of it?Kanakia: Sure.Oliver: Okay. The Odyssey.Kanakia: The Odyssey. Oh, I love The Odyssey. It has a very strange structure, where it starts with Telemachus and then there's this flashback in the middle of it. It is much more readable than The Iliad; I'll say that.Oliver: Herodotus.Kanakia: Herodotus is wild. Going into Herodotus, I really thought it was about the Persian war, which it is, but it's mostly a general overview of everything that Herodotus knew, about anything. It's been a long time since I read it. I really appreciate the voice of Herodotus, how human it is, and the accumulation of facts. It was great.Oliver: I love the first half actually. The bit about the Persian war I'm less interested in, but the first half I think is fantastic. I particularly love the Egypt book.Kanakia: Oh yeah, the Egypt book is really good.Oliver: All those like giant beetles that are made of fire or whatever; I can't remember the details, but it's completely…Kanakia: The Greeks are also so fascinated by Egypt. They go down there like what is going on out there? Then, most of what we know about Egypt comes from this Hellenistic period, when the Greeks went to Egypt. Our Egyptian kings list comes from the Hellenistic period where some scholar decided to sort out what everybody was up to and put it all into order. That's why we have such an orderly story about Egypt. That's the story that the Greeks tried to tell themselves.Oliver: Marcus Aurelius.Kanakia: Marcus Aurelius. When I first read The Meditations, which I loved, obviously, I thought, “being the Roman emperor cannot be this hard.” It really was a black pill moment because I thought, “if the emperor of Rome is so unhappy, maybe human power really doesn't do it.”Knowing more about Marcus Aurelius, he did have quite a difficult life. He was at war for most of his—just stuck in the region in Germany for ages. He had various troubles, but yeah, it really was very stoic. It was, oh, I just have to do my duty. Very “heavy is the head that wears the crown” kind of stuff. I thought, “okay, I guess being Roman emperor is not so great.”Oliver: Omar Khayyam.Kanakia: Omar Khayyam. Okay, I've only read The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam by Edward Fitzgerald, which I loved, but I cannot formulate a strong opinion right now.Oliver: As You Like It.Kanakia: No opinions.Oliver: Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson.Kanakia: Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. I do have an opinion about this, which is that they should make a redacted version of Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. I normally am not a big believer in abridgements because I feel like whatever is there is there. But, Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, first of all, has a long portion before Boswell even meets Johnson. That portion drags; it's not that great. Then it has all these like letters that Johnson wrote, which also are not that great. What's really good is when Boswell just reports everything Johnson ever said, which is about half the book. You get a sense of Johnson's conversation and his personality, and that is very gripping. I've definitely thought that with a different presentation, this could still be popular. People would still read this.Oliver: The Communist Manifesto.Kanakia: The Communist Manifesto. It's very stirring. I love The Communist Manifesto. It has very haunting, powerful lines. I won't try to quote from it because I'll misquote them.Oliver: But it is remarkably well written.Kanakia: Oh yeah, it is a great work of literature.Oliver: Yeah.Kanakia: I read Capital [Das Kapital], which is not a great work of literature, and I would venture to say that it is not necessarily worth reading. It really feels like Marx's reputation is built on other political writings like The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and works like that, which really seem to have a lot more meat on the bone than Capital.Oliver: Pragmatism by William James.Kanakia: Pragmatism. I mean, I've mentioned that in my book. I love William James in general. I think William James was writing in this 19th-century environment where it seemed like some form of skepticism was the only rational solution. You couldn't have any source of value, and he really tried to cut through that with Pragmatism and was like, let's just believe the things that are good to believe. It is definitely at least useful to think, although someone else can always argue with you about what is useful to believe. But, as a personal guide for belief, I think it is still useful.Oliver: Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw.Kanakia: No strong opinions. It was a long time ago that I read Major Barbara.Oliver: Tell me what you like about James Fenimore Cooper.Kanakia: James Fenimore Cooper. Oh, this is great. I have basically a list of Great Books that I want to read, but four or five years ago, I thought, “what's in all the other books that I know the names of but that are not reputed, are not the kind of books you still read?”That was when I read Walter Scott, who I really love. And I just started reading all kinds of books that were kind of well known but have kind of fallen into literary disfavor. In almost every case, I felt like I got a lot out of these books. So, nowadays when I approach any realm of literature, I always look for those books.In 19th-century American literature, the biggest no-longer-read book is The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper, which was America's first bestseller. He was the first American novelist that had a high reputation in Europe. The Last of the Mohicans is kind of a historical romance, à la Walter Scott, but much more tightly written and much more tightly plotted.Cooper has written five novels, the Leatherstocking Tales, that are all centered around this very virtuous, rough-hewn frontiersman, Natty Bumppo. He has his best friend, Chingachgook, who is the last of the Mohicans. He's the last of his tribe. And the two of these guys are basically very sad and stoic. Chingachgook is distanced from his tribe. Chingachgook has a tribe of Native Americans that he hates—I want to say it's the Huron. He's always like, “they're the bad ones,” and he's always fighting them. Then, Natty Bumppo doesn't really love settled civilization. He's not precisely at war with it, but he does not like the settlers. They're kind of stuck in the middle. They have various adventures, and I just thought it was so haunting and powerful.I've been reading a lot of other 19th-century American literature, and virtually none of it treats Native Americans with this kind of respect. There's a lot of diversity in the Native American characters; there's really an attempt to show how their society works and the various ways that leadership and chiefship works among them. There's this very haunting moment in The Last of the Mohicans, where this aged chief, Tamenund, comes out and starts speaking. This is a chief who, in American mythology, was famous for being a friend to the white people. But, James Fenimore Cooper writing in the 1820s has Tamenund come out at 80 years old and say, “we have to fight; we have to fight the white people. That's our only option.” It was just such a powerful moment and such a powerful book.I was really, really enthused. I read all of these Leatherstocking Tales. It was also a very strange experience to read these books that are generally supposed to be very turgid and boring, and then I read them and was like, “I understand. I'm so transported.” I understand exactly why readers in the 1820s loved this.Oliver: Which Walter Scott books do you like?Kanakia: I love all the Walter Scott books I've read, but the one I liked best was Kenilworth. Have you ever read Kenilworth?Oliver: I don't know that one.Kanakia: Yeah, it's about Elizabeth I, who had a romantic relationship with one of her courtiers.Oliver: The Earl of Essex?Kanakia: Yeah. She really thought they were going to get married, but then it turned out he was secretly married. Basically, I guess the implication is that he killed his wife in order to marry Queen Elizabeth I. It's a novel all about him and that situation, and it just felt very tightly plotted. I really enjoyed it.Oliver: What did you think of Rejection?Kanakia: Rejection by Tony Tulathimutte? Initially when I read this book, I enjoyed it, but I was like, “life cannot possibly be this sad.” It's five or six stories about these people who just have nothing going on. Their lives are so miserable, they can't find anyone to sleep with, and they're just doomed to be alone forever. I was like, “life can't be this bad.” But now thinking back over it, it is one of the most memorable books I've read in the last year. It really sticks with you. I feel like my opinion of this book has gone up a lot in retrospect.Oliver: How antisemitic is the House of Mirth?Kanakia: That is a hotly debated question, which I mentioned in my book. I think there has been a good case made that Edith Wharton, the author of House of Mirth, who was from an old New York family, was herself fairly antisemitic and did not personally like Jewish people. What she portrays in this book is that this old New York society also was highly suspicious of Jewish people and was organized to keep Jewish people out.In this book there is a rich Jewish man, Simon Rosedale, and there's a poor woman, Lily Bart. Lily Bart's main thing is whether she's going to marry the poor guy, Lawrence Selden, or the rich guy, Percy Gryce. She can't choose. She doesn't want to be poor, but she also is always bored by the rich guys. Meanwhile, through the whole book, there's Simon Rosedale, who's always like, “you should marry me.” He's the rich Jewish guy. He's like, “you should marry me. I will give you lots of money. You can do whatever you want.”Everybody else kind of just sees her as a woman and as a wife; he really sees her as an ally in his social climbing. That's his main motivation. The book is relatively clear that he has a kind of respect for her that nobody else does. Then, over the course of the book, she also gains a lot more respect for him. Basically, late in the book, she decides to marry him, but she has fallen a lot in the world. He's like, “that particular deal is not available anymore,” but he does offer her another deal that—although she finds it not to her taste—is still pretty good.He basically is like, “I'll give you some money, you'll figure out how to rehabilitate your reputation, and later down the line, we can figure something out.” So, I think with a great author like Edith Wharton, there's power in these portrayals. I felt it hard to come away from it feeling like the book is like a really antisemitic book.Oliver: Now, you note that the Great Books movement started out as something quite socially aspirational. Do you think it's still like that?Kanakia: I do think so. Yeah. For me, that's 100 percent what it was because I majored in econ. I always felt kind of inadequate as a writer against people who had majored in English. Then I started off as a science fiction writer, young adult writer, and I was like, “I'm going to read all these Great Books and then I'll have read the books that everybody else has read.” In my mind, that's also what it was—that there was some upper crust or literary society that was reading all these Great Books.That's really what did it. I do think there's still an element of aspiration to it because it's a club that you can join, that anyone can join. It's very straightforward to be a Great Books reader, and so I think there's still something there. I think because the Great Books movement has such a democratic quality to it, it actually doesn't get you to the top socially, which has always been the true, always been the case. But, that's okay. As long as you end up higher than where you started, that's fine.Oliver: What makes a book great?Kanakia: I talk about it this in the book, and I go through many different authors' conceptions of what makes a book great or what constitutes a classic. I don't know that anyone has come up with a really satisfying answer. The Horatian formulation from Horace—that a book is great or an author is great if it has lasted for a hundred years—is the one that seems to be the most accurate. Like, any book that's still being read a hundred years after it was written has a greatness.I do think that T. S. Eliott's formulation—that a civilization at its height produces certain literature and that literature partakes of the greatness of the civilization and summarizes the greatness of the civilization—does seem to have some kind of truth to it.But it's hard, right? Because the greatest French novel is In Search of Lost Time, but I don't know that anyone would say that the France in the 1920s was at its height. It's not a prescriptive thing, but it does seem like the way we read many of these Great Books, like Moby Dick, it feels like you're like communing with the entire society that produced it. So, maybe there's something there.Oliver: Now, you've used a list from Clifton Fadiman.Kanakia: Yes.Oliver: Rather than from Mortimer Adler or Harold Bloom or several others. Why this list?Kanakia: Well, the best reason is that it's actually the list I've just been using for the last 15 years. I went to a science fiction convention in 2009, Readercon, and at this science fiction convention was Michael Dirda, who was a Washington Post book critic. He had recently come out with his book, Classics for Pleasure, which I also bought and liked. But he said that the list he had always used was this Clifton Fadiman book. And so when I decided to start reading the Great Books, I went and got that book. I have perused many other lists over time, but that was always the list that seemed best to me.It seemed to have like the best mix. There's considerable variation amongst these lists, but there's also a lot of overlap. So any of these lists is going to have Dickens on it, and Tolstoy, and stuff like that. So really, you're just thinking about, “aside from Dickens and Tolstoy and George Eliot and Walt Whitman and all these people, who are the other 50 authors that you're going be reading?”The Mortimer Adler list is very heavy on philosophy. It has Plotinus on it. It has all these scientific works. I don't know, it didn't speak to me as much. Whereas, this Clifton Fadiman and John Major list has all these Eastern works on it. It has The Tale of Genji, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Story of the Stone, and that just spoke to me a little bit more.Oliver: What modern books will be on a future Great Books list, whether it's from someone alive or someone since the war.Kanakia: Have you ever heard of Robert Caro?Oliver: Sure.Kanakia: Yeah. I think his Lyndon Johnson books are great books. They have changed the field of biography. They're so complete, they seem to summarize an entire era, epoch. They're highly rated, but I feel like they're underrated as literature.What else? I was actually a little bit surprised in this Clifton Fadiman-John Major book, which came out in 1999, that there are not more African Americans in their list. Like, Invisible Man definitely seemed like a huge missed work. You know, it's hard. You would definitely want a book that has undergone enough critical evaluation that people are pretty certain that it is great. A lot of things that are more recent have not undergone that evaluation yet, but Invisible Man has, as have some works by Martin Luther King.Oliver: What about The Autobiography of Malcolm X?Kanakia: I would have to reread. I feel like it hasn't been evaluated much as a literary document.Oliver: Helen DeWitt?Kanakia: It's hard to say. It's so idiosyncratic, The Last Samurai, but it is certainly one of the best novels of the last 25 years.Oliver: Yeah.Kanakia: It is hard to say, because there's nothing else quite like it. But I would love if The Last Samurai was on a list like this; that would be amazing.Oliver: If someone wants to try the Great Books, but they think that those sort of classic 19th-century novels are too difficult—because they're long and the sentences are weird or whatever—what else should they do? Where else should they start?Kanakia: Well, it depends on what they're into, or it depends on their personality type. I think like there are people who like very, very difficult literature. There are people who are very into James Joyce and Proust. I think for some people the cost-benefit is better. If they're going to be pouring over some book for a long time, they would prefer if it was overtly difficult.If they're not like that, then I would say, there are many Great Books that are more accessible. Hemingway is a good one and Grapes of Wrath is wonderful. The 19th-century American books tend to be written in a very different register than the English books. If you read Moby Dick, it feels like it's written in a completely different language than Charles Dickens, even though they're writing essentially at the same time.Oliver: Is there too much Freud on the list that you've used?Kanakia: Maybe. I know that Interpretation of Dreams is on that list, which I've tried to read and have decided life is too short. I didn't really buy it, but I have read a fair amount of Freud. My impression of Freud was always that I would read Freud and somehow it would just seem completely fanciful or far out, like wouldn't ring true. But then when I started reading Freud, it was more the opposite. I was like, oh yeah, this seems very, very true.Like this battle between like the id and the ego and the super ego, and this feeling that like the psyche is at war with itself. Human beings really desire to be singular and exceptional, but then you're constantly under assault by the reality principle, which is that you're insignificant. That all seemed completely true. But then he tries to cure this somehow, which does not seem a curable problem. And he also situates the problem in some early sexual development, which also did not necessarily ring true. But no, I wouldn't say there's too much. Freud is a lot of fun. People should read Freud.Oliver: Which of the Great Books have you really not liked?Kanakia: I do get asked this quite a bit. I would say the Great Book that I really felt like—at least in translation—was not that rewarding in an unabridged version was Don Quixote. Because at least half the length of Don Quixote is these like interpolated novellas that are really long and tedious. I felt Don Quixote was a big slog. But maybe someday I'll go back and reread it and love it. Who knows?Oliver: Now you wrote that the question of biography is totally divorced from the question of what art is and how it operates. What do you think of George Orwell's supposition that if Shakespeare came back tomorrow, and we found out he used to rape children that we should—we would not say, you know, it's fine to carry on to doing that because he might write another King Lear.Kanakia: Well, if we discovered that Shakespeare was raping children, he should go to prison for that. No. It's totally divorced in both senses. You don't get any credit in the court of law because you are the writer of King Lear. If I murdered someone and then I was hauled in front of a judge and they were like, oh, Naomi's a genius, I wouldn't get off for murder. Nor should I get off for murder.So in terms of like whether we would punish Shakespeare for his crime of raping children, I don't think King Lear should count at all, but it's never used that way. It's never should someone go to prison or not for their crimes, because they're a genius. It's always used the other way, which is should we read King Lear knowing that the author raped children, but I also feel like that is immaterial. If you read King Lear, you're not enabling someone to rape children.Oliver: There's an almost endless amount of discussion these days about the Great Books and education and the value of the humanities, and what's the future of it all. What is your short opinion on that?Kanakia: My short opinion is that the Great Books at least are going to be fine. The Great Books will continue to be read, and they would even survive the university. All these books predate the university and they will survive the university. I feel like the university has stewarded literature in its own way for a while now and has made certain choices in that stewardship. I think if that stewardship was given up to more voluntary associations that had less financial support, then I think the choices would probably be very different. But I still think the greatest works would survive.Oliver: Now this is a quote from the book: “I am glad that reactionaries love the Great Books. They've invited a Trojan horse into their own camp.” Tell us what you mean by that.Kanakia: Let's say you believed in Christian theocracy, that you thought America should be organized on explicitly Christian principles. And because you believe in Christian theocracy, you organize a school that teaches the Great Books. Many of these schools that are Christian schools that have Great Books programs will also teach Nietzsche. They definitely put some kind of spin on Nietzsche. But they will teach anti-Christ, and that is a counterpoint to Christian morality and Christian theology. There are many things that you'll read in the Great Books that are corrosive to various kinds of certainties.If someone who I think is bad starts educating themselves in the Great Books, I don't think that the Great Books are going to make them worse from my perspective. So it's good.Oliver: How did reading the Mahabharata change you?Kanakia: Oh yeah, so the Mahabharata is a Hindu epic from, let's say, the first century AD. I'm Indian and most Indians are familiar with the basic outline of the Mahabharata story because it's told in various retellings, and there's a TV serial that my parents would rent from the Indian store growing up and we would watch it tape by tape. So I'm very familiar with it. Like there's never been a time I have not known this story.But I was also familiar with the idea that there is a written version in Sanskrit that's extremely long. It is 10 times as long as the Iliad and the Odyssey combined. This Mahabharata story is not that long. I've read a version of it that's about 800 pages long. So how could something that's 10 times this long be the same? A new unabridged translation came out 10 years ago. So I started reading it, and it basically contains the entire Sanskrit Vedic worldview in it.I had never been exposed to this very coherently laid-out version of what I would call Hindu cosmology and ethics. Hindus don't really get taught those things in a very organized way. The book is basically about dharma, the principle of rightness and how this principle of rightness orders the universe and how it basically results in everybody getting their just deserts in various ways. As I was reading the book, I was like, this seems very true that there is some cosmic rebalancing here, and that everything does turn out more or less the way it should, which is not something that I can defend on a rational level.But just reading the book, it just made me feel like, yes, that is true. There is justice, the universe is organized by justice. It took me about a year to read the whole thing. I started waking up at 5:00 a.m. and reading for an hour each morning, and it just was a really magical, profound experience that brought me a lot closer to my grandmother's religious beliefs.Oliver: Is it ever possible to persuade someone with arguments that they should read literature, or is it just something that they have to have an inclination toward and then follow someone's example? Because I feel like we have so many columns and op-eds and “books are good because of X reason, and it's very important because of Y reason.” And like, who cares? No one cares. If you are persuaded, you take all that very seriously and you argue about what exactly are the precise reasons we should say. And if you're not persuaded, you don't even know this is happening.And what really persuades you is like, oh, Naomi sounds pretty compelling about the Mahabharata. That sounds cool. I'll try that. It's much more of a temperamental, feelingsy kind of thing. Is it possible to argue people into thinking about this differently? Or should we just be doing what we do and setting an example and hoping that people will follow.Kanakia: As to whether it's possible or not, I do not know. But I do think these columns are too ambitious. A thousand-word column and the imagined audience for this column is somebody who doesn't read books at all, who doesn't care about literature at all. And then in a thousand-word column, you're going to persuade them to care about literature. This is no good. It's so unnecessary.Whereas there's a much broader range of people who love to read books, but have never picked up Moby Dick or have never picked up Middlemarch, or who like maybe loved Middlemarch, but never thought maybe I should then go on and read Jane Austen and George Eliot.I think trying to shift people from “I don't read books at all; reading books is not something I do,” to being a Great Books card-carrying lover of literature is a lot. I really aim for a much lower result than that, which is to whatever extent people are interested in literature, they should pursue that interest. And as the rationalists would say, there's a lot of alpha in that; there's a lot to be gained from converting people who are somewhat interested into people who are very interested.Oliver: If there was a more widespread practice of humanism in education and the general culture, would that make America into a more liberal country in any way?Kanakia: What do you mean by humanism?Oliver: You know, the old-fashioned liberal arts approach, the revival of the literary journal culture, the sort of depolitical approach to literature, the way things used to be, as it were.Kanakia: It couldn't hurt. It couldn't hurt is my answer to that question.Oliver: Okay.Kanakia: What you're describing is basically the way I was educated. I went to Catholic school in DC at St. Anselm's Abbey School, in Northeast, DC, grade school. Highly recommend sending your little boys there. No complaints about the school. They talked about humanism all the time and all these civic virtues. I thought it was great. I don't know what people in other schools learn, but I really feel like it was a superior way of teaching.Now, you know, it was Catholic school, so a lot of people who graduated from my school are conservatives and don't really have the beliefs that I have, but that's okay.Oliver: Tell us about your reading habits.Kanakia: I read mostly ebooks. I really love ebooks because you can make the type bigger. I just read all the time. They vary. I don't wake up at 5:00 a.m. to read anymore. Sometimes if I feel like I'm not reading enough—because I write this blog, and the blog doesn't get written unless I'm reading. That's the engine, and so sometimes I set aside a day each week to read. But generally, the reading mostly takes care of itself.What I tend to get is very into a particular thing, and then I'll start reading more and more in that area. Recently, I was reading a lot of New Yorker stories. So I started reading more and more of these storywriters that have been published in the New Yorker and old anthologies of New Yorker stories. And then eventually I am done. I'm tired. It's time to move on.Oliver: But do you read several books at once? Do you make notes? Do you abandon books? How many hours a day do you read?Kanakia: Hours a day: Because my e-reader keeps these stats, I'd say 15 or 20 hours a week of reading. Nowadays because I write for the blog, I often think as I'm reading how I would frame a post about this. So I look for quotes, like what quote I would look at. I take different kinds of notes. I'll make more notes if I'm more confused by what is going on. Especially with nonfiction books, I'll try sometimes to make notes just to iron out what exactly I think is happening or what I think the argument is. But no, not much of a note taker.Oliver: What will you read next?Kanakia: What will I read next? Well, I've been thinking about getting back into Indian literature. Right now I'm reading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. But there's an Indian novel called Jhootha Sach, which is a partition novel that is originally in Hindi. And it's also a thousand pages long, and is frequently compared to Les Miserables and War and Peace. So I'm thinking about tackling that finally.Oliver: Naomi Kanakia, thank you very much.Kanakia: Thanks for having me. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

