Derek and Amy – Job situation with Derek, childhood problems with Amy, Piper’s health

Jacob and Traci – Praise the Lord for her growth regarding her anxiety. Pray for family and job issues.

Aaron and Natalie – pray for ministry direction and being good parents to Zoey

Trevor – Ongoing conversations with different Mormons and Bahai. Thankful for opportunity to have spoken to a class at CCU.

Jon and Gloria – different issues with kids and grandkids. Preaching next week at Church of the Risen Savior (get better Dennis!)

Mark – still dealing with loss of Rose and own health problems. Pray for kids and grandkids.

Rita – pray for parents and family. Had great meeting with a JW. Pray for financial support.

Jim and Barb – some very interesting campus conversations. Pray for more!

Jay and Dianne – ongoing meetings at the jail and with many others. Pray for so many they are talking to.

Bill and Terri – Terri’s health situation is still a problem. Pray for parents, kids and grandkids. Pray for Bill’s classes and the witness there. Pray for our going to the Colorado Springs Body Mind Spirit fair Saturday October 8th.

I am not foolish enough to think that any comments from the great unwashed peanut gallery will mean anything to either of you, given your status as CEOs of billion-dollar corporations. This is more of a plea to any semblance of a conscience that you might have regarding your business dealings with the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. 
It is all over the internet regarding the CCP’s enslavement, torture and forced indoctrination camps for the Uighurs.  I am no friend of Islam in any of its variations, but since all people are made in the Image of God, they are all deserving of what Thomas Jefferson called “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Or perhaps as the Jewish philosopher Levinas states “the presence of the human face demands an ethical response”. Long before the Uighur persecution, came the horrific treatment of opposing Qi Gong groups such as the Falun Gong cult. I am no friend of their particular faith as well, but they as human beings made in the image of God, deserved better. Before that the slaughter of the student protestors at the Tiananmen Square massacre, now being scrubbed from Chinese history and probably our history as well, was done by the same CCP. And when I was a child, Mao’s “Great Leap forward” killed as many as 40-60 million people of the Chinese population, depending on which source you read.  The common denominator in these public, and probably many more private nightmares, is in fact the very political dictatorship that you find yourselves so profitably connected to. 
I have had the privilege of teaching philosophy and ethics and comparative religions for many years here in the Denver area and sometimes in around the country and even in other countries. Only in the worst possible position is it to be maintained that partnering with dictatorships is in some way “ethical”. Even solidly atheistic ethical theories such as emotivism, or egoism, find themselves hard pressed to defend the practices of the CCP. Forced organ transplants from political prisoners, imprisonment of the entire population now of Hong Kong and of course the perpetual threats against the people of Taiwan, merely add to the dubious content of your business partner’s resume.
Please tell us in good conscience how none of this bothers you?  Please tell us, other than the obvious motive of making billions of dollars off slave labor, what possible goods or values you are in the business of creating? I have no problem with your corporation making as much money as they can. I am just wondering if there is any horror story emanating from your partner, where you would finally say “enough”? 
In the movie “Schindler’s List” the story is told of a businessman, Oskar Schindler, who was a member of the Socialist party of Nazi Germany. As a collaborator with the government, he made millions of Francs using the slave labor of Jews provided to him by the government. The right palms were greased and presto the government officials made money, Oskar made money and of course the Jews were worked until they were no longer useful, and then they were just killed. 
The great joy of the story was the development of the conscience of Oskar Schindler. Like the Grinch of Dr Seuss fame, his heart grew, and he realized, in Levinasian terms perhaps, that these slaves were in fact people. They had a face. They were made in the image of God. He repented of his evil and spent his fortune bribing the same Nazi officials to keep over 1000 Jews alive, hence “the List” or “Arc” from the novel. 
Or perhaps you have maybe heard the story of William Wilberforce. Born into wealth and being a member of Parliament, he spent most of his adult life in Parliament advocating for the end of the English component of the horrific African slave trade. Under the tutelage of John Newton, former slaver, now Pastor and author of the famous song “Amazing Grace”, Wilberforce used a tactic of inviting pro slave MPs to dine with him by the Thames River. A horrible stench would arise as a dark ship drew closer and closer to the dock where they were having their tea. When the ship docked Wilberforce would take the MPs on board the slaver ship where they met several freed slaves and saw the beyond horrific conditions that their support for the slave trade had perpetuated.  William was blessed by the Lord to see Parliament outlaw the slave trade shortly before they died.
I am inviting you to look beyond your profits and see the slaves in China as people with a face, with the image of God deeply embossed upon and in them. I am hoping and praying that you will have a Schindler awakening, by God’s grace, and see the slaves as people who need your support and not your collaboration with the evil slave masters. Levinas saw the slaughter of his family in the Shoah or Holocaust and asked if perhaps ethics (which had died in German scholarship led by Nazis like Martin Heidegger) if perhaps after the deaths of over 50 million people in WW2, if ethics should no longer be treated as the red-haired stepchild of philosophy, but instead the first component of our philosophical studies. (“Ethics as First Philosophy”) As the Jewish and Christian faith tells us, all human beings are made in the Image of God. As philosophy on its better days can attest, we have a moral obligation to treat others as equals to ourselves who possess their own ends! “Ends in themselves” as Kant would argue. 
Your friend President Obama often spoke of the goal of “being on the right side of history”. We now look back at Wilberforce and Schindler as people who are in fact on the right side of history as it were. Please consider what side of history you both wish to be remembered for. There were thousands of companies whom we have forgotten because they collaborated with the slave trade of England, and the Shoah of Nazi Germany.  We remember and find praiseworthy both Wilberforce and Schindler precisely because they stood for the rights of their fellow human beings to be free and to have their own meaningful lives before the Lord.
Please, please, please give us the opportunity to see a great sea change in your business practices and lives! I would love to thank God for the changes that are possible and tell my grandchildren (13 so far!) how yall saw the suffering populace of China, not in terms of potential profit margins, but in terms of people who need the help of companies from the western world.
In addition, if you are looking for a place to settle your businesses after you pull away from the nightmare of the CCP, might I suggest building your factories in the Philippines. They send people all over the world to work, because there is virtually no industrialization in the country. The former dictator Marcus enriched himself for over forty years and did not invest the USA’s money into a country that could have become an economic power such as South Korea, or Singapore or even Hong Kong before it was brutally subjegated by your business partners. There are millions of people in the Philippines who desperately need jobs and you would find a very welcoming and friendly community and though your profit margins may not be as good, you would stand before the world and know that you have done a good and godly thing.
This is my invitation. The Lord Jesus tells us that even evil people know how to give good gifts to their children. We all stand in need of the Savior, who died for my sins as well as yours. I am not petitioning you as your moral better or any nonsense like that. I am a sinner who found forgiveness thru the cross and now am called to try and bring reconciliation to a broken world. I invite you both to consider the cross of Jesus and the works of your own hands. I am praying for yall in both these considerations.