Join me for a transformative live in person event in Maui on May 14-17 https://www.brianscottlive.com/hawaii-2026   Join The Reality Revolution Tribe

IANR 2608 022126 Line Up 4-6pm INTERVIEWS (Guest host Gautam Sinha in for Pramod)Here's the guest line-up for Sat, Feb 21, 2026 from 4 to 6pm CST on Indo American News Radio (www.IndoAmerican-news.com), a production of Indo American News. We areon 98.7 FM and you can also listen on the masalaradio app.By Monday, hear the recorded show on Podcast uploaded on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, Radio Public and Breaker or go to our website and click on the IANR link. Our Podcast has been rated #2 among 100 Podcasts in Houston by feedspot.com. We have 6 years of Podcasts and have had thousands of hits.TO SUPPORT THE SHOW, SELECT FOLLOW ON OUR FREE PODCAST CHANNEL AND YOU'LL BE NOTIFIED OF NEWUPDATES.4:20 pm Although Rishi Bhutada was born and raised in Houston, he has been rooted in Indian culture and his Hindu heritage. He is an active member of the Hindu American Foundation which has advocated to correct items that depict Hindus in a terrible light. The State Board of Education has passed the Bluebonnet Learning lessons rule to teach Biblical studies in K through 5 classrooms across the state. He joins us to explain why Hindus should oppose this and also talk about the annual HAF gala to be held on Saturday, April 11.4:50 pm We are out of the Annual Open Enrollment period to sign up for Medicare policies but there are still extenuating circumstances that may allow you to sign up for Medicare Advantage plans. We are joined once again by Medicare Insurance Broker Kaushi Shah who will explain what those circumstances can be and how to go about enrolling now, what the costs may be and why it is so important for us to pay attention before signing up.5:20 pm Many of us have never even heard of the field of Epigenetics which deals with the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself. Sheetal Kohli, a teacher at Harmony Public Schools, has devoted herself to strengthening STEM education across Houston and encouraging inquiry-based learning. We turn to her to explain how Epigenetics can influence health and disease of an individual.Also stay tuned in for news roundup, views, sports and movie reviews.TO BE FEATURED ON THE SHOW, OR TO ADVERTISE, PLEASE CONTACT US AT 713-789-NEWS or 6397 or at indoamericannews@yahoo.comPlease pick up the print edition of Indo American News which is available all across town at grocery stores. Also visit our website indoamerican-news.com which gets 90,000+ hits to track all current stories.And remember to visit our digital archives from over 18 years. Plus, our entire 45 years of hard copy archives are available in the Fondren Library at Rice University.

A Great Victory for Hindus - Next Target Taj Mahal Truth | Bhojshala Survey Result | Vishnu S Jain

Ministering Across India's Caste System: Foot Washing, Honor, and Gospel IdentityAfter some quick State of the Union takes Sean interviews Nitin and Jit from India about their ministry in the context of India's caste system, explaining the Hindu belief that people are created into fixed castes that cannot be changed and how this shapes ministry. Nitin describes beginning work among poor, oppressed groups and intentionally learning their belief systems, culture, leadership, oral traditions, and worship practices to bridge the gospel, leading to outreach among 43 people groups in 13 languages and transformed lives. They highlight foot washing as a core biblical strategy, helping people heal from caste-based shame and recover God-given identity as children of the Lord. The ministry also emphasizes honoring people through acts like foot washing, shawls, and garlands to communicate love and acceptance without discrimination, and it has begun bearing fruit among high-caste Brahman religious leaders.00:00 Meet Nitin and Jit16:50 Understanding the Caste System17:47 Starting with the Poor18:28 Bridging Gospel and Culture19:07 Foot Washing as Strategy19:42 Restoring Identity and Healing20:36 Honor and Radical Welcome21:29 Reaching Brahman Leaders22:01 Gurus Respond to the Gospel22:10 Closing ThoughtsTranscript of Interview:I'm here with Nitin and Jit from India, our good friends who are such a blessing and have been with us. We're very grateful. Thanks for being with us. Thank you, Nitin. We'll start with you. You guys have a very unique ministry in India and it's a very different place to minister. Can you start by explaining a little bit of the cast system, because it really instructs a lot how you do ministry.Tell us a little bit about the caste system and how it works. Thank you for asking that question. India, we have caste system. Most of the Hindus believe in the caste system. The creator God Brahma, created Braman pri from his head, from one shoulder came warriors and kings and another shoulder business people from his belly created commoner from one feet tribal and from another feed untouchable.This is the caste system of India. The creator, God, sit at this cast in creation. So you cannot change your cast no matter how much education you may have, no matter how much wealth you have. You born and die in same cost and that shapes a whole lot of the limitations of ministry. You guys have done some really interesting things now, when you began, your ministry specifically began as a ministry to the poor.To that, those untouchables, that lower caste how did you start ministry there? 'cause you now have a lot of places. You guys have really grown and ministering, planted churches. How? Did you start with the poor and why did you start there? Poor people in India, they are suppressed by the caste system.They don't have a whole lot with them. And we want gospel to penetrate their heart, change their identity, their worldview, and they may see the creator God his plan for their life and purpose for their life. And so we began with the premature tribe and reached, started working with them. The way we minister to them, understand the belief system, their culture, leadership structure, their oral tradition, their musical instrument, the date is the worship, and then try to bridge gospel with them and God bless us to reach out 43 different people group and 13 different languages.And they are responding to the gospel. Their life is transformed by the power of gospel and they see hope in their situation. Yeah. One of the things you guys do that is so compelling, and I think in your setting because of the caste system, it's really deeply significant. You've carried the biblical practice of foot washing.And it's not just a thing you do as a ceremony. It's a major strategy. And when you stop and think about the caste system and the inherent humility and the foot washing it, it makes such sense. Tell a little bit about why you do that and how that has impacted your ministry. A two lead person know what is the worth of that person because.System stolen, God-given identity, and they always looked down upon those people. And in biblical bill system, when Jesus washed in John 13 disciple feet and he commanded all of us to wash other people's feet. We felt that God is telling us to wash the people's feet so that he can take all the unshared pain they carry in their life because of the caste system, and they get a true identity in the Lord and they understand the way God view them and accept that standard, not the standard of which people look upon them.And so God is. Shaping their life, transforming their heart, but giving them new identity. They are the children of the Lord who deeply care for them, and he has destiny for them in heaven With him, y you have a unique emphasis on honor. Your ministry, it's very humbling to go and minister with you guys.It's wonderful. But you very much show honor to your guests and honor to the people there. What is happening there and why are you doing that so intentionally because we wanted to see that different kind of law, a uniqueness in the, when you are Christian and love by Christian, it is a deep need in the community to beside food and shelter.The biggest need of any human being is loved and cared by. They are significant people in the community. And we want to wash their feet, give them shawl, give them garland so that they feel that they're precious in the sight of the Lord, and they're accepted without g creed, color, and any discrimination.And you feel that, yes, you feel that there's such a neat spirit. One of the things that is interesting because of the caste system, many people, because there's such need among the poor, many people administered the poor. We all are familiar with the ministry of Mother Teresa and her ministry.You've done something rather. Unique though, and my first exposure to it was when we were with you a couple years ago, it's your ministry to the religious leaders who are of the Brahman cast, that's the highest cast. And you're seeing some amazing fruit of the gospel and using the Lord's Prayer among that cast.Tell us a little bit about that. God started working among these Brahman gurus. These Brahman gurus came from very rich background. Having knowledge. Their PhDs, they have so much wealth under them. Many run hospitals, schools, and thousands of people touching their feet every day to seek their blessing.But God reveling to them in the dreams, one of the guru God dream, three days in the row that he is one step away from burning hell. That terrified him because of the dream, and he understood that wealth. The knowledge is not going to save his soul, right? So he left barefooted from his temple and we found him, and he's working with us right now.Through him. We started with working with other Brahmans and we found many Brahman gurus coming to know the Lord and they understand the repercussion of the caste system on people's life, the way people were ated in the system, how they were suppressed down and stolen, the God-given identity. Now they are washing the feet of Dali.Tribal and untouchable, and they are sharing gospel to their own community. The saving grace has a power. God Gospel has a power to transform different community, and we unite India together in the body of Christ. So we can see that India is separated by the language, by the caste system, but the gospel is uniting people together.Yeah. And we will see India coming together in the body of Christ. That is so powerful. And for us here, it's hard for us to envision. The impact of a Brahman guru washing the feet of someone from the untouchable cast. And so it, it's just very impactful to see that. And you've seen numerous of these gurus for our audience tell, just gimme a minute or less on what a guru is so they understand.It's mo we think of gurus. That's a kind of foreign topic the way we say it. This is Ajit. Ajit. Why don't you tell us that gurus in our context are the leaders. Teachers, so they are the one who gave spiritual teachings and insights for their followers. Okay. So in the Brahman cast, you said they believe in one overall creator.Is that correct? One overall creator. So the Christian faith is a little easier for them to understand the one creator through Jesus Christ if we see and understand each person's soul. Needs a savior, right? Whether we go in any religion, the ultimate thing is like the soul needs a savior. And that's a spiritual hunger.Yeah. That's a spiritual destiny. And when we look at that, there can be only one savior. Yeah. One destination. And that's where we come alongside and say that there is a savior. Will help you fulfill your destiny to reach your greater God. Right Now, some of the things you guys have done have made some of the church people a little uncomfortable 'cause it's outside the box.This is definitely not normal missions work. Talk about that a little bit. We have seen, we sometime we have critical view. If somebody become a Christian, he should be clothing like us. He should talk like us. He should worship like us. It, of seeing that surface thing. So we allow people to wear their customs, their way of life in the sense of the way they cloth the way they do their hair.And we don't come against that, but we want to see that their heart is transformed and we allow them to remain in their clothing and their color. Everything belongs to God. And God can use every person for his glory. We don't have to see the color of their cap, what kind of shirts they're wearing, how long their hair is, or what kind of dots on their forehead of that.Seeing every person is created in God's image and loving them. And when he created, everything was beautiful. Yeah. And to see an individual, a leader, dressed in his robes as a guru. He's leading people in worship of Jesus is a powerful thing. You guys had a big community meeting some Muslims that was there at the time of prayer in one of your, one of your centers, and you let them have their Muslim prayers in your center.That's right. And some people can't envision you loving that way. For the purpose of ultimately sharing the gospel and sharing the love of Jesus after letting them pray in our building, we wash their feet. We share gospel with them. And the god's love is so compelling at that. When you wash somebody's feet, it is a.Compelling, but non-threatening way to witness Christ. Oh, yeah. Without a doubt. Being there is an incredible thing. In November, we have a group going to work with you guys and we don't put your names in the neighbor of your mid ministry over the broadcast, out over the air because persecution.It's a real thing, but if they want people wanna find out more, you can contact us@reallife.org. You can shoot an email to us and we can let you know about, and you can come and find out, our trips fill up fast. So I don't know that there'll be space, but you can at least find out about this great ministry and more about our partnership with this wonderful group in India.Thank you guys for being with us. Thank you.

Big Win for Hindus After Court Decision | Masjid Made out of Hindu Temple Reamins | Sanjay Dixit

There is a common idea in history, in humanity that we are all seeking the same God. We have different names, different ways of getting to this God; but in the end we are going to find out we were all working toward the same God. It is a polite and tolerant idea. It is just not true. The person who affirms this idea knows very little of the god they follow or that others follow. He is God the Father, a title that implies a relationship with a son or daughter. God reveals Himself as the Father of Jesus in 1 Peter 1:3. That is not the God of the Hindus, Muslims, and it is the God the Jews are currently rejecting.

After months in prison for sharing the gospel with Hindus, Pastor Paul's health was failing. He offered a desperate prayer: he asked God to allow another pastor to be arrested who could come to the prison and encourage Paul.  "Lord, arrest one pastor and bring him to be in prison so we can have fellowship." God answered Paul's prayer, and four days later, he read in the newspaper that a pastor had been arrested. Two weeks later, that pastor was with Paul in the prison, and he brought him great encouragement: "My church has been praying for you!" After his fellow pastor arrived to the prison, Paul says his tired faith became, "like concrete." They began to pray together in prison. Soon, other prisoners were asking for prayer. The two pastors would often raise their hands in prayer, claiming spiritual victory. When prison guards asked what they were doing, the two pastors said, "We are praying for you!" The two pastors had the opportunity to pray with 70 other prisoners who came to them asking for prayer and to know more about Jesus. One of those was an American prisoner named Daniel. He went to India on a quest for spiritual enlightenment; inside that Indian prison, Daniel found what he sought—in Christ. You'll also hear how the Lord moved pastor Paul's wife to bring his bail application to the Supreme Court, and how God answered their prayers that a specific judge would hear his case. Hear how you can pray specifically for Pastor Paul, including that all charges against him will be dropped, and go to www.PrisonerAlert.com to learn how you can pray for other persecuted Christians still imprisoned for their faith. The VOM App for your smartphone or tablet will help you pray daily in 2026 for persecuted Christians in nations like North Korea, Nigeria, Iran and Bangladesh, as well as provide free access to e-books, audiobooks, video content, and feature films. Download the VOM App for your iOS or Android device today.

Today, on Karl and Crew, we kicked off our weekly theme of “Disciples Making Disciples” with a discussion with Christopher Yuan, who shared his story of freedom from homosexuality and of understanding gender and sexuality according to God’s design. Christopher is a leading authority on biblical sexuality and gender, known for his clear, gospel-centered teachings. He is also the author of “Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”. His expertise is uniquely informed by his personal experiences, advanced health sciences studies, and rigorous theological education. He is the creator of The Holy Sexuality Project, a groundbreaking video series that empowers parents and grandparents to confidently disciple their teens on biblical sexuality and gender at home. Then we had Larry McCall join us to discuss how to pursue a walk like Jesus. Larry is the Founder and Director of Walking Like Jesus Ministries, a Bible-teaching ministry focused on helping Christians understand, in practical ways, how the Gospel of Jesus shapes life’s most important relationships. He has also written several books, including “Walking With Jesus”. Then we had Dr. Samuel Naaman join us to discuss the purpose and meaning of Ramadan. Dr. Naaman is a Professor of Intercultural Studies at the Moody Bible Institute. He is also the Vice President of Call of Hope. He is also the President and co-founder of the South Asian Friendship Center, which serves Muslims and Hindus. You can hear the highlights of today's program on the Karl and Crew Showcast. If you're looking to hear a particular segment from the show, look at the following time stamps: Christopher Yuan Interview [10:29 ] Larry McCall Interview [28:48 ] Dr. Samuel Naaman Interview [41:18] Karl and Crew airs live weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. Central Time. Click this link for ways to listen in your area! https://www.moodyradio.org/ways-to-listen/Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/morningshowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, on Karl and Crew, we kicked off our weekly theme of “Disciples Making Disciples” with a discussion with Christopher Yuan, who shared his story of freedom from homosexuality and of understanding gender and sexuality according to God’s design. Christopher is a leading authority on biblical sexuality and gender, known for his clear, gospel-centered teachings. He is also the author of “Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”. His expertise is uniquely informed by his personal experiences, advanced health sciences studies, and rigorous theological education. He is the creator of The Holy Sexuality Project, a groundbreaking video series that empowers parents and grandparents to confidently disciple their teens on biblical sexuality and gender at home. Then we had Larry McCall join us to discuss how to pursue a walk like Jesus. Larry is the Founder and Director of Walking Like Jesus Ministries, a Bible-teaching ministry focused on helping Christians understand, in practical ways, how the Gospel of Jesus shapes life’s most important relationships. He has also written several books, including “Walking With Jesus”. Then we had Dr. Samuel Naaman join us to discuss the purpose and meaning of Ramadan. Dr. Naaman is a Professor of Intercultural Studies at the Moody Bible Institute. He is also the Vice President of Call of Hope. He is also the President and co-founder of the South Asian Friendship Center, which serves Muslims and Hindus. You can hear the highlights of today's program on the Karl and Crew Showcast. If you're looking to hear a particular segment from the show, look at the following time stamps: Christopher Yuan Interview [10:29 ] Larry McCall Interview [28:48 ] Dr. Samuel Naaman Interview [41:18] Karl and Crew airs live weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. Central Time. Click this link for ways to listen in your area! https://www.moodyradio.org/ways-to-listen/Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/morningshowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, on Karl and Crew, we kicked off our weekly theme of “Disciples Making Disciples” with a discussion with Christopher Yuan, who shared his story of freedom from homosexuality and of understanding gender and sexuality according to God’s design. Christopher is a leading authority on biblical sexuality and gender, known for his clear, gospel-centered teachings. He is also the author of “Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”. His expertise is uniquely informed by his personal experiences, advanced health sciences studies, and rigorous theological education. He is the creator of The Holy Sexuality Project, a groundbreaking video series that empowers parents and grandparents to confidently disciple their teens on biblical sexuality and gender at home. Then we had Larry McCall join us to discuss how to pursue a walk like Jesus. Larry is the Founder and Director of Walking Like Jesus Ministries, a Bible-teaching ministry focused on helping Christians understand, in practical ways, how the Gospel of Jesus shapes life’s most important relationships. He has also written several books, including “Walking With Jesus”. Then we had Dr. Samuel Naaman join us to discuss the purpose and meaning of Ramadan. Dr. Naaman is a Professor of Intercultural Studies at the Moody Bible Institute. He is also the Vice President of Call of Hope. He is also the President and co-founder of the South Asian Friendship Center, which serves Muslims and Hindus. You can hear the highlights of today's program on the Karl and Crew Showcast. If you're looking to hear a particular segment from the show, look at the following time stamps: Christopher Yuan Interview [10:29 ] Larry McCall Interview [28:48 ] Dr. Samuel Naaman Interview [41:18] Karl and Crew airs live weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. Central Time. Click this link for ways to listen in your area! https://www.moodyradio.org/ways-to-listen/Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/morningshowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, on Karl and Crew, we kicked off our weekly theme of “Disciples Making Disciples” with a discussion with Christopher Yuan, who shared his story of freedom from homosexuality and of understanding gender and sexuality according to God’s design. Christopher is a leading authority on biblical sexuality and gender, known for his clear, gospel-centered teachings. He is also the author of “Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”. His expertise is uniquely informed by his personal experiences, advanced health sciences studies, and rigorous theological education. He is the creator of The Holy Sexuality Project, a groundbreaking video series that empowers parents and grandparents to confidently disciple their teens on biblical sexuality and gender at home. Then we had Larry McCall join us to discuss how to pursue a walk like Jesus. Larry is the Founder and Director of Walking Like Jesus Ministries, a Bible-teaching ministry focused on helping Christians understand, in practical ways, how the Gospel of Jesus shapes life’s most important relationships. He has also written several books, including “Walking With Jesus”. Then we had Dr. Samuel Naaman join us to discuss the purpose and meaning of Ramadan. Dr. Naaman is a Professor of Intercultural Studies at the Moody Bible Institute. He is also the Vice President of Call of Hope. He is also the President and co-founder of the South Asian Friendship Center, which serves Muslims and Hindus. You can hear the highlights of today's program on the Karl and Crew Showcast. If you're looking to hear a particular segment from the show, look at the following time stamps: Christopher Yuan Interview [10:29 ] Larry McCall Interview [28:48 ] Dr. Samuel Naaman Interview [41:18] Karl and Crew airs live weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. Central Time. Click this link for ways to listen in your area! https://www.moodyradio.org/ways-to-listen/Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/morningshowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, on Karl and Crew, we kicked off our weekly theme of “Disciples Making Disciples” with a discussion with Christopher Yuan, who shared his story of freedom from homosexuality and of understanding gender and sexuality according to God’s design. Christopher is a leading authority on biblical sexuality and gender, known for his clear, gospel-centered teachings. He is also the author of “Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”. His expertise is uniquely informed by his personal experiences, advanced health sciences studies, and rigorous theological education. He is the creator of The Holy Sexuality Project, a groundbreaking video series that empowers parents and grandparents to confidently disciple their teens on biblical sexuality and gender at home. Then we had Larry McCall join us to discuss how to pursue a walk like Jesus. Larry is the Founder and Director of Walking Like Jesus Ministries, a Bible-teaching ministry focused on helping Christians understand, in practical ways, how the Gospel of Jesus shapes life’s most important relationships. He has also written several books, including “Walking With Jesus”. Then we had Dr. Samuel Naaman join us to discuss the purpose and meaning of Ramadan. Dr. Naaman is a Professor of Intercultural Studies at the Moody Bible Institute. He is also the Vice President of Call of Hope. He is also the President and co-founder of the South Asian Friendship Center, which serves Muslims and Hindus. You can hear the highlights of today's program on the Karl and Crew Showcast. If you're looking to hear a particular segment from the show, look at the following time stamps: Christopher Yuan Interview [10:29 ] Larry McCall Interview [28:48 ] Dr. Samuel Naaman Interview [41:18] Karl and Crew airs live weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. Central Time. Click this link for ways to listen in your area! https://www.moodyradio.org/ways-to-listen/Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/morningshowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, on Karl and Crew, we kicked off our weekly theme of “Disciples Making Disciples” with a discussion with Christopher Yuan, who shared his story of freedom from homosexuality and of understanding gender and sexuality according to God’s design. Christopher is a leading authority on biblical sexuality and gender, known for his clear, gospel-centered teachings. He is also the author of “Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”. His expertise is uniquely informed by his personal experiences, advanced health sciences studies, and rigorous theological education. He is the creator of The Holy Sexuality Project, a groundbreaking video series that empowers parents and grandparents to confidently disciple their teens on biblical sexuality and gender at home. Then we had Larry McCall join us to discuss how to pursue a walk like Jesus. Larry is the Founder and Director of Walking Like Jesus Ministries, a Bible-teaching ministry focused on helping Christians understand, in practical ways, how the Gospel of Jesus shapes life’s most important relationships. He has also written several books, including “Walking With Jesus”. Then we had Dr. Samuel Naaman join us to discuss the purpose and meaning of Ramadan. Dr. Naaman is a Professor of Intercultural Studies at the Moody Bible Institute. He is also the Vice President of Call of Hope. He is also the President and co-founder of the South Asian Friendship Center, which serves Muslims and Hindus. You can hear the highlights of today's program on the Karl and Crew Showcast. If you're looking to hear a particular segment from the show, look at the following time stamps: Christopher Yuan Interview [10:29 ] Larry McCall Interview [28:48 ] Dr. Samuel Naaman Interview [41:18] Karl and Crew airs live weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. Central Time. Click this link for ways to listen in your area! https://www.moodyradio.org/ways-to-listen/Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/morningshowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, on Karl and Crew, we kicked off our weekly theme of “Disciples Making Disciples” with a discussion with Christopher Yuan, who shared his story of freedom from homosexuality and of understanding gender and sexuality according to God’s design. Christopher is a leading authority on biblical sexuality and gender, known for his clear, gospel-centered teachings. He is also the author of “Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”. His expertise is uniquely informed by his personal experiences, advanced health sciences studies, and rigorous theological education. He is the creator of The Holy Sexuality Project, a groundbreaking video series that empowers parents and grandparents to confidently disciple their teens on biblical sexuality and gender at home. Then we had Larry McCall join us to discuss how to pursue a walk like Jesus. Larry is the Founder and Director of Walking Like Jesus Ministries, a Bible-teaching ministry focused on helping Christians understand, in practical ways, how the Gospel of Jesus shapes life’s most important relationships. He has also written several books, including “Walking With Jesus”. Then we had Dr. Samuel Naaman join us to discuss the purpose and meaning of Ramadan. Dr. Naaman is a Professor of Intercultural Studies at the Moody Bible Institute. He is also the Vice President of Call of Hope. He is also the President and co-founder of the South Asian Friendship Center, which serves Muslims and Hindus. You can hear the highlights of today's program on the Karl and Crew Showcast. If you're looking to hear a particular segment from the show, look at the following time stamps: Christopher Yuan Interview [10:29 ] Larry McCall Interview [28:48 ] Dr. Samuel Naaman Interview [41:18] Karl and Crew airs live weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. Central Time. Click this link for ways to listen in your area! https://www.moodyradio.org/ways-to-listen/Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/morningshowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode features a conversation with the founding members of the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, also known as the Auntylectuals. We began with each of them reflecting on their pathway into Hindu Studies and how the questions of caste and gender shaped their approaches to this field. We then discussed their motivations for starting the collective and what interventions they hoped to make through it. This took us deeper into some thorny topics: caste as a form of embodied knowledge that is often accompanied by the denial of its continued social power; the politics of Hinduism in North America where Hindus are both predominantly upper caste and a racial minority; the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism; the traffic in language and tactics between Hindutva and Zionism; and the efforts to push back against the movement to make caste a protected category in U.S. anti-discrimination law. Guests: Shreena Gandhi: Professor of Religious Studies, Michigan State University Harshita Kamath: Professor of Telugu Culture, Literature, and History, Emory University Sailaja Krishnamurti: Professor of Gender Studies, Queen's University Shana Sippy, Professor of Religion, Centre College Mentioned in the episode: Rajiv Malhotra: an ideologue of the Hindu nationalist movement in the U.S. and founder of Infinity Foundation Harshita Kamath, Impersonations: The Artifice of Brahmin Masculinity in South Indian Dance Amar Chitra Katha: an Indian comic book publisher whose comics are hugely popular and widely available in India and the Indian diaspora. Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Learning about Hindu Religion through Comics and Popular Culture,” David Yoo and Khyati Y Joshi eds. Envisioning Religion, Race and Asian Americans, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 207-226, 2020. Babri Masjid: a 16th century mosque that became the target of Hindu nationalist mobilization and was destroyed by vigilante mobs in December 1992. Marko Geslani, “A Model Minority Religion: The Race of Hindu Studies,” American Religion, forthcoming. Thenmozhi Soundarajan, The Trauma of Caste Sarah Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Feminist Critical Hindu Studies in formation” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hindu fragility and the politics of mimicry in North America” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hinduphobia is a smokescreen for Hindu nationalists” Shana Sippy and Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Not all Hinduism is Hindutva, but Hindutva is in fact Hinduism” Shana Sippy, “Strange and Storied Alliances: Hindus and Jews, India and Israel,” manuscript in progress Shana Sippy, "Victimization, Supremacism, Solidarity, and the Affective and Emulative Politics of American Hindus" Tomako Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism Shreena Gandhi, “Framing Islam as American Religion Despite White Supremacy” Equality Labs is a South Asian Dalit civil rights organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This episode features a conversation with the founding members of the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, also known as the Auntylectuals. We began with each of them reflecting on their pathway into Hindu Studies and how the questions of caste and gender shaped their approaches to this field. We then discussed their motivations for starting the collective and what interventions they hoped to make through it. This took us deeper into some thorny topics: caste as a form of embodied knowledge that is often accompanied by the denial of its continued social power; the politics of Hinduism in North America where Hindus are both predominantly upper caste and a racial minority; the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism; the traffic in language and tactics between Hindutva and Zionism; and the efforts to push back against the movement to make caste a protected category in U.S. anti-discrimination law. Guests: Shreena Gandhi: Professor of Religious Studies, Michigan State University Harshita Kamath: Professor of Telugu Culture, Literature, and History, Emory University Sailaja Krishnamurti: Professor of Gender Studies, Queen's University Shana Sippy, Professor of Religion, Centre College Mentioned in the episode: Rajiv Malhotra: an ideologue of the Hindu nationalist movement in the U.S. and founder of Infinity Foundation Harshita Kamath, Impersonations: The Artifice of Brahmin Masculinity in South Indian Dance Amar Chitra Katha: an Indian comic book publisher whose comics are hugely popular and widely available in India and the Indian diaspora. Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Learning about Hindu Religion through Comics and Popular Culture,” David Yoo and Khyati Y Joshi eds. Envisioning Religion, Race and Asian Americans, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 207-226, 2020. Babri Masjid: a 16th century mosque that became the target of Hindu nationalist mobilization and was destroyed by vigilante mobs in December 1992. Marko Geslani, “A Model Minority Religion: The Race of Hindu Studies,” American Religion, forthcoming. Thenmozhi Soundarajan, The Trauma of Caste Sarah Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Feminist Critical Hindu Studies in formation” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hindu fragility and the politics of mimicry in North America” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hinduphobia is a smokescreen for Hindu nationalists” Shana Sippy and Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Not all Hinduism is Hindutva, but Hindutva is in fact Hinduism” Shana Sippy, “Strange and Storied Alliances: Hindus and Jews, India and Israel,” manuscript in progress Shana Sippy, "Victimization, Supremacism, Solidarity, and the Affective and Emulative Politics of American Hindus" Tomako Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism Shreena Gandhi, “Framing Islam as American Religion Despite White Supremacy” Equality Labs is a South Asian Dalit civil rights organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

This episode features a conversation with the founding members of the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, also known as the Auntylectuals. We began with each of them reflecting on their pathway into Hindu Studies and how the questions of caste and gender shaped their approaches to this field. We then discussed their motivations for starting the collective and what interventions they hoped to make through it. This took us deeper into some thorny topics: caste as a form of embodied knowledge that is often accompanied by the denial of its continued social power; the politics of Hinduism in North America where Hindus are both predominantly upper caste and a racial minority; the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism; the traffic in language and tactics between Hindutva and Zionism; and the efforts to push back against the movement to make caste a protected category in U.S. anti-discrimination law. Guests: Shreena Gandhi: Professor of Religious Studies, Michigan State University Harshita Kamath: Professor of Telugu Culture, Literature, and History, Emory University Sailaja Krishnamurti: Professor of Gender Studies, Queen's University Shana Sippy, Professor of Religion, Centre College Mentioned in the episode: Rajiv Malhotra: an ideologue of the Hindu nationalist movement in the U.S. and founder of Infinity Foundation Harshita Kamath, Impersonations: The Artifice of Brahmin Masculinity in South Indian Dance Amar Chitra Katha: an Indian comic book publisher whose comics are hugely popular and widely available in India and the Indian diaspora. Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Learning about Hindu Religion through Comics and Popular Culture,” David Yoo and Khyati Y Joshi eds. Envisioning Religion, Race and Asian Americans, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 207-226, 2020. Babri Masjid: a 16th century mosque that became the target of Hindu nationalist mobilization and was destroyed by vigilante mobs in December 1992. Marko Geslani, “A Model Minority Religion: The Race of Hindu Studies,” American Religion, forthcoming. Thenmozhi Soundarajan, The Trauma of Caste Sarah Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Feminist Critical Hindu Studies in formation” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hindu fragility and the politics of mimicry in North America” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hinduphobia is a smokescreen for Hindu nationalists” Shana Sippy and Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Not all Hinduism is Hindutva, but Hindutva is in fact Hinduism” Shana Sippy, “Strange and Storied Alliances: Hindus and Jews, India and Israel,” manuscript in progress Shana Sippy, "Victimization, Supremacism, Solidarity, and the Affective and Emulative Politics of American Hindus" Tomako Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism Shreena Gandhi, “Framing Islam as American Religion Despite White Supremacy” Equality Labs is a South Asian Dalit civil rights organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