Respectively

Bill Honsberger
Honz1@msn.com

October Prayer Requests

 
HAVEN STAFF MEETING October 24, 2020
 
Jon and Gloria – Pray that their next court hearing brings about a dismissal!  Both are doing better now!
 
Jim and Barb – would like prayer for my one remaining sibling, my sister Bessie and her husband Paul and their two daughters and their four children.  Believe it or not when you get to be 73 years old your nieces and nephews are in their fifties!!!  And their children are out of college and working for a living.  
 
No one on my side of the family is a Christian although some have tried going to church and have had bad experiences with church folks.
 
Pray also for my contacts on campus and on street malls.  I went to CU Boulder today and had four conversations within an hour.  Not many students on campus and that was good.  When they run in a big crowd they are not as likely to stop and talk.
 
That’s it.  Thanks.   Jim Choury
 
Derek and Amy – Derek’s job, kids health. And also I am meeting with the sister missionaries and could use prayer for that! D and the kids health doesn’t need to go on the website, but my time with the missionaries can!
 
Mark and Rose – Rose’s little brother Johny died recently.  Mark and Rose have Covid.  Pray lots!!!
 
Aaron – Pray for school and church issues and the people they talked to at the psychic fair last week!
 
Rita – Needs a new place to live – needs more support.
              PRIVATE – Salvation for family members.
 