This episode features a conversation with the founding members of the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, also known as the Auntylectuals. We began with each of them reflecting on their pathway into Hindu Studies and how the questions of caste and gender shaped their approaches to this field. We then discussed their motivations for starting the collective and what interventions they hoped to make through it. This took us deeper into some thorny topics: caste as a form of embodied knowledge that is often accompanied by the denial of its continued social power; the politics of Hinduism in North America where Hindus are both predominantly upper caste and a racial minority; the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism; the traffic in language and tactics between Hindutva and Zionism; and the efforts to push back against the movement to make caste a protected category in U.S. anti-discrimination law. Guests: Shreena Gandhi: Professor of Religious Studies, Michigan State University Harshita Kamath: Professor of Telugu Culture, Literature, and History, Emory University Sailaja Krishnamurti: Professor of Gender Studies, Queen's University Shana Sippy, Professor of Religion, Centre College Mentioned in the episode: Rajiv Malhotra: an ideologue of the Hindu nationalist movement in the U.S. and founder of Infinity Foundation Harshita Kamath, Impersonations: The Artifice of Brahmin Masculinity in South Indian Dance Amar Chitra Katha: an Indian comic book publisher whose comics are hugely popular and widely available in India and the Indian diaspora. Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Learning about Hindu Religion through Comics and Popular Culture,” David Yoo and Khyati Y Joshi eds. Envisioning Religion, Race and Asian Americans, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 207-226, 2020. Babri Masjid: a 16th century mosque that became the target of Hindu nationalist mobilization and was destroyed by vigilante mobs in December 1992. Marko Geslani, “A Model Minority Religion: The Race of Hindu Studies,” American Religion, forthcoming. Thenmozhi Soundarajan, The Trauma of Caste Sarah Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Feminist Critical Hindu Studies in formation” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hindu fragility and the politics of mimicry in North America” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hinduphobia is a smokescreen for Hindu nationalists” Shana Sippy and Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Not all Hinduism is Hindutva, but Hindutva is in fact Hinduism” Shana Sippy, “Strange and Storied Alliances: Hindus and Jews, India and Israel,” manuscript in progress Shana Sippy, "Victimization, Supremacism, Solidarity, and the Affective and Emulative Politics of American Hindus" Tomako Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism Shreena Gandhi, “Framing Islam as American Religion Despite White Supremacy” Equality Labs is a South Asian Dalit civil rights organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

This episode features a conversation with the founding members of the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, also known as the Auntylectuals. We began with each of them reflecting on their pathway into Hindu Studies and how the questions of caste and gender shaped their approaches to this field. We then discussed their motivations for starting the collective and what interventions they hoped to make through it. This took us deeper into some thorny topics: caste as a form of embodied knowledge that is often accompanied by the denial of its continued social power; the politics of Hinduism in North America where Hindus are both predominantly upper caste and a racial minority; the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism; the traffic in language and tactics between Hindutva and Zionism; and the efforts to push back against the movement to make caste a protected category in U.S. anti-discrimination law. Guests: Shreena Gandhi: Professor of Religious Studies, Michigan State University Harshita Kamath: Professor of Telugu Culture, Literature, and History, Emory University Sailaja Krishnamurti: Professor of Gender Studies, Queen's University Shana Sippy, Professor of Religion, Centre College Mentioned in the episode: Rajiv Malhotra: an ideologue of the Hindu nationalist movement in the U.S. and founder of Infinity Foundation Harshita Kamath, Impersonations: The Artifice of Brahmin Masculinity in South Indian Dance Amar Chitra Katha: an Indian comic book publisher whose comics are hugely popular and widely available in India and the Indian diaspora. Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Learning about Hindu Religion through Comics and Popular Culture,” David Yoo and Khyati Y Joshi eds. Envisioning Religion, Race and Asian Americans, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 207-226, 2020. Babri Masjid: a 16th century mosque that became the target of Hindu nationalist mobilization and was destroyed by vigilante mobs in December 1992. Marko Geslani, “A Model Minority Religion: The Race of Hindu Studies,” American Religion, forthcoming. Thenmozhi Soundarajan, The Trauma of Caste Sarah Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Feminist Critical Hindu Studies in formation” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hindu fragility and the politics of mimicry in North America” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hinduphobia is a smokescreen for Hindu nationalists” Shana Sippy and Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Not all Hinduism is Hindutva, but Hindutva is in fact Hinduism” Shana Sippy, “Strange and Storied Alliances: Hindus and Jews, India and Israel,” manuscript in progress Shana Sippy, "Victimization, Supremacism, Solidarity, and the Affective and Emulative Politics of American Hindus" Tomako Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism Shreena Gandhi, “Framing Islam as American Religion Despite White Supremacy” Equality Labs is a South Asian Dalit civil rights organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

This episode features a conversation with the founding members of the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, also known as the Auntylectuals. We began with each of them reflecting on their pathway into Hindu Studies and how the questions of caste and gender shaped their approaches to this field. We then discussed their motivations for starting the collective and what interventions they hoped to make through it. This took us deeper into some thorny topics: caste as a form of embodied knowledge that is often accompanied by the denial of its continued social power; the politics of Hinduism in North America where Hindus are both predominantly upper caste and a racial minority; the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism; the traffic in language and tactics between Hindutva and Zionism; and the efforts to push back against the movement to make caste a protected category in U.S. anti-discrimination law. Guests: Shreena Gandhi: Professor of Religious Studies, Michigan State University Harshita Kamath: Professor of Telugu Culture, Literature, and History, Emory University Sailaja Krishnamurti: Professor of Gender Studies, Queen's University Shana Sippy, Professor of Religion, Centre College Mentioned in the episode: Rajiv Malhotra: an ideologue of the Hindu nationalist movement in the U.S. and founder of Infinity Foundation Harshita Kamath, Impersonations: The Artifice of Brahmin Masculinity in South Indian Dance Amar Chitra Katha: an Indian comic book publisher whose comics are hugely popular and widely available in India and the Indian diaspora. Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Learning about Hindu Religion through Comics and Popular Culture,” David Yoo and Khyati Y Joshi eds. Envisioning Religion, Race and Asian Americans, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 207-226, 2020. Babri Masjid: a 16th century mosque that became the target of Hindu nationalist mobilization and was destroyed by vigilante mobs in December 1992. Marko Geslani, “A Model Minority Religion: The Race of Hindu Studies,” American Religion, forthcoming. Thenmozhi Soundarajan, The Trauma of Caste Sarah Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Feminist Critical Hindu Studies in formation” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hindu fragility and the politics of mimicry in North America” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hinduphobia is a smokescreen for Hindu nationalists” Shana Sippy and Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Not all Hinduism is Hindutva, but Hindutva is in fact Hinduism” Shana Sippy, “Strange and Storied Alliances: Hindus and Jews, India and Israel,” manuscript in progress Shana Sippy, "Victimization, Supremacism, Solidarity, and the Affective and Emulative Politics of American Hindus" Tomako Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism Shreena Gandhi, “Framing Islam as American Religion Despite White Supremacy” Equality Labs is a South Asian Dalit civil rights organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode features a conversation with the founding members of the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, also known as the Auntylectuals. We began with each of them reflecting on their pathway into Hindu Studies and how the questions of caste and gender shaped their approaches to this field. We then discussed their motivations for starting the collective and what interventions they hoped to make through it. This took us deeper into some thorny topics: caste as a form of embodied knowledge that is often accompanied by the denial of its continued social power; the politics of Hinduism in North America where Hindus are both predominantly upper caste and a racial minority; the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism; the traffic in language and tactics between Hindutva and Zionism; and the efforts to push back against the movement to make caste a protected category in U.S. anti-discrimination law. Guests: Shreena Gandhi: Professor of Religious Studies, Michigan State University Harshita Kamath: Professor of Telugu Culture, Literature, and History, Emory University Sailaja Krishnamurti: Professor of Gender Studies, Queen's University Shana Sippy, Professor of Religion, Centre College Mentioned in the episode: Rajiv Malhotra: an ideologue of the Hindu nationalist movement in the U.S. and founder of Infinity Foundation Harshita Kamath, Impersonations: The Artifice of Brahmin Masculinity in South Indian Dance Amar Chitra Katha: an Indian comic book publisher whose comics are hugely popular and widely available in India and the Indian diaspora. Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Learning about Hindu Religion through Comics and Popular Culture,” David Yoo and Khyati Y Joshi eds. Envisioning Religion, Race and Asian Americans, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 207-226, 2020. Babri Masjid: a 16th century mosque that became the target of Hindu nationalist mobilization and was destroyed by vigilante mobs in December 1992. Marko Geslani, “A Model Minority Religion: The Race of Hindu Studies,” American Religion, forthcoming. Thenmozhi Soundarajan, The Trauma of Caste Sarah Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Feminist Critical Hindu Studies in formation” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hindu fragility and the politics of mimicry in North America” Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective, “Hinduphobia is a smokescreen for Hindu nationalists” Shana Sippy and Sailaja Krishnamurti, “Not all Hinduism is Hindutva, but Hindutva is in fact Hinduism” Shana Sippy, “Strange and Storied Alliances: Hindus and Jews, India and Israel,” manuscript in progress Shana Sippy, "Victimization, Supremacism, Solidarity, and the Affective and Emulative Politics of American Hindus" Tomako Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, Or How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism Shreena Gandhi, “Framing Islam as American Religion Despite White Supremacy” Equality Labs is a South Asian Dalit civil rights organization. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/indian-religions

Pastor Paul was doing gospel outreach in Northern India when he was arrested by police and accused of "forcing" Hindus to convert to Christianity. He wasn't forcing anyone but only sharing with people who expressed a hunger to hear the truth. When police arrived, Paul and his coworkers weren't having a service or studying the Bible; they were eating a meal. Still, it was considered a crime. "Which god are you praying to?" police asked. Little did Pastor Paul know that his faith would be tested as he heard that question repeatedly over the coming weeks. Pastor Paul and his three gospel coworkers suffered tremendously in police custody. Police threatened them constantly, putting fear in their hearts. They were repeatedly offered freedom if they would only renounce their faith in Jesus Christ. Police put the four Christians in a filthy prison cell that also served as the police station latrine. They allowed a mob of radical Hindus to beat them. Paul prayed that God would strengthen him. "Lord, please help me not to fear their words because You are in charge of every situation," Pastor Paul prayed, "You controlled the lion's mouth when Daniel went inside." As Pastor Paul fervently prayed, the Lord provided him many opportunities to share his faith in Christ and the strength to stand firm against the enemy's schemes. Listen as he shares his prayer for a forgiving heart when police threatened to beat him, stories of times the Lord gave him moments of relief, and how God sustained him even when his coworkers renounced Christ and turned their backs on him. The Lord opened fellow prisoners' hearts to hear more about his faith as they watched Pastor Paul. Living out 1 Peter 3:15, he made the most of every opportunity to share the hope of Jesus Christ. Mistreatment and terrible prison conditions impacted Paul's health; he thought he was going to die. When his wife was finally allowed to visit, he assumed it would be the last time he saw her on earth. He encouraged her to continue forward with Christ and not turn back, even if he died in prison. Paul had two final requests as he cried out to the Lord: to see revival in Uttar Pradesh state, and for the Lord to allow another pastor to be arrested and come and encourage him in prison. Tune in next week to hear the rest of Pastor Paul's story and whether God answered his request. Pray this week for the Lord to give our brothers and sisters in India strength and courage to withstand Christian persecution and hold fast to their faith in spite of anti-conversion laws and unjust treatment by the Hindu nationalist government. The VOM App for your smartphone or tablet will help you pray daily in 2026 for persecuted Christians in nations like North Korea, Nigeria, Iran and Colombia, as well as provide free access to e-books, audiobooks, video content, and feature films. Download the VOM App for your iOS or Android device today.

Modi Plays Secret Game in Bangladesh - How Hindus Voted Pro India Govt to Power | Map Explanation

There are so many vulnerable populations around the world, and it's hard to keep up with them all. One group that sustained very serious abuse is the Hindu community in the Asian nation of Bhutan. Oddly, for centuries there existed a comity between Hindus and Buddhists that was inspiring to see. In Nepal, many people practice both. So it's quite disheartening to learn that over 20 years ago, the despotic Buddhist king of Bhutan expelled over 100,000 Hindu citizens of Nepali heritage. For 2 decades these hardworking people lived in cramped huts in refugee camps in Nepal before being dispersed to welcoming countries. In these episodes we talk with Narad Adhikari from the Global Bhutanese Hindu Organization about this travesty that he, his family and many dear friends survived and ultimately thrived. This one is a heartbreaker, kids. But very inspirational. Theme music "Nigal."

Guest: Saarang Narayan (Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Mohali) Host and Producer: Maria Bach (University of Lausanne) A political poster issued by the Bharatiya Janta Party in recent years, promoting the Swadeshist message as part of their “Ghar Ghar Swadeshi” (Swadeshi in Every Household) campaign. A list of key terms with short explanations discussed in the episode Swadeshi is a Hindi/Hindustani word that literally means ‘of one's own country' (swa=one's own/self; desh=country). The slogan gained popularity in the early twentieth century, especially in the popular movement against the partition of Bengal in 1905, and went on to inspire the founding of domestic institutions and the production and consumption of goods as modes of anti-colonial politics. Although it remained part of the discourse around developmentalism and economic planning in the mid-twentieth century, it regained popularity in the context of the public debates about globalisation and neoliberalism in the 1980s and 1990s. While it is comparable to slogans like ‘Buy British' or ‘Buy American', there is a characteristic ethical and socio-cultural dimension that separates Swadeshist principles from simple autarky or protectionism. This ethical and socio-cultural dimension concerns the definition of the Swadeshist ‘self' along religious and cultural lines, often limiting it to Hinduism. Hindu Nationalism is a broad term used here to encapsulate those visions of nationalism in India that define the Indian identity and history through the lens of Hinduism. This is to say that Hindu Nationalists often link the modern nation-state to a primordial Hindu past, where the religious and cultural practices of the supposed ancient Hindu peoples defined their identities. While India's contemporary Hindu far-right has spearheaded this form of nationalism, there have been other actors who subscribe to such a vision of the Indian nation. What makes the Hindu far-right different from other such actors is the former's palingenetic, Islamophobic, and xenophobic interpretations of Hindu Nationalism. The Hindu far-right describes its mode of Hindu Nationalism as ‘Hindutva' or Hindu-ness, as outlined in the works of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteers' Union) was founded in 1925. It is the apex body of the Hindu far-right with the goal of (re-)establishing India as a Hindu Nation. The RSS was founded by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar as a para-militaristic body of Hindu men to arm Hindu society against its cultural enemies. The second supreme-leader of the RSS, Madhavrao Sadashiv Golwalkar, identified these enemies in order of the threat that they posed to Hindus as follows: Muslims, Christians, and Communists. The RSS primarily functions through local chapters (shakhas or branches) and is comprised of volunteers (swayamsevaks) and led by preachers (pracharaks). Although Swadeshist ideas were primarily popularised by political actors who were summarily opposed to the politics of the RSS, the RSS adopted Swadeshi in the 1950s, and it has remained at the core of its economic thought ever since. Throughout its century-long existence, the RSS has faced three major bans and, despite its majoritarian, fascistic goals, has adapted strategies of dynamism and flexibility in its tactics, ideas, and political language to meet these challenges. The first two decades of independent India were the lowest point in the RSS's public and political presence, and it gained increasing popularity and political ground in the mainstream from the mid-1970s onwards. Part of its strategy of expansion has been the creation of smaller affiliate organisations, geared towards specialised tasks. This conglomerate of far-right organisations headed by the RSS has come to be known as the Sangh Parivar (Family). The current ruling party in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the electoral wing of the RSS, and many of its members (including Prime Minister Narendra Modi) started out as swayamsevaks in the RSS before joining the BJP.

Have you ever noticed how various religions have their own unique idols or objects that people bow down to and worship? Take India, for instance; it's fascinating to think that there are around 330 million gods that the Hindus hold dear to their hearts. Have you ever thought about the idea that these so-called gods might actually be demons and fallen angels in disguise? Today, Pastor Mark dives into the intriguing topic of why folks find themselves bowing down to false gods. Satan likes to keep people stuck in the confines of misleading beliefs. As a believer, it's important to stay mindful and steer clear of any of these false deities. 

It's Friday, February 6th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus 21 of 22 churches destroyed in Christian town in Myanmar since coup On January 30, the Burma Research Institute released a scathing report detailing destructive attacks, murders, and harassment of Christians and churches since the military coup in 2021 that forcefully took control of Myanmar, reports International Christian Concern. Some of the key findings include: 21 out of 22 churches in Thantlang Town, a majority-Christian town, have been destroyed and the town's population displaced since 2021. More than 340 churches and Christian buildings have been destroyed. 149 Christians murdered and 218 imprisoned from 2022 to 2025. One unnamed church leader, who is still living inside Myanmar, testified powerfully that the faithful are now scattered across jungles, remote areas, and informal shelters, struggling to preserve their faith and communal life under constant threat and insecurity. Pastor in India forced to eat cow dung After accusing a pastor in Odisha, India of forcefully converting Hindus to Christianity, a group of Hindu nationalists forced him to eat cow dung and drink sewer water, reports International Christian Concern. The incident occurred on January 4th, but only became widely known in recent days, prompting nationwide outrage and criticism. A mob of 40 people, reportedly affiliated with the Bajrang Dal — the militant wing of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — stormed a home during a prayer meeting in Parjang village, and accused the pastor of conducting “forced religious conversions.” Pastor Bipin Bihari Naik was dragged from the house and beaten with sticks. His face was smeared with red vermilion. Sandals were hung around his neck. He was then paraded through the village for nearly two hours. Pastor Naik was eventually taken to a local Hindu temple, where his hands were tied to a metal rod, and he was forced to consume cow dung and drink water from a sewer. They also tried to force the pastor to chant Hindu slogans, but he refused to do so. In a statement on X, Pinarayi Vijayan, the chief minister of Kerala, wrote, “Forcing a human being to eat cow dung is a deeply inhuman act, emboldened by the silence and complicity of BJP-led governments.” Landslide in Congo kills 200 miners A landslide last week collapsed several tunnels at a major coltan mine in eastern Congo, leaving at least 200 people dead in the rebel-controlled site, reports the Associated Press. The collapse occurred  Wednesday at the Rubaya mines, controlled by the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels, after heavy rains caused several hand-dug tunnels in the unregulated mine to cave. The M23 rebels and the Congolese government traded accusations over responsibility as reports from the remote region began to emerge. The collapse is one of the deadliest disasters in years in an area already facing a humanitarian crisis and ongoing conflict. Trump announced prayer gathering to rededicate America to God Appearing at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Donald Trump explained that the Department of Education will protect the right of public school students to pray. TRUMP: “Today, I'm also pleased to announce that the Department of Education is officially issuing its new guidance to protect the right to prayer in our public schools. That's a big deal.” (applause) President Trump also announced that Americans are invited to attend a special prayer event on the 250th birthday of America in our nation's capital. TRUMP: “In the last 12 months, young Americans attended church at nearly twice the rate as they did four years ago to support this exciting renewal. This morning, I'm pleased to announce that on May 17, we're inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray. We're going to rededicate America as one nation under God.” (applause) Psalm 33:12 says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He chose for His inheritance.” NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie addresses kidnappers of her mother In a tearful video posted Wednesday on Instagram, “Today” co-anchor Savannah Guthrie — flanked by her sister, Annie Guthrie, and her brother, Camron Guthrie, pleaded for more information from the possible kidnapper of her 84-year-old mother, saying her family is “ready to talk,” reports NBC News. GUTHRIE: “Our mom is our heart and our home. She is 84 years old. Her health, her heart is fragile. She lives in constant pain. She is without any medicine. She needs it to survive. We need to know, without a doubt, that she is alive and that you have her. We want to hear from you. And we are ready to listen.” In the Instagram video, Savannah thanked the public for “the prayers for our beloved mom,” Nancy Guthrie, who was last seen Saturday night in her home outside Tucson, Arizona. She was reported missing after she did not show up for church.  Nancy had no cognitive issues, and her disappearance was not linked to dementia. Blood was found on the front porch of Guthrie's house. DNA analysis has confirmed the blood belongs to Nancy Guthrie. A doorbell camera to her home was disconnected and removed at 1:47 local time and at 2:28, Guthrie's pacemaker was disconnected from her phone, an app shows. Fox10 TV reports that investigators are taking seriously a ransom note sent to a handful of media outlets connected to her disappearance. Heith Janke, the FBI chief in Phoenix, announced that they have arrested Derrick Callella in Hawthorne, California. Shocking lessons taught on college campuses today And finally, according to Students for Life's January newsletter, college students are being taught shocking lessons – often paid for by our tax dollars. * Harvard University has a class called, "Come hammered. Get Nailed: Safe Sex Under the Influence.” * Ohio State University features a class entitled, "Fighting Abortion Stigma with Planned Parenthood." * And Grand Valley State University has one called “Breaking Up with Purity Culture.” If that's not enough, they'll be encouraged to write Valentine's Day “thank you” cards to abortionists! The truth is many colleges have turned into little more than recruitment centers for Planned Parenthood's bloody business by first encouraging students to experiment sexually and then funneling vulnerable young women to abortionists to “take care of” or murder the natural consequences of sex – precious little babies. Campus missionaries with Students for Life are confronting the Culture of Death with three outreaches. First, setting up Cemetery of Innocents displays that visually expose the gruesome reality of abortion featuring 1,102 bright pink crosses commemorating the preborn babies aborted by Planned Parenthood every day. Second, hosting table events that spark one-on-one conversations with pro-abortion college students. And third, screening the pro-life movie Unplanned which tells the incredible conversion story of Abby Johnson, who was a Planned Parenthood director-turned-staunch-pro-life-activist, after she witnessed a preborn child squirming for its life away from an abortionist's tools during an abortion. Learn more about the great work of Students for Life at StudentsForLife.org. Proverbs 31:8 says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, February 6th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In this episode of Thats So Hindu, Mat McDermott speaks with Fred Stella (HAF) and John Morehead (Foundation for Religious Diplomacy). The conversation explores the complex dynamics of Christian-Hindu relations, focusing on proselytization efforts in India and the reactions from the Hindu community. They discuss the ethical boundaries of evangelism, the importance of understanding different religious perspectives, and the need for interfaith dialogue that respects both beliefs. They emphasize the significance of educating young Hindus about their own faith to better engage in discussions with Christians and navigate the challenges posed by missionary activities.TakeawaysChristian evangelism often overlooks the perspectives of those being evangelized.Hindus feel their spiritual identity is often treated as a problem needing a solution.Interfaith dialogue can foster understanding and respect between different faiths.Ethical evangelism should avoid coercion and respect individual beliefs.Education is crucial for Hindus to articulate their beliefs in interfaith discussions.Not all Christians share the same approach to evangelism; there are diverse perspectives.The Great Commission is a fundamental aspect of evangelical Christianity.Interfaith discussions should focus on storytelling rather than debate.Creating alliances with other faiths can help address anti-Hindu sentiment.Respectful dialogue can lead to greater understanding and cooperation among religions.Chapters00:00Setting the Stage for Christian-Hindu Relations05:59Understanding Hindu Perspectives on Proselytization16:49Navigating Differences in Evangelism and Understanding18:21The Nature of Evangelization23:44Understanding the Great Commission24:17Exploring New Perspectives on Other Religions27:14Sharing Spiritual Beliefs Ethically33:28Experiences of Unethical Evangelism39:03Ethics of Evangelism in Interfaith Contexts45:16Finding Common Ground in Diverse BeliefsKeywordsChristianity, Hinduism, proselytization, interfaith dialogue, evangelism, ethical boundaries, cultural relations, religious identity, Great Commission, spiritual beliefs Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

First, The Indian Express' Sukrita Baruah explains how Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma asked BJP workers to file complaints against the inclusion of Bengali-origin Muslims in voter lists, and called on the public at large to “trouble” the community.Next, The Indian Express' Aiswarya Raj recounts the incident in which a man named Deepak Kumar stepped in to stop a mob of Hindus from harassing a 70-year-old man (13:08).And finally, The Indian Express' Asad Rehman shares the key highlights from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's appearance before the Supreme Court yesterday (22:20).Hosted, written and produced by Shashank BhargavaEdited and mixed by Suresh Pawar

In this episode of Thats So Hindu, Mat McDermott speaks with Fred Stella (HAF) and John Morehead (Foundation for Religious Diplomacy). The conversation explores the complex dynamics of Christian-Hindu relations, focusing on proselytization efforts in India and the reactions from the Hindu community. They discuss the ethical boundaries of evangelism, the importance of understanding different religious perspectives, and the need for interfaith dialogue that respects both beliefs. They emphasize the significance of educating young Hindus about their own faith to better engage in discussions with Christians and navigate the challenges posed by missionary activities.TakeawaysChristian evangelism often overlooks the perspectives of those being evangelized.Hindus feel their spiritual identity is often treated as a problem needing a solution.Interfaith dialogue can foster understanding and respect between different faiths.Ethical evangelism should avoid coercion and respect individual beliefs.Education is crucial for Hindus to articulate their beliefs in interfaith discussions.Not all Christians share the same approach to evangelism; there are diverse perspectives.The Great Commission is a fundamental aspect of evangelical Christianity.Interfaith discussions should focus on storytelling rather than debate.Creating alliances with other faiths can help address anti-Hindu sentiment.Respectful dialogue can lead to greater understanding and cooperation among religions.Chapters00:00Setting the Stage for Christian-Hindu Relations05:59Understanding Hindu Perspectives on Proselytization16:49Navigating Differences in Evangelism and Understanding18:21The Nature of Evangelization23:44Understanding the Great Commission24:17Exploring New Perspectives on Other Religions27:14Sharing Spiritual Beliefs Ethically33:28Experiences of Unethical Evangelism39:03Ethics of Evangelism in Interfaith Contexts45:16Finding Common Ground in Diverse BeliefsKeywordsChristianity, Hinduism, proselytization, interfaith dialogue, evangelism, ethical boundaries, cultural relations, religious identity, Great Commission, spiritual beliefs Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hindus have long whitewashed Shivaji as a paragon of ethics while demeaning the tenth Guru. The reality is very different. Today, as Sikhs push back against Hindu imposition, the Guru is insulted and disparaged both academically and on social media. Yet their own hero Shivaji was once the fiercest nemesis of their people, a vassal of Muslim states who even begged Aurangzeb for the same privilege. Guru Gobind Singh Ji stood higher than any patriot, teaching the oppressed to stand up for themselves without ever compromising on their dignity. This episode exposes the truths Hindus tries to hide.

In this episode of That's So Hindu, Mat McDermott, Pawan Deshpande, and Devala Rees discuss the intersection of AI and Hinduism, exploring how AI can be integrated into devotional practices, the biases present in AI systems, and the implications of misinformation in educational contexts. They delve into the philosophical questions surrounding consciousness and AI, and the potential future of AI in relation to Hindu traditions. The discussion emphasizes the importance of accurate representation and the opportunities AI presents for spreading knowledge about Hinduism.TakeawaysAI images can be used in Hindu practices but with caution.Hinduism encompasses over 300 distinct traditions.Misinformation in educational materials about Hinduism is prevalent.Caste is often misrepresented in AI outputs.AI can mimic human-like features but lacks true consciousness.The optimization function in AI influences its responses.AI performs better when users interact positively with it.Hindus are significant users of AI technologies like ChatGPT.AI presents opportunities for accurate representation of Hinduism.The future of AI in Hinduism raises important philosophical questions.Chapters00:00Introduction to the Guests and Their Backgrounds02:54AI in Hindu Devotional Practices05:49Understanding AI: Definitions and Implications11:59Bias and Misinformation in AI17:52Educational Challenges and Misrepresentation of Hinduism23:44The Role of AI in Cultural Representation29:45Consciousness and AI: A Philosophical Exploration35:57The Future of AI and Hinduism41:45Conclusion and Final ThoughtsKeywordsAI, Hinduism, Devotional Practices, Misinformation, Bias, Education, Cultural Representation, Consciousness, Philosophy, Technology Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of That's So Hindu, Mat McDermott, Pawan Deshpande, and Devala Rees discuss the intersection of AI and Hinduism, exploring how AI can be integrated into devotional practices, the biases present in AI systems, and the implications of misinformation in educational contexts. They delve into the philosophical questions surrounding consciousness and AI, and the potential future of AI in relation to Hindu traditions. The discussion emphasizes the importance of accurate representation and the opportunities AI presents for spreading knowledge about Hinduism.TakeawaysAI images can be used in Hindu practices but with caution.Hinduism encompasses over 300 distinct traditions.Misinformation in educational materials about Hinduism is prevalent.Caste is often misrepresented in AI outputs.AI can mimic human-like features but lacks true consciousness.The optimization function in AI influences its responses.AI performs better when users interact positively with it.Hindus are significant users of AI technologies like ChatGPT.AI presents opportunities for accurate representation of Hinduism.The future of AI in Hinduism raises important philosophical questions.Chapters00:00Introduction to the Guests and Their Backgrounds02:54AI in Hindu Devotional Practices05:49Understanding AI: Definitions and Implications11:59Bias and Misinformation in AI17:52Educational Challenges and Misrepresentation of Hinduism23:44The Role of AI in Cultural Representation29:45Consciousness and AI: A Philosophical Exploration35:57The Future of AI and Hinduism41:45Conclusion and Final ThoughtsKeywordsAI, Hinduism, Devotional Practices, Misinformation, Bias, Education, Cultural Representation, Consciousness, Philosophy, Technology Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hey All, we've got ourselves a blast from the past! For those of you who have been following us for a few years you might recall that not long after we started podcasting we decided to go into The Vault and grab as many old analog recordings that survived over the decades, digitize them and add to our podcast library. So if you're not aware already, keep scrolling down and you'll see episodes from as far back as the late 90s. I really thought we were done with all that, but in cleaning out a desk drawer I found a few more. This one dates back to 2009. Here we interview Stephen Knapp, a brilliant writer on Vedic culture. We discuss his new (at the time) book called "The War Against India." Here's how he explains it: India has one of the oldest and most dynamic cultures in the world. Yet, many people do not know of the countless attacks, wars, atrocities, and sacrifices that Indian people have undergone to protect and preserve their country and spiritual tradition over the centuries. Neither do many people know of the numerous ways in which this profound heritage is being attacked and threatened today, and what we can do about it. Therefore, we should carefully understand: How there is presently a war against Hinduism and its yoga culture. The weaknesses of India that allowed invaders to conquer her. Lessons from India's real history that should not be forgotten. The atrocities committed by the Muslim invaders, and how they tried to destroy Vedic culture and its many temples, and slaughtered thousands of Indian Hindus. How the British viciously exploited India and its people for its resources. How the cruelest of all Christian Inquisitions in Goa tortured and killed thousands of Hindus. Action plans for preserving and strengthening Vedic India today. How all Hindus and concerned people must stand up and be strong for protecting the universal spiritual traditions of Vedic culture. Theme music "Nigal."

This podcast episode brings several eye-opening facts to light about how Gandhi misled the Hindu community into supporting the Pan Islamic Khilafat Movement. It was Gandhi who unilaterally glorified the bigoted Ali Brothers as nationalists and freedom fighters. Few people today know that Mohammad Ali got a Fatwa issued by 500 Ulemas throughout India to rebel against the government. Mohandas Gandhi endorsed this Fatwa from the official platform of the Indian National Congress. In a parallel development, the Khilafat Committee in Malegaon, Maharashtra, began making violent speeches, which eventually led to unprovoked violence committed by Muslims in the town. For three days in April 1921, the Muslim community set Malegaon on fire leading to a mini pogrom of Hindus, temple destruction, vandalism and large scale looting. This is a horrific chapter of recent history that has been largely untold. Listen to the full episode containing precious insights and hidden details of this incident and the career of Mohandas Gandhi.Support Our PodcastsIf you enjoyed this episode, please consider supporting The Dharma Dispatch podcast so we can offer more such interesting, informative and educational content related to Indian History, Sanatana Dharma, Hindu Culture and current affairs. It takes us months of rigorous research, writing and editing and significant costs to offer this labour of love.Ways you can Support The Dharma Podcast:* UPI: ddispatch@axl* Wallets, Netbanking, etc.* Take a paid subscription. Get full access to The Dharma Dispatch Digest at thedharmadispatch.substack.com/subscribe

Politics: Jan. 6 Plaque Still Not On Display @2:10 News: The ‘Donroe doctrine' sows new division across the Americas @7:12 Trump Ramps Up Threats Against Colombia And Mexico @17:28 Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland @22:13 President Orders Cannabis Rules Relaxed, Easing Research @29:21 Health/Medicine/Science: Summary of RFK Jr's actions @32:17 The MAHA Pipe Dream Is Going to Hurt MAGA the Most @33:25 Pharmaceutical companies or RFK? @34:16 Trump admin drops childhood vaccination reporting requirement @36:16 Religious Nonsense: As if one needed any more reason to avoid the Ark Encounter… @37:49 Bangladesh saw 71 blasphemy-linked attacks on Hindus in 6 months @39:19 Pseudoscience: 2025 psychic forecasts @41:40 Jurassic Park talk @46:18