Jacob and Traci – Baby Hezekiah is here!!!  Everyone is healthy but Jacob!!!
 
Stephanie – pray for her health and schooling.
 
Jonathan and Carrie – New job situation.  Health for some family members.
 
Trevor – Pray for the Mormons and Bahai he is talking to!
 
Jay and Dianne – Here are the prayer requests for salvation:
 
Chuck the Catholic
 Terrance, a neighbor
 Ann, a gym buddy
Anna and Raya, Bible reading
Bill and Terri – Pray for some ongoing health issues for both of us.  Bill has an important doctor appt Monday morning. Pray for Jon who is in jail and facing major prison time. Pray for salvation for my family, Mormon Ethan, atheist Ben and new ager Michael  - that I am talking to them all the time. Pray for the family of a dear friend of Mark and I – William Watson – long time professor at CCU died suddenly on Thursday.  Completely unexpected on our part – but again our Father knows us all and knows when we will all come home to Him. But pray for their family please.
 
 

We are told that one of the oldest cultures in the world produced the oldest
religion in the world. Or maybe it didn’t? The Mesopotamian region, which later
becomes the heart of the Persian Empire (modern Iran), is the birthplace of the
religion of Zarathustra (Zoroaster in Greek) or Zoroastrianism as it is commonly
called. Scholars are completely divided on the time frame for Zarathustra. Some
place him between 1500-1100 BC while the only evidence not based on supposition
places him in the 7" century (630 B.C.). It seems that a big part of the controversy is
contingent on how committed one is to showing that Zoroastrianism was
instrumental in shaping incipient Judaism and later Christianity. Those with the
older date see the Persian prophet as the earliest Monotheistic religion, who
introduced the concepts of Heaven and Hell, a physical resurrection and other
doctrines, which later become a part of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Those with
the earlier date have more historical data on their side. Either way it is clear that
Zarathustra did teach a unique form of monotheism, although not in the sense that
Judaism, Christianity and Islam taught.

Most of what we know about the early stages of the religion is based on
supposed oral tradition and not reliable. What we do have as documentation from
other sources gives us a time frame somewhat similar to the Renouncer age of India,
which produced both Gautama Buddha and the Jains. (6 century B.C.) .

The Aryans of Persia had invaded the northern part of India prior to 1200 B.C and

the language and religious practices of both areas are quite similar. Zarathustra’s
“monotheism” was a huge influence on or was influenced by Darius and other rulers
during the Achaemenid reign of Persia. The priests of the religion at the time were
called the Magi. Cyrus IJ later suppressed them and that period of history shows a
uneven acceptance and major differences between the religion and the rulers.

Zarathustra was a priest in a culture that was committed to paganism. There
were innumerable deities for every conceivable natural phenomenon. In the midst
of this Zarathustra taught a single deity as all -powerful creator of the universe. This
being he called Ahura Mazda. A theological controversy developed over time as
Ahura Mazda was seen by some as the chief of all other deities, which included the
Amesha Spentas (Bounteous Immortals), which later are included in the nature of
Ahura Mazda as characteristics or attributes of his deity. The other creatures, which
were not ultimate but yet still worthy of worship were the Yazatas - which are often
perceived as angels. Another persistent issue is the notion of dualism within the
deity. Early outside reports talked about the dualism of the religion with Ahura
Mazda as the good God who is opposed by Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, who is evil
personified. Both are seen as eternal and many believe this dualism laid the
foundation for the later development of Manichaeism.

Another key point in development was the invasion of Persia by the Muslims
in the 7‘ century A.D. Through the sharia/dhimmitude process, the majority of the
Zoroastrians were either converted or killed. A large group of them went to India
(the Parsis) and this has been the center of the Zoroastrian world through the years.
While maintaining a presence in their ancient home, it can be seen that the more

rigid monotheism of Islam has influenced the Zoroastrian monotheism and the
deities started a slow process of dropping out of the limelight. However ideas like
reincarnation and other more overtly Hindu ideas have become a part of the religion
for some of the believers.