Episode #57 of The Hindu Parenting Podcast features a conversation with Esther Dhanraj, who has published a book called “Unbaptised: Why I Left Christianity and Returned to My Roots”.In this podcast, we explore religious conversion and the danger of Evangelism to Hindus, especially Hindu children. How can parents recognise if their children are being groomed for conversion? What are the signs and how does the process happen?How are Hindu children turned against their own heritage? What are they told about Hindu devis and devathas, their parents, ancestors and the ancient Indian civilisation?Can Hindu parents teach their children to resist and counter Christian evangelists?Don't miss this episode “Up Close and Candid with Esther Dhanraj - Part 1”Listen and share with all Hindu parents. Stay tuned for Part 2 coming up soon!Link to buy the book “Unbaptised: Why I Left Christianity and Returned to My Roots”.Hindu Parenting is a community for Hindu parents worldwide. We carry articles, podcasts, reviews, classes for teens and various other resources to help you in your parenting journey.Please support us by signing up for our newsletters to get the latest articles and podcasts in your e-mail inbox. Our podcasts (The Hindu Parenting Podcast and The Authentic Valmiki Ramayan Podcast) can be heard on Spotify, YouTube, Apple and Google Podcasts too.Leave a note, DM or send email to contact@hinduparenting.org if you'd like to share your viewpoints, experiences and wisdom as Hindu parents, or if you wish to join our community! You can also follow us on X (Twitter) or Instagram. Our handle is “hinduparenting”The opinions expressed by guests on The Hindu Parenting Podcast are their personal opinions and Hindu Parenting does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability or validity of anything shared on our platform by them.Copyright belongs to Hindu Parenting. Get full access to Hindu Parenting at hinduparenting.substack.com/subscribe

Gissele: [00:00:00] was Martin Luther King, Jr. Wright, does love have the power to transform an enemy into a friend. We’re currently working on a documentary showcasing people doing extraordinary things such as loving. Those who are most hurtful in this documentary will showcase extraordinary stories of forgiveness, reconciliation, and transformation. You’d like to find out more about our documentary, www M-A-I-T-R-I-C-E-N-T-R-E com slash documentary. Hello and welcome to the Love and Compassion Podcast with Gissele. We believe that love and compassion have the power to heal our lives and our world. Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more amazing content. Today we’re talking with Larry Rosen about whether enemies can come together in dialogue. Larry is the founder of a mediation law practice. Through understanding he has helped thousands craft enduring solutions to [00:01:00] crippling conflicts, millions have watched this popular TEDx talk with secret understanding humans whose insights informs the enemy’s project. From 2024, Larry completed writing the novel, the Enemy Dance, posing the question, must the society riven by tribalism descend into war or can it heal itself? Larry is a graduate of UCLA School of Law, where he served as editor of the Law Review and received numerous academic awards. Growing up, Larry was both the bully and the bullied. The one who was cruel and the one who was kind, he was sometimes popular. And sometimes friendless. He had many fist fights with kids who became his friends. He had his very own chair at the principal’s office. He believes that his peacemaking today is born out of the callousness and empathy that he knew as childhood. [00:02:00] Please join me in welcoming Larry. Hi, Larry. Larry: Hi there. That, it’s funny because that la last piece that you read about my, you know, the, the principal’s office that’s on my website, I’ve never had someone read that back to me and it brought me a little bit to tears, like, oh, that poor kid. Yeah, I, I don’t hear that very often. So anyway, Gissele: yeah. Oh, I really loved it when I saw it, and I could relate to it because I’ve also been both. when we hurt other people, we wanna be forgiven, but when people hurt us, you don’t always wanna forgive, right? Mm-hmm. So it gives you the different perspective. I’m so thrilled to have you on the show. And how I actually came to know about your project is, so I’m a professor at a university and I teach research and ethics. And, what I had discovered about my students is that many of them don’t come with the ability to do the critical thinking, to be able to hold both sides. Many of them come thinking there’s gotta be a right answer, and there’s a right way of doing things. Just tell us what the answer is. [00:03:00] And so for my students, I get them to write a paper where they tell me the things they feel really strongly about. Then they’re researching the opposing perspective using credible sources. because trolls are easy to dismiss, right? So credible sources, the opposing perspective, and then they are supposed to, so tell me what are their main points? You know, like why do they believe what they do? And and are you really that different? Right? And then the last part of the paper is. Talk about the emotions you feel and throughout the year I prepare them in terms of being able to handle it. So I teach them mindfulness, I teach them self-compassion so that they can hold because it’s really difficult to hold posing perspective. What? It’s research and ethics. I do it for my, ’cause one of my research interests is compassion. And so, and I was a director of one of the departments I had was hr. And what I noticed was when people had conflict, it was the inability to regulate themselves, to sit in a [00:04:00] conversation that prevented them from going anywhere. And so what I do in my classes, like I’ll do like a minute, like maybe five minutes, three minutes, right before the start of class, I’ll teach mindfulness or like a self-compassion practice and we talk about it all year. And then at the end of the year they’ll do a, a paper where they do the opposing perspective. Then at the end they talk about the emotions they feel. So, and, and they can do that through music. They could do that through a photograph. They could do that through an art project or they just use text. They say, oh, I felt this. I felt that. And so it was in my students researching for their papers that they encountered your project. And they were blown away. They were so, so happy about it. And I like, I’ve watched the episodes. They were amazing . And so that’s why I wanted to have you on the show. And so I was wondering if you could start by telling the audience a little bit about the Enemies project and how you got inspired to do this work. Larry: So the Enemies Project is a [00:05:00] docuseries where I bring together people who are essentially enemies, people of really dramatically different viewpoints, who pretty much don’t like each other. And so an example is a trans woman and a, a woman who is maga who believes trans people belong to mental institutions a Palestinian and a Zionist Jew and, and lots of other combinations. And the goal is not to debate. There are lots of places where you can see debates and I allow them to argue it out for a few minutes to, to show what doesn’t work. And then I bring them through kind of a different process where they. Understand each other deeply, which basically means live in each other’s viewpoint, really ultimately be able to, like you’re trying to do in your class as well. Have them express each other’s viewpoint. And that is a transforming process for them. Usually when they do it in each other’s presence. And it, you know, it has hiccups which is part of the process, but it goes really [00:06:00] deep. And so ultimately these people who hate each other end up almost always saying, I really admire you. I like you. I would be your friend. And sometimes they say, I love you. And usually they hug and there’s deep affection for each other at the end. And they’re saying to the camera or to, you know, their viewers, like, please be kind to this person. This person’s now my friend. And that is for me important because. Like you probably, and probably most of your listeners, I’m tired of what’s happening in society. I am tired of being manipulated. I think we’re all being manipulated by what I call enemy makers. People who profit from division financially, politically they’re usually political leaders and media leaders. And we’re all being taken. And the big lie at the center of it is that people on the other side, ordinary people on the other side are bad or evil. That’s the, the dark heart lie at the [00:07:00] center of it. And if we believe that we’ll follow these leaders, we’ll follow them because we all want to defeat evil. We all must defeat evil. And so what I’m trying to do in this project is unravel that lie by showing that people on the other side are just us. Yeah. And they too have been manipulated and we’ve been manipulated. So and it’s gone well, it’s gone really well. You know, there have been, we’ve been, we’ve done eight or nine episodes and we have in various forms of media, been seen tens of millions of times in the last five months. And we have, I think, 175,000 followers on different media. And the comments are just really, from my perspective, surprisingly, kind of off the chart powerful. Like this has changed tens of thousands of comments of just this is, this is in. Sometimes I’ve, I cried throughout or it’s actually changed my life. I see people differently. So it’s, it is been really, it’s really great to have that feedback and, and then we have plans for the future, which I can tell you [00:08:00] about later. But yeah, but that’s, that’s the basic background. The reason I got into it I don’t know if you have kids, but for me, kids are the great motivator. You know, the next generation, probably people who don’t have kids also are motivated for the next generation as well. We, I care deeply about what I’m leaving my kids and other people’s kids, you know, they all touch my heart and I, I feel really terrible about the mess we’re believing them in, and I feel terrible about what humanity is inheriting. And so I want to have an influence on that. Gissele: Yeah. Yeah. And one of the things I love about your docuseries is that the intent isn’t to change anyone’s mind. The intent is for people to feel heard and seen, and that is so, so powerful. It makes me think of Daryl Davis about how he went. Do you know the story of Daryl Davis? I don’t like jazz musician. So he’s a black jazz musician who when, since he was little, he wondered why people were racist. So what he did was actually go [00:09:00] to KKK rallies and speak to KKK leaders. Yeah, Larry: I have heard, yeah. Gissele: Yeah. He didn’t mean to change anyone. He just wanted to offer them respect, which you, as you say, is fundamental and just wanted to understand. And in that understanding, he created those conditions too that led people to change . And so I think that’s the same thing that your docuseries is offering. Larry: Absolutely. I mean, you can see it so easily that Yeah, as soon as one person hears the other person, the person who was heard is the one who changes. you don’t change the other person by telling them your story and by convincing them of anything. It’s when you hear them and hear what their true intention has been and what’s going on in their life, that’s when they change. It’s the fastest road to their change really. But if you go in with that objective, then they won’t change. So there’s kind of a, you know, an irony or a paradox embedded in this, but usually both people move [00:10:00] toward each other, is what happens. Yeah. Gissele: I want the audience to understand how brilliant this is because, I don’t know if you know Deeyah Khan, she’s a documentarian and she interviewed people from the KKK And one of the things we noticed in all those interviews was that many people hate others. They’re people that they’ve never met. They’ve never met people in that group, but they hate them. So, Larry: yeah, that’s, that’s really interesting just to hear that. Yeah. Gissele: Yeah. So how does the Enemies project help challenge misconceptions about groups that have never met each other, carry beliefs about the other? Larry: Well, so far really hasn’t because everybody who we’ve done a show with has met people from the other side. Gissele: Oh, Larry: okay. You know, it’s not like because thus far with the, with I think one or two exceptions, everyone’s been an American. So in, in the United States, everybody’s gonna meet somebody else. they’re not friends with them, they’re not deeply connected with them. But from my perspective it, it doesn’t [00:11:00] matter. You know, you can be from the most different tribes who’ve never met each other, we’re all gonna be the same. the process never differs. we don’t start with politics. My view is that starting with politics, which is how some, some people who try to bring others together to find common ground, start with politics, and that’s not going to work. What I start with is rapport. You know, as soon as you start with something that a person is defensive over, you’re gonna put up, they’re gonna be wearing armor, and they’re going to try to defeat the other person. So we exit that process and we really just help them understand what’s beautiful in each other’s lives, what’s challenging in each other’s lives, and they, there’s no question that as soon as you see what’s beautiful in someone else’s life or challenging, you’re gonna identify with it because you’re gonna have very similar points of beauty and challenge yourself. And then we fold. Politics into it about why politics really are important [00:12:00] to the other person. And we do it in a way where it’s a true exploration. And once that happens, people connect deeply. so it doesn’t matter from, in my experience, how different the people are, how extreme the people are. you’re going to be able to bring them together, you know? And so if they haven’t met each other, it’s really interesting what you said that people hate, people a haven’t met, which is like a, such a obvious statement. And it is really profound just to hear that, like, it’s so absurd. Yeah, and I would say that in my experience, the most profound or the deepest sessions are with people who are really dramatically surprised that the other person’s a human being. So if they, if they haven’t met each other, if they haven’t met someone like that, it’s gonna be an easy one. Yeah. ’cause because the shock is gonna be [00:13:00] so huge. Speaker 4: Mm-hmm. And Larry: so, and so full, it’s when the people have had experiences with the other side that it’s, that it is, it’s still powerful, but it can be a little bit more intellectual than, than in the heart because when you’re shocked by someone’s humanity, because you couldn’t imagine it at all, it, it really crushes your thoughts about them. Gissele: What I love about the process is that that’s the part you really focus on. You masterfully, are able to get people to really get to the root of their humanity and make that connection and then reengage in the dialogue , which is, is amazing. So who individuals selected and what’s support needs to happen before they can engage in the dialogue? And I ask that because each individual has to be able to hold the discussion. Because sometimes it’s, sometimes it can feel so hurtful, and I’m thinking in particular, even Nancy. So they’ve gotta be able to regulate enough to stay in the dialogue. Otherwise, what [00:14:00] I have seen is people will eject, they’ll fight, they’ll just kind of flee. So what preparation needs to happen and how do you select people? Larry: So on the selection front, it’s different now than when I started, you know, when I started filming about a year ago, I didn’t have any choices. You know, it wasn’t like anyone knew who I was or they had seen my shows, so I would go, I would live in the Bay Area and it’s really hard to find conservatives in the Bay Area, but all the conservatives in, in the San Francisco Bay Area congregate, they have like clubs. Mm-hmm. And so I would go on hikes with, in conservative clubs and I would speak to them and I just would try to find people who were interested. There were no criteria beyond that. Now, having said that, it’s not entirely true. I did interview some people who I just were like, they’re two intellectual, they just wanted to talk about economic issues or stuff, something like that. and then for liberals, it was actually harder, [00:15:00] believe it or not, to find people in the Bay Area who wanted to participate. I could find tons of liberals and progressives, but they had zero interest in speaking to a conservative person. And I wasn’t sure if that was a Bay Area phenomena, because liberals are so much in the majority, they don’t really care to speak to the other side, whereas the other side wants to be heard, or whether that’s a progressive kind of liberal thing. I have my views that have developed over time, but it was hard to find liberal people. And so really at the beginning it was just people who were willing to do it. There weren’t criteria beyond that. At this point, you know we’ve received some that people know what we’re doing and people want to be on the show and we receive applications and my daughter. Who runs this with me, my daughter Sadie, who’s 20 years old and in college. She is the person who finds people now, and you might have seen the episode a white cop and a black activist. I don’t know if you’ve seen that one, but, you know, she found those two people and they were [00:16:00] great. And the way she found them is she searched the map on the internet. It’s a little different now because by searching people on the internet, we find people who have a little bit of an audience. Mm. And that could be a bit of a problem. But it’s also like so much less time consuming for us. And so. You know, if we had a lot of money, we would spend more money on casting, but we don’t, and so mm-hmm. But we were able to find pretty good people. I’d say the main criteria for me, in addition to them having to have some passion about this, this particular show that they’re on, whether it’s about abortion or Israel, Gaza, the main criteria for me that’s developed is, do I want to hang out with this person? Because if I do, if the person, not whether they’re nice. Okay. Not whether they’re kind. That’s not it. I want them to have passion and I want to like them personally, because if I, it’s not that I don’t like the, some of the people, I like them all, but I don’t [00:17:00] want to hang out with them. If I do, it’s gonna be a great show because I know that they’re gonna be dynamic people and that their passion will flip. they’re gonna connect in some way and people who are really cordial and kind, they’re not, they’re not going to connect as deeply. The transformation’s not going to be as powerful for them or for the audience. Gissele: Hmm. Really interesting. I wanna touch base on something you said, you know, like that most people listen to debate. And I like Valerie Kaur’s perspective, which is to listen, to understand is to be willing to change your mind and heart. And I also like what you said, which is listening is to love someone. Can you explain what you mean by that? Larry: I think it more is the, it’s received as love than it, than necessarily it’s given as love. It doesn’t mean that you love the other person when you’re listening, but all of us, I would say if we think of the people [00:18:00] that we believe love us the most, they get us. Yeah. We receive it that way and, and they don’t judge us. And so when an enemy does that for you, the thought that they are a bad person melts away. Because if somebody loves us, and that’s the way it’s received, it’s not really an intellectual thing, we just receive it that way. They can’t be a bad person. Like somebody who loves me cannot be a bad person. And so it’s probably the most powerful thing that you can do to flip the feeling of the other side, is to listen to them, not to convince them of anything and to listen to them with curiosity, not just kind of blankly to listen to them without judgment. That’s a real critical piece. And if you do, you know, you can see on the show, it’s just like, you can see the switch flip. It’s really interesting. You can almost watch when it [00:19:00] happens and all of a sudden. The person likes the other person and now they’re listening to each other. It was really interesting. I was on a show one of the episodes is called I forget what it’s called. It’s the Guns episode. How To Stop The Bleed or something. It was these two women, and one of them has a podcast that she had me on and she said what was really interesting to her was that given how the show was laid out, like the first part of the show, they’re arguing, like usually doing a debate and they don’t really hear each other. But she said, given how the show was laid out, she was not preparing her responses in her mind like she always does. When speaking to somebody else, she was not thinking about what she was going to say. Her job in her mind was to understand the other person, to really get the other person. She said it was a total shift in the way she was acting internally. Like, like, and she said she noticed it. Like, I am not even thinking about what I’m going to say. And then she said afterwards she thought a lot about it, [00:20:00] and that was a dramatic shift from anything she’s been involved with. And that’s another way to put it. You know, I don’t, I didn’t think of that when, you know that the people wouldn’t be preparing for their response like we usually do. But that is definitely what happens when you concentrate on listening, and so yeah, it’s received really warmly and it’s transforming. Gissele: Yeah, and I think it, a lot of it has to do with how you manage the conversations, right? Like the tools that you use. I noticed they use the who am I right? To try to get people to go down to their core level to talk about themselves, the whole flipping side, identity confusion, which we’ll talk about in a minute. So are these based on particular frameworks that you use to mediate conversations since you have a history of mediation? Or is this something that you sort of came up on your own? Larry: It is something that I came up with on my own for the most part. I mean, I do a type of mediation in the law. I’m a lawyer where it’s unusual because [00:21:00] I’m doing like a personal mediation in a legal context. It’s kind of weird. for people. Yeah, but I only do the types of mediations where people know each other, like I don’t do between two companies, because there’s not really a human element to it. It’s, it really is about money for the most part. But, but when it’s two human beings, the money is a proxy for something else, always. Mm-hmm. Yeah. and so I’m used to being able to connect people. I do, you know, divorce founders of companies, neighbors family members who are caring for another family member. People who, where there wouldn’t be a legal issue if their relationship wasn’t broken. And so they already know each other. I don’t have to do that really deep rapport building. I do have to do some, but not really deep. but my theory was that when starting this project, which is mostly political, and people who don’t know each other, that there would be a piece missing. You know, like I wasn’t sure if what I’d do would do would work. What I do with clients would work in this. Political context, and I want them to [00:22:00] know, my thought was how do I build that rapport, even if it’s broken in the personal relationship, like they’re craving that they want that healing, but here, like they don’t know the other person. So it was really just me think thinking about how do powerful things that I want to know about other people. Speaker 3: Yeah. Larry: And so I really just tried it. I mean, like, you know, what is most, what would I most powerfully want from another person? and I develop a list of questions that really worked well, but I’m really practiced in keeping people focused on the questions at hand and not allowing them to deviate from what it is that I’ve designed. So that’s something that, you know, I’ve been doing for 20 years, and it takes some skill to even know whether the person’s deviating, whether they’re sneaking in their own judgment or they’re, you know, they’re asking a question, but it’s [00:23:00] really designed to convince the other person. So I’ve good at detecting that from, from a fair amount of experience, and I’ve developed skills in how I can reel them back in without triggering them. Gissele: Yeah. I’ve watched it, like you’re very good at navigating people back and it’s very soft and very humane. can I just bring you back here? So there’s no like judgment or minimizing of what they say. They’re just like, well, can I just get you back on this track? It’s, it’s very beautiful how you do that . Larry: Thank you. and you ask how I prepare people. It’s interesting because what I do is I interview them for an hour and a half to see if they’re a match for the show, an hour and a half to two hours. And I get to know them during that and, and me asking all these questions, gets them liking me. Right. The same process happens between us. Yeah, Gissele: yeah, yeah, yeah. Larry: Smart. [00:24:00] and then before the show, I spend another, hour with them again over, it’s over video. I’ve never met these people in person, just repairing them for what’s going to happen, what my objectives are helping them understand that we’re going to start with conflict. It’s not where we’re going to go. Just really helping them understand the trajectory and answering their questions. And so they come in with some level of rapport. For me, it’s not like we know each other really well, so a lot of times it’s just us starting together. But they do trust me to some extent. There’s no, like, and you said, how do I get them to regulate? I don’t. there’s no preparation for that. It’s just that I, from so much experience with this, you know, thousands of conversations with people over the years, it’s easy to get a person to calm down, which is, you know, you just take a break from the other person to say, hold on a second, I’m gonna listen to you.[00:25:00] And then they calm down. And, those skills, you know, the whole, the whole identity confusion and the layout of the questions, that’s kind of my stuff. But the skills that I use are not mine. I’ve developed them over the years, but a lot of them come from nonviolent communication. Mm-hmm. And Marshall Rosenberg. And I got my first training in nonviolent communication probably 25 years ago. But I remember well the person’s saying, you’re moderating a conversation between, between two people. You prov you apply emergency first aid ’cause one person can’t, can’t hear. And you as the intermediate intermediary can apply that. And it, so it becomes quite easy, you know, with that thought in mind that I can heal in the moment, whatever’s going on. Gissele: Mm, mm-hmm. Beautiful. I wanna talk a little bit about the flipping side. ’cause I think it’s so, so important. Why do you get people to, with opposing [00:26:00] perspectives, to flip sides and then just reiterate the viewpoints from their perspective. I know sometimes it can be confusing to the people themselves, but why do you get them to flip sides? Larry: Yeah. So, so it might be helpful to view it through, you know, a real example. Let’s take. Eve and Nancy, which is, you know, a really powerful episode for your, wow. Your listeners who haven’t watched or heard any, any of these, Eve is a transgender woman. Fully transitioned. Nancy is what, what she called a gender fundamentalist wearing a MAGA hat. She comes in and she’s saying stuff like people who are trans belong in mental institutions. She tells Eve to her face that you’re a genetically modified man. Eve is saying, you know, you people don’t have empathy for other people. They’re really far apart. Let’s just say it’s not gone well. [00:27:00] Eve is very empathetic, however, you know, like she is unusually empathetic. And able to hear Nancy, and that is transforming for Nancy. I mean, I can’t express the degree to which Eve’s own nature and intention transformed this. You know, I helped, but it is an unbelievable example of me listening to you will transform you. And where I take them ultimately is I’m preparing them as they’re understanding each other for switching roles. Because what happens when we switch roles? I mean, my thought is that human beings can easily, you might, it might be weird to this, this point, but we, we often say you can walk in the shoes of another person. How is that even possible? If you, if you think about it, we, we have totally different upbringings, you know, how can you experience what another person experiences if we have totally different upbringings, [00:28:00] different philosophies. Like, how is that possible? And yet almost everybody can do it. And it’s because we have the same internal machinery, we have the same internal drives. We just have different ways of achieving them. And so if you can slowly build your understanding of a person’s history and their beliefs, like a belief might be that there’s Christ who is love and will save me. That’s a belief. If you identify the person’s history and their beliefs and you occupy that belief, you can understand why it’s important to them. If you have that be, why would that be? Well, it’s important to me now if I really believe that, because I wanna live forever. I can be with the people I love forever, I can help save other people. Like can there be anything more powerful than saving somebody’s soul? Like once you enter their belief, and the reason we’re able to do [00:29:00] that is because we are the same internally, we have the same desires. So the whole show is a buildup toward getting them to understand each other’s beliefs and experience and then occupy them. And once we do and we start advocating on the other person’s behalf, we become confused who we are. And that’s really powerful. Like, I don’t even know who I am and I’m doing this legitimately, like I’m totally advocating for you. I’m saying stuff you didn’t even say. Yeah. And then you are listening to me do that, and you’re blown away like you’ve never been heard so deeply. And particularly not by someone you consider an enemy. And so that is transforming. What I will say is that I use this process a lot in mediation. For a different reason. My mediations are not meant to repair relationships. This is meant to repair relationships my mediations are meant to solve issues. Gissele: Hmm. Larry: In, in this show, I [00:30:00] specifically tell them, you are not here to solve the issues. Like, how are they gonna solve the Palestine Israel issue? Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And it’s too big of a burden and no one’s gonna listen to them. Mm-hmm. The goal is to show the audience that people should not be enemies. That they’re the same people on the other side. That’s my goal. So I try to keep them away from solution seeking because they will be disappointed. People won’t listen to them and things could fall apart. And that’s, it’s not the point of the show. But what’s interesting is that in my mediations, I use this tool of having them switch identities to solve issues because once they do occupy the other person’s perspective fully, they are then. Solving the issue because they understand that an internal level, the other person and what drives them, and they have no resistance to that and they understand themselves. They already understand themselves. And so during that process, solutions emerge because [00:31:00] they’ve never been able to hold both perspectives at the same time. And I heard you say that when we were opening the show, I don’t remember what the context was about holding both perspectives at the same time. But you, you said that, that that’s something that you do. Yes. Gissele: So so when, when students are taught research or even like thinking about ethical considerations, right? When you’re doing research, you’ve gotta be able to hold differing perspectives, understand differing views, understand research that might invalidate your perspectives, right? And so if you come already into the conversation thinking that there’s a right way or there’s a right perspective, and I heard you say this in your TEDx talk, I think you were talking about like, we can only win if we defeat the other side. That perspective that there’s only one side, one perspective prevents us then from engaging in dialogue and holding opposing views. Larry: and the holding the opposing views for, in my mind is not an intellectual process. Like you might think that if I, if I list all the [00:32:00] desires and the goals on both and on a spreadsheet, then I’ll be able to solve it. No chance. Yeah. It’s not a conscious intellectual process. It’s when you get it both sides deeply without resistance that your subconscious produces solutions. So we don’t consciously produce solutions. And what I found is that that is the most powerful tool to bring people to solutions where they are themselves and the other person at the same time where both people are doing this and then one person just suggests something that never occurred to any of us. And it solves it. Gissele: Yeah. Yeah. Now, that doesn’t Larry: happen in, in the show because I’m specifically telling them not to seek solutions, but it does happen in mediation. Gissele: Hmm. Yeah. And What you’re doing is so fundamental too, sometimes it’s not even about finding a solution. Sometimes it’s even just about finding the humanity in each other. And that is such a great beginning. You know, people wanna solve war. Yeah, of course we all wanna [00:33:00] eliminate war, but sometimes there’s war within families with neighbors. So why are we worried about the larger war where we’re not even in able to engage and hold space for each other’s humanity within our homes? And so I think what you’re inviting people to do is, can we sit with each other in dialogue without the need to change each other, just with respect, which you’ve mentioned is fundamental, just with presence, just remembering each other’s humanity. And I think that’s all fundamental. Larry: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Gissele: Yeah. I wanted to also mention, you know, one of the things that I noticed in, the conversations is how you focus people on disarming, and one of the ways that you get them to disarm is to take their uniforms off. Can you talk about a little bit about how uniforms show up in these conversations? Larry: Yeah. Some people come with like a MAGA hat or a pin or bracelets or something like that, that show which side they’re on, and I don’t discourage that. You know, [00:34:00] it’s part of the process for the audience from my perspective, because at a certain point, if they do come that way, I ask ’em not to wear a shirt that they can’t take off, but they might wear a hat. And if they, when they do take that off, eventually when we, when we stop the argument, when we stop the debate portion and we enter into another. Portion of the discussion, you can see the effect on the other person. And you can even see the effect on the person who took like the most dramatic is Nancy. Gissele: Yep. Nancy is wearing a, that’s the one I was Larry: thinking. MAGA hat. Yeah. And then she puts on Nancy is is from Kenya and she puts on a Kenyan headdress because her hair is, that’s so beautiful. A little messed up from the hat. And she’s like, I’ll put this on. and I asked her like, wow, you look really happy when you have that on. And she’s like, yeah, this is my crown. And she is almost like a different person and you know, uniforms basically divide, I mean they announced to the other side [00:35:00] essentially. I don’t care about you whether consciously or not. it’s interpreted as I will defeat you at any cost. You just don’t matter. I am on this side and I will crush you. And, and when she took that off, you could really actually see the difference in her and in Eve. Gissele: Yeah, absolutely. It was truly transformative. ‘Cause I noticed that when she had the hat you can even see it in the body language. There was a big protection. And she use it as a protection in terms of like, well, my group but when she used her headdress, it was so beautiful and it was just more her, it was just her. It wasn’t all of these other people. When I think about, you know, the Holocaust and how people got into these roles. ’cause you know, in my class we talk about the vanity of evil, right? Like how people, some people were hairdressers and butchers before the Holocaust. They came, they did these roles, and then they went back to doing that after the war. And it’s like, how does that make sense? And, and to put a uniform on, to [00:36:00] put a role on and then fully accept it, like you said, creates that division, creates that separation between human beings. Whereas what you’re doing is you’re asking them to disarm and to go back to the essence of their own humanity, which I think is really powerful. But it was really interesting the whole discussion on, on uniforms, right? Larry: Yeah, yeah. it is one of the many ways we separate ourselves, that we separate ourselves, that we perceive ourselves as different than them, and that they view us as a threat. Gissele: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I heard you say that enemies are not enemies, it’s just us on the other side. What do you mean by that? Larry: I mean the ordinary people of the enemy. I believe enemy makers, if you can think of who you might consider an enemy maker. They are political leaders and they are media leaders. And they wouldn’t exist. They wouldn’t have any [00:37:00] power. People wouldn’t vote for them. People wouldn’t watch them if they didn’t create an enemy. If they didn’t foster the idea that there is an enemy. And the enemy has got to be broad. It can’t just be one person. It’s got to be a people that I’m fighting against. It’s gotta be a big threat. And so they paint people who are ordinary people on the other side as a threat. All the time. Yeah. and so that’s the, big lie at the center of it, that they’re a threat. And what happens is, there’s the psychological process that the, brain goes through. The mind goes through that where once we’re under threat, that’s a cascade that is exists in every human being. And that results in us going to war with the other side once we’re under threat. But this is an us choosing a leader. But this is a very fundamental basic process and [00:38:00] fundamental, basic lie that that autocrats and demagogues and people who just want power have been using forever with human beings, I imagine. And it’s extremely powerful. And so what I intend to show is that that is a lie. Gissele: Hmm. Larry: That is just not the truth because at the core of this psychological process is the thought that you’re a threat to me. And then this whole cascade happens internally for me. If I no longer believe you are a threat, the cascade unwinds and the power of the enemy maker unwins, it can all flip on that one lie. And so I want people to understand that ordinary people on the other side are just them. Like, I can’t tell you how many times people on the show are, are just like, holy cow. Yeah, I see myself in you. Like I, that’s exactly what I’m experiencing. And it’s revelatory for [00:39:00] them. Like how could that be? Like how could we be opposed to each other? This is crazy. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Gissele: And you know, it’s amazing how when we truly understand somebody’s reasons for believing what they do, their history, their beliefs, why they believe makes sense, right? Yeah. Like, I saw it a lot in children in care, in the child protection system. Their behaviors seem reallymisbehaved. they shut down. They, act out. in some cases, that’s how those kids survived, these abusive homes, right? And so to them they’re still always on survival mode. Yeah. Makes sense. That’s what helped them survive. And so you, when you understand the other person’s perspective makes sense. Yeah. And you know, as you were talking, I was thinking what is going on for those demagogues and those authoritarian people that believe that that’s the only way that they can get what they need. you mean the leaders themselves? The leaders themselves, like so powerful people, people that are in their power, feel, love, feel [00:40:00] fulfilled, don’t need to disempower others, they don’t. In fact, the more that you love yourself at least that has been my experience, the more I have compassion for myself, the more I love myself, the more I’m in that state, the less I wanna hurt other people. The more I care about other people actually. So what is going on for them? That they think that this is the only way to get their needs met? Larry: I’ve thought a lot about this, you know, because the goal of this show is to show that people aren’t enemies, but there are enemy makers. And to me they are the enemy. like of all of the rest of us, all of us who are just trying to exist in the world, who prefer a world where we’re working together, you know? Yeah. It’s these people on the extreme who are, who are basically consciously sucking the goodwill out of society that I couldn’t care less about that because they get power. So is there something different about them? Is there, I have a few conclusions. One is [00:41:00] that there are people who are different that, that they are born, you know, all of us are born with the same internal desires and almost all of us get pleasure from seeing other people happy. That’s just born into us. Like, you know, almost everyone who’s an activist who comes onto the show, everyone actually is doing it because they want to other people to be happy. They, they don’t want people to experience the same pain that they’ve been in their life, but there are people who are born without or have extremely dialed down the pleasure that they get, the happiness that they get from seeing other people happy and healed. It’s not that the rest of us always want to see other people happy, but it, it’s one of our greatest sources of pleasure. There are people who are born without that. We call them sociopaths, Some leaders are sociopaths. They, don’t, I believe, obtain pleasure from other people’s happiness and they’re able to manipulate us quite often very well. And it’s these people who in peace time, [00:42:00] we wouldn’t even sit next to, we wouldn’t invite them over for Thanksgiving. Those are the people we choose, that it’s, it Gissele: doesn’t make biological sense. Larry: Well, they’re the people we choose when we’re at war, they are the people we choose. So, so think about this, okay? There is a virus, and the virus will kill 95% of human beings. And you have a leader who says there’s someone in power who says, we understand that people who are infected are going to infect other people, that as a society, we need to euthanize them. We actually need to do that as a society to save other people. Mm-hmm. There might be a leader who is empathetic, who says, I can’t do that. That, that feels wrong to me. almost all of us turn to the someone else who is a tyrant. Gissele: Who’s willing to do [00:43:00] what needs to be done to save us, right, exactly. Larry: To defeat evil, to kill, you know, when there’s a big enough threat, we will turn to the tyrant. And so people who are sociopaths and who in normal society would be rejected as a person who’s extremely dangerous, are the very people we turn to in times of war, when evil needs to be defeated. And so if you’re a sociopath and you want power, there’s no other way to power, you’re not going to follow the route of cooperation. You’re not going to follow the route of, you know, building alliance with the other side. You’re, if it, you’ll go the route of creating an enemy. And so that’s what we’ve, we’ve found. In our society, there are people who rise to power, who are the very people we would want nothing to do with in peace time. And that [00:44:00] people turn to, because they believe the other side is an enemy. They believe they are the virus that will kill 95% of people. So you can think of any leader and you might say, how could people follow this person? How could they possibly, what kind of evil is in people that they would follow this person, given what this person is doing? And the answer is obvious. They’ve been convinced that the other side is evil. Gissele: Yeah. Larry: And they truly, truly believe it. Gissele: This makes me think Hitler would’ve been a lone nut if 10 million people hadn’t followed him. Right? Larry: Right. And they believed, right. Gissele: They believed, I Speaker 4: mean. Larry: That, that Jews were, were incredible danger. They also ignored it and, you know, wanted to get along in society and, and be with the people they cared about. But, they truly believed that Jews were evil. Yeah. And if you, if you can convince them of that, you can lead a people. Gissele: Yeah. So the, it goes to the [00:45:00] question of like the reflexivity, like, so what is people’s own responsibility to constantly examine their own biases, beliefs, and viewpoints? Right. I gotta applaud the people that are on your show because they have to be willing to engage in a dialogue. So there’s an element of them that is willing to be wrong, right? or willing to kind of engage in that perspective. And we struggle so much. Yeah, with being wrong, like the mind always wants to be, right. We want to be on the side of good. And that’s one of the things that I was so reflecting on, I think I was listening to the conversation with, proud Boy, and the, in the progressive. The, yeah, progressive And that’s one of the episodes, by the way, for people. Yeah. That’s one of the episodes. And, and I, I love the follow up by the way. That was also amazing. It’s so funny because I was like, oh, is there a follow up? And I were like, went to search for it. Just to see how both sides feel that they’re right. And on the side of good, on the side of like positive for humanity, I think was really puzzling to me we have different ways [00:46:00] of getting there. You know, the people that for Trump really truly believe that some of the stuff he’s doing is very beneficial. The people that are against, they truly believe that what he’s doing is horrible. And to see those perspectives that at the core of it is a love or a care about humanity was really kind of mind blowing. Larry: Yeah, that is mind blowing. Gissele: Yeah, Larry: it is mind blowing. And what is infuriating to me is that we are manipulated to not pair with these other people because then these leaders would lose their power, you know, it’s a huge manipulation. Gissele: So this is why it’s up to each of us to do that work, to do the coming together, the engaging in the conversation, even though sometimes it feels difficult. And, having a willingness to listen And that’s the thing, that’s the thing about your beautiful show, which is like, you don’t have to agree at the end. You just have to see each other’s humanity, right? to let go of enemies, let go, to let Larry: go of that we have to agree that’s a real problem for me as well. Like when I get into a conversation with someone, [00:47:00] it’s like, how do we conclude the conversation if we don’t agree? It’s almost like it’s, it’s a forced imperative that is a mistake. Like that’s the point of the conversation. Yeah. for the most part, let go of that because I see now that that was just a mistake. Like we never had to agree. Gissele: Yeah. I so let’s talk about then, since we’re talking about disagreement, let’s talk about censorship, So because of the class that I teach, because I want them to understand different perspectives. One of the things I say in these papers is like, look, you can be pro-choice or pro-life. You can be pro Trump or against, I’m not judging you. That doesn’t matter. The exercise is to view the other side. That’s it, right? But it’s amazing how some of these dialogues in institutions have been diminished because there’s the belief that if we have these conversations, we’re supporting it, right? But the truth of the matter is that dialogue goes underground. It doesn’t disappear. It [00:48:00] doesn’t mean like, oh, everybody now believes this. It just goes covert, right? And these dialogues about these opposing perspectives are happening. And so I think I’d rather have these conversations up. And so that we can engage in dialogue and see what people are believing. I mean, there’s this undercurrent of racism, it seems, from my perspective, it it that that has existed for such a long time. It used to exist very, like visually in terms of slavery, but now there is still underground racism, right? Like it’s covert people may be able to vocalize the importance of diversity, but some people don’t believe it. So let’s talk about it rather than kind of like try to get those people to disappear and pretend it’s not there. What are your thoughts? Larry: Yeah. You know, there’s been a criticism that comes from the left a lot on the show, from people, from in comments is that we platformed bad guys. Like, you should not, you should not be giving a [00:49:00] stage to a proud boy. Well, if you listen to the Proud Boy’s perspective, this guy is like completely reasonable. He, he, you know, from people on the left, they’re even confused that he’s a proud boy. I think he might be confused about why he is a proud boy, I’m not sure. but he’s completely reasonable. So to, to just reflexively reject this person. He’s not there to represent the proud boys. He’s there to represent himself and to reflexively reject this person is to miss out on really a, a beautiful person and an interesting perspective. I’ve given a lot of thought to the criticism, however, because there’s a guy I’m considering having on the show who is a self-described fascist, a white supremacist, and I’ve had conversations with him and it is amazing how. The reason he is a white supremacist is he truly believes that white people are in danger and that he will be rejected. There will be no opportunities for them, and that he [00:50:00] is possibly in physical danger. He truly believes this. And if I believe that, you know I might do the same thing. And, I had a three hour interview with him where I really liked him, but I’m probably not gonna put him on the show. And, I’ve really thought a lot about whether to platform people and, I’ve kind of developed my own philosophy on whether it’s worth whether I should be airing viewpoints or not. And my thought is that a bridge goes both ways. So I can build a bridge where I walk him back. I am confident that I can have someone hear him out and him develop a relationship with them where he then becomes less extreme in his viewpoints. Gissele: I was gonna say, I think you should have him on the show. here’s is my perspective. Okay? Again, this is so similar to what Darrell David said, right? his intent wasn’t to change. It was to [00:51:00] understand, I think if we understood why people were afraid of us or hated, I’m Latino, by the way, right? We understood then we, can have the dialogue. The thing is like. People are giving like a one-sided propaganda. And it’s true, like if you actually hear the rhetoric of many separate groups is the fear of the other. Even though when you look at the population stats, right, even in the US black people make up 4%. Indigenous people make up 2% of the population. Like I think white people make up 57% of the population of the US and it’s higher in Canada. But it’s the fears, even though they might not be based on reality. That’s the rhetoric that these groups use. They use the rhetoric of we’re in danger, that these people are out to get us to destroy us. Thatsomehow it’s better for us to be isolated and separated. And they use the rhetoric of belonging. They use the rhetoric of love. They [00:52:00] use a co-opt it I don’t even think it’s rhetoric Larry: for them. It’s truth for them. Okay, Gissele: thank you. Yeah, so if you have people who are engaging in those different dialogues, like Darrell did, people don’t understand why they believe that the way that they do. Right? Because, because it’s real. Right? Now that rhetoric is happening, whether people wanna face it or not, that’s the problem. So Larry: I you completely, and when I first started this, I said to myself, there’s no question that I’m gonna have a Nazi on the show. There’s no question. But as I’ve thought about the critique that’s been offered, I’ve kind of drawn a line for myself at least present. And, and that’s fair. but I’ll tell you why I haven’t, I haven’t said why yet, which is A bridge goes both ways and, while I believe it’s really important to hear people, them out, because you walk people on both sides back from the extreme, toward the majority when you hear them out because they don’t see people as a threat anymore. As much. [00:53:00] What happens is by building the bridge, you provide an opportunity for many people to walk out toward them. When you give them an opportunity to hear, hear them out publicly, and my thought is that I will hear anybody out who has a large following because they already are being heard. Mm-hmm. They already have people walking out to them, and my goal is to bring them toward the rest of us so that we can function as a society. Mm-hmm. But I’m not gonna hear somebody who’s 0.1%, who’s because. Mm-hmm. Gissele: Okay. Larry: I understand me walk because they’re, I can walk them back, but maybe I walk 20 people out to them. Gissele: And it creates Larry: a bigger problem. And so, in my own view it’s about how big their following is already. Mm. Even though, yes, it’s, we can walk them back by hearing them. Gissele: Mm. Yeah. So, yeah. It’s, [00:54:00] it’s so interesting. I was just thinking about Deeyah Khan And Darryl David’s the same. And one of the things I noticed about their work is that, and I noticed it in yours too, is sometimes what happens in these sort of circumstances is that the people that they are exposed to might become the exception to the rule. Have you heard of the, the exception to the rule? So let’s say I meet someone who’s anti-Latino, but they’re like, but then they like me. And so they’ll do, like, you are all right. Speaker 4: Yeah. Gissele: I still don’t like other Latinos. Right. And so in the beginning that used to irk me so much. Right? Then I realized after watching all of this, information and I observed it in your show and I thought about it, is that’s the beginning of re humanization. Larry: I agree with that. It’s like it’s a dial, it’s not a switch. Yeah. Gissele: Yes. And so it begins with, oh, this is the exception to the rule, and then this next person’s the exception to the rule, and then this next person, and then, then the brain can’t handle it. Like how many exceptions to the rule can there [00:55:00] be? They couldn’t hold the exception to the rule anymore. Right. It had to be that their belief was wrong Right. Which is, it’s really interesting. And, and Larry: it’s another, another interesting thing I often say, which I get negative feedback about this statement that we don’t choose our beliefs. we don’t have any power over them. They just exist. Mm-hmm. And we can’t choose. Not if I think that. A certain race is dangerous to me. I can’t just choose not to. You can call me racist, whatever. I just can’t choose my thought about it. I have an experience. People have told me things. That’s my belief. That belief gets eroded. It doesn’t get changed. Gissele: Mm-hmm. It, Larry: it happens not consciously. Life experiences change our beliefs, we don’t just suddenly love white people. if we’ve experienced, brutality from white people or from white cops, you don’t just change your belief about it. You have to get, you have to slowly be [00:56:00] exposed. You have to, or be deeply exposed. so these types of things erode our other beliefs. Gissele: Mm-hmm. Larry: And, and my goal is not, you know, like Nancy came in, I would say as a nine or a 10 with her. Dislike for trans people when she left. Just to be clear, ’cause people I think are mistaken about this, who watch this show, she does not think still that trans people should be around kids. She still thinks it’s dangerous, but she thinks trans people themselves are okay. That they can be beautiful, that they do not belong in mental institutions. And as she said, I would drink outta the same glass from you Eve and I would protect you. So she went from a 10 to a seven, let’s say? Yeah. Gissele: Yeah. Larry: And she’s still out there. She still there. She used the word Gissele: she. Larry: Mm-hmm. Yeah. She used the word SHE and she’s still out there advocating for keeping trans people away from kids. and [00:57:00] people are like, so she’s a hypocrite. She’s, no, she has moved so far and. Eve moved toward, I shouldn’t paint Nancy as the wrong one. Eve moved toward Nancy understanding that Nancy really is worried about kids, and Nancy brought up some things that really concerned Eve when she heard it, about the exposure that kids have to various concepts. I guess my point is that people who get dialed down from a 10 to a six or a seven can deal with each other. They can run a society together. Mm-hmm. They don’t, they don’t invest all of their energy in defeating the other side, which is where all of our energy is now. I call it issues zero. You care about climate change, or you care about poverty, you care about mass migration, you care about nuclear per proliferation, you care about ai. Forget it. None of these are getting solved. Zero. Yeah. Unless we learn to cooperate with each other, and if [00:58:00] we’re dedicating all of our energy to defeating the other side, every single one of these issues goes unaddressed. And so my goal is to dial the vitriol down so that we can actually solve some human problems so that the next generation doesn’t inherit this mess that we’ve created. Gissele: Mm-hmm. You once said, I, I may be misquoting you, so please correct me. Revenge is a need for understanding. Can you explain that further? Larry: Yeah. I said that in in my TEDx, mm-hmm. if someone has been hurt by another person, they often seek revenge. And that desire for revenge will go away actually when they’re understood. If you’re under and you deny that you want to be understood by your enemy. You’d say like, that is baloney. they deserve to be punished and they need to be punished to provide disincentive for other people in society so that they don’t do this terrible thing. People [00:59:00] would deny that they want understanding from their enemy, but when they receive it, the desire for revenge goes away. I mean, I’ve seen that innumerable times. So how does the need for understanding help us live beyond the need to punish one another? Well, I think that if someone’s seeking revenge against you, if someone’s trying to injure you, you can unravel that by understanding them, whether we, people agree that that human beings seek revenge as a need or not, you can unravel it pretty, not easily, but you can pretty reliably. Very often people who seek revenge against each other, like in my mediations, once they’re understood by the other person, once they have some connection, They go through some kind of healing process with the other person. They don’t even understand why they were seeking revenge themselves, like they are [01:00:00] completely transformed. they were like, that would be a total travesty of justice if you were hurt Now. Gissele: Yeah. I love the fact that these conversations get at the core of human needs, which is they need to be seen, they need to be understood, they need to be loved, they need to be accepted, they need to be long. And so I think these conversations that you’re facilitating get to those needs, you kind of like go through all of the, the fluff to get to the, okay, what are the needs that need to be met? and how can we connect to one another through those needs? And then, and then from that, you go back to the conversation on the topic. And really it’s about fears at the core of it, right? Like the fear that my children are gonna be confused or forced into something or, the fear that somebody’s gonna have a say over my body and tell me that I have to do something. All of those fears are at the core and conversations get at those needs, not at the surface. Yeah. It’s not to say Larry: I should say that. It’s not to say that the fears are irrational. Yeah. They might be rational. But you know, it’s also a [01:01:00] self-fulfilling prophecy that if we fear somebody, they’re going to think of us as a threat. We’re gonna do stuff that creates the world that we fear. And it’s obvious with certain issues like between two peoples. You know, like if you fear that the other people are going to attack you, you might preemptively attack them or you might treat them in a, in a way that is really bad. And, and so you start this war and that happens between human beings on an individual basis and between peoples, yeah. It’s less obvious, with an issue, let’s say abortion. my fear is not creating the issue on the other side. but many of our interactions with other human beings, it is our fear that triggers them. We create the world we fear. Gissele: Yeah. And I think that goes back to the self-responsibility, right? to what extent are we responsible for looking at ourselves, looking at our biases, looking at our prejudice, looking at our fear and how our [01:02:00] fear is causing us to hurt other people. What responsibility do we have to engage in dialogue or be willing to see somebody’s humanity, right? It’s Larry: just this better strategy. Even if you think of it as, yeah, you know, people sometimes say these two sides. I get this criticism a lot, and this, by the way, these criticisms come from the left mostly that these two sides are not, are not Equivalent. Oh, okay. how could you equate Nancy and Eve, Eve just wants to live. Nancy’s trying to control her, the left views, the right is trying to control them and oppress them and so they’re not moral equivalent. And my point is always, I’m not making a point that they’re morally equivalent. That’s for you to decide, okay? If you want to. I’m saying morally judging them is not effective. It’s just not gonna produce the world that you want. So, you know, it’s just really effective [01:03:00] to hear them out, to take their concerns seriously, even if you think that it’s not fair. But you’ll then create the world you want. And if you don’t do that, if you poo poo them, even if they’re wrong, you believe they’re completely wrong, and you think that mm-hmm you know, there is good and evil and they are completely the evil one, you are going to exacerbate their evil by morally rebuking them. And I want to say that like as clearly as possible, I haven’t made this point e enough on the show. I’m really kind of building a base before I go into more sophisticated, what I would consider a more nuanced. Philosophy, but if you judge somebody, it is the greatest threat to a human being. Just understand that we evolved in groups and moral judgment was the way we got kicked out of groups. If you were a bad person, you were gone, you were dead. [01:04:00] And so all of us respond very, very negatively to being judged as selfish. I’ve had clients threaten to kill each other. Not as powerful