Zoroastrians have some unique identifying ideas and symbols. There are
numerous fire temples, which are sacred, and only the believers are allowed access
to them The priest’s role is to keep the flames lit at all times and recite prayers,
hymns and mantras to invoke Ahura Mazda’s blessing. The believer will wear a
“kusti” or cord, which has been knotted three times. The knots symbolize and
remind the believer of “Good Words, Good Thoughts and Good Deeds”. The believer
also wears a “Kadre” a sacred garment on the upper body. Since the creation of
Ahura Mazda was first spiritual and then material, the elements are seen as sacred
and should not be violated. The Towers of Silence, which are used in deposing of
dead bodies, symbolize this. The body is full of evil and disease, so to put it in the
earth pollutes Ahura Mazda’s creation. The same is seen with burning the body. So
the body is exposed and left to the ravages of animals and the weather. This is done in the Tower so that the whole process will be seen as sacred.

The scriptures of Zoroastrianism are collectively called the Avesta (Book of
the Law). The primary section is the Yasna, which includes the Gathas, which are
considered to be the only section actually written by Zarathustra himself. The
Gathas are primarily hymns and liturgical readings. The other sections are the
Yashts, which are hymns to the various deities, the Vendidad which contain a

description of the evil deities and other additional collects, the Visparad, Nyaishes,
Siroze and Afringas. Many scholars believe that the current Avesta is perhaps only
one fourth of the actual writings, with much of the ancient works destroyed by
Alexander’s army and later by the Muslim colonizers. The Avestan language of most
of the texts is considered a holy language, and the Pahlavi or Middle era Persian
language was used for some of the later writings. The oldest manuscripts extant of the Avesta are dated 1288 A.D.

As mentioned in the development section, this is not a simple question.
Zoroastrians today will argue that theirs is the original monotheistic religion. Many
will point to a non-Zoroastrian scholar like Boyce, who has helped shape, their own
self-identity. But the evidence for an evolutionary development of the
understanding of who or what God is in the Zoroastrian faith is compelling. Like
most cultures in the world, Zoroaster was a priest in a pagan culture, similar to that
of their Vedic neighbors in India. Nature was a panoply of gods, representing
virtually everything that is, both objects in the universe and or concepts. Zoroaster
had a vision given by Ahura Mazda of the true nature of the universe, that there is
one Supreme God who created all things. But like their Hindu neighbors the
monotheism of early Zoroastrian thought was seeing Ahura Mazda as the Supreme
of all the different gods, which one could also see in Greek mythology and elsewhere
as well. The Amesha Spentas are seen as stand alone beings and represent differing
aspects of creation:

Vohu Manah - Good thought - connected to animals

Asha Vahisthta - Justice and Truth - fire and energy
Kshathra - Dominion - Metal and minerals

Spenta Armaiti - Devotion and Serenity - the earth and land
Haurvatat - Wholeness - waters

Ameretat - Immortality - plants

Spentu Mainyu - Creative Energy - humans.

Later on the Seven, which are opposed by evil and destructive spirits,
become incorporated as part of Ahura Mazda’s own attributes, but many today
would think of them as something like “archangels”. The dualism of God is also a
debatable point. Many think of Zoroastrianism as two evil “twins” both born of
Ahura Mazda - Spenta Mainyus as the good force and Angra Mainyu as the evil force.
These spirits are either the cause of ethical dualism in the heart and minds of human
beings or they are the cause of cosmic dualism in the universe. The Zoroastrian
community seems divided historically. Are the “twins” just aspects of God? Are
there really two identically powerful but polarized spirits at war in the universe and
or the human heart? The Gathas can support both. Early writings show an
antipathy between the daevas (the Sanskrit word for the gods of India) and the
Ahuras. But because of normal human syncretistic tendencies some of the gods can
be seen in both. In short the majority of Zoroastrians will say that Ahura Mazda is
the one ultimate God - but the historical reality seems to lean towards henotheism
rather than monotheism. Ahura Mazda is symbolized by Fire, but is not embodied in
fire so it is wrong to call Zoroastrians fire worshippers as some have. Ahura Mazda
is best seen symbolically in light and heat so believers will direct their prayers towards those icons of Ahura Mazda.