In this monologue, Kushal talks about the trend of competitive bigotry in India. Whether it is Bajrang Dal goons attacking Christmas celebration or Islamists pelting stones at Hindu processions or Christians trying to convert Hindus using fraudulent methods India has a system where politicians encourage bigots for votes. Is competitive bigotry a solution? #bajrangdal #christmas #islamism ---------------------------------------------------------- Listen to the podcasts on: SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/kushal-mehra-99891819 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1rVcDV3upgVurMVW1wwoBp Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-c%C4%81rv%C4%81ka-podcast/id1445348369 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-carvaka-podcast ------------------------------------------------------------ Support The Cārvāka Podcast: Buy Kushal's Book: https://amzn.in/d/58cY4dU Become a Member on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKPx... Become a Member on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/carvaka UPI: kushalmehra@icici Interac Canada: kushalmehra81@gmail.com To buy The Carvaka Podcast Exclusive Merch please visit: http://kushalmehra.com/shop ------------------------------------------------------------ Follow Kushal: Twitter: https://twitter.com/kushal_mehra?ref_... Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KushalMehraO... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarvakap... Koo: https://www.kooapp.com/profile/kushal... Inquiries: https://kushalmehra.com/ Feedback: kushalmehra81@gmail.com

Humayun Kabir for Mamata न उगलते  बने न निगलते | Babari is a Trigger for Hindus Too | WB Theatre

On this episode, Razib talks to Vishal Ganesan and Anang Mittal, two Indian-American Hindus who have been thinking about the role of their faith in the present, and past, of the American social landscape. Ganesan is a California-based attorney and writer who focuses on the history, identity, and representation of the Hindu diaspora in the United States. He is best known for his project "Hindoo History" and his writing on the "Frontier Dharma" platform, which attempts to conceptualize what an American, as opposed to Indian, "Hinduism" might look like. Anang Mittal is a DC-based political communications professional who recently worked for Senator Mitch McConnell. Mittal grew up in India before moving to the US at a young age about 25 years ago. Ganesan, in contrast, was born to an earlier generation of Indian immigrants to the US. He grew up north of Austin, TX. Though their perspectives differ, they both believe that Hinduism and Indian-American identity cannot simply be ported over with no changes into the American cultural landscape. The conversation is centered on two essays, Ganesan's The Meaning and Limits of "Hinduphobia" Discourse in the Diaspora and Mittal's What Hindu Americans Must Build. While Ganesan explores and articulates what it means to be Indian-American and Hindu today in America, and what might mean in the future, Mittal's argument is framed by a deep understanding of American history and how Hindus fit into the bigger arc of history. Razib, Ganesan and Mittal discuss the past, present, and potential future of Hindus and Indians, two separate categories, in America over the course of two hours. Their discussion was triggered by the online controversy over the fact that Vice President J. D. Vance's wife is a Hindu, and he has encouraged her to convert to his Roman Catholic religion (in which their children are being raised). But the discussion extends far beyond matters of contemporary politics, probing what it means to be American, and what it could mean to be a Hindu.

In this episode HAF Board Member psychologist Dr Kavita Pallod Sekhsaria and HAF Executive Director Suhag Shukla have a wide ranging discussion about parenting as Hindus, the book Bad Therapy, how we can raise resilient children, the differences in parenting across the generations, and more.This show was originally published on September 5, 2024 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode 2692 - High energy must listen Ted goes off the chain with a total rant for thirty minutes. Covers smart dust, transhumanism and the control grid. Ted names names and tell all of us who has done this. Samuel Untermeyer and Woodrow Wilson discussed in detail. President Kennedy discussed in detail. Main stream churches are discussed in detail. Including the Christians, Jews, Hindus and the Buddhists. Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove and secret societies discussed. Tell puts the blame where it falls. Incredible high energy must listen Rant Trying to take guns from Florida residents goes full tilt.. Green show