Unlike their alleged spiritual descendents the Jews and Christians,
Zoroastrians see people as having free will and the ability to choose and act without
being encumbered by something like sin nature or original sin. Not only that, but
humans like all of creation participate in some meaningful way with both the
spiritual and physical elements in the universe. This means that they in some way
share the very nature of Ahura Mazda and will some day return to that nature. Each
people group on the planet was placed in its culture and religious group by Ahura
Mazda and therefore conversion in or out is discouraged. The faithful Zoroastrian
is enjoined not to reject the world as many of their ascetic neighboring faiths had,
but rather to hold up and defend the forces of order and goodness against the tide of
disorder and falsehood. One who makes bad choices and helps spread Druj or
disorder ends up in Hell. One who makes good choices ends up in Heaven. But
these are merely temporary holding places with universal restoration being the ultimate end.

Similar in some way to the Hindu concept of dharma - the word Asha (truth)
stands for the right way of seeing the universe. Asha can also mean orderly
functioning - so to follow Ahura Mazda is to see the orderly function of good works
and thoughts and deeds in the universe and act accordingly. However Asha is
opposed by Druj (falsehood) that is perpetually put forth by the evil spirits to
disrupt the universe. These are not specifically tied to morality, but also represent

the very order of nature and the universe itself. The problem then comes because
the evil spirit, personified in Ahriman and his consort of malevolent deities /angels
seek to destroy and impede the nature and goodness of the universe. Human beings
become lazy or malevolent and thus do not participate in the active ordering of the universe. Thus the spread and influence of Ahriman’s works and ideas continues on.

Zoroastrians have a savior concept built within the system. The Saoshyant
will someday come and will come and bring Asha to the universe. Contrary to
popular mis-belief, the Saoshyant was to born of Zarathustra’s own seed and not of a
virgin. People who invoke the threefold mantra of Good works, thoughts and deeds,
help this incrementally. In the ultimate sense of things - the entire universe and all
with in it - even the evil Ahriman and other malevolent deities, will all be restored
to the presence and participation in the very nature of Ahura Mazda. Universal
salvation and reconciliation is therefore a presumption of the faith and makes the
practice of conversion in or out of the religion unnecessary.

There are few Zoroastrians in the world today. Most place their numbers
under 200,000. To read their literature is to see both a pride at their longevity and a
frustration of the sense that they are losing their community. Much of the literature
is filled with raging tirades against conversion (primarily because of new age
adherents in the USA), and a bit of syncretism such as the idea of reincarnation or
the question of whether Zoroastrianism should seen as THE universal religion, etc.
But the largest issue within the community today seems to be a liberalizing trend

towards a lukewarm faith, with a loss of traditional identification, and this is best
exemplified in the practice of marrying outside the faith. Since the Zoroastrians
pride themselves as being a non-missionary religion, birth rates and marriages are
the primary way of keeping the community quite literally alive. But the syncretistic
nature of the postmodern world is undermining the standing of the religion within
the community itself. You can hear this complaint among many people from many,
many other religious communities as well.

To the Zoroastrian apologist (most likely a non-Zoroastrian atheistic or other
anti-Christian skeptic - as seen in the internet movie “Zeitgeist”, etc) the notion that
Judaism and Christianity borrowed heavily from and are therefore dependent upon
Zoroastrianism is a very controversial notion at best. There is no literature showing
this at all. Boyce and others depend on language similarities between the Indo-
Aryan languages (Avesta and Sanskrit) and thus date the Avesta within the time
frame of the Rg Veda (1500 - 1000 B.C.) but the dating link is weak and there are
numerous scholars within the field of Persian religion who disagree. One might also
add that the Hindu scriptures are notoriously hard to date as well. So one weak
strand being connected to another weak strand does not necessitate a strong cord at
all in this case. This view is also contingent upon the late dating of Hebrew accounts
of Abraham, Moses, and so on. Most conservative scholars think that Abraham
probably lived around 1800 B.C. approximately and therefore Moses would have
lived around 1400 B.C. or so. If this were the case then even an earlier date for
Zoroaster himself would not be early enough to be an influence upon the Jewish

religion. One could make a better case that early Jewish thought influenced Persian
thought. But either way there would have to be an actual fact driven case made and
the evidence for Zoroastrian influence on Judaism is non-existent.

But the response to a layperson would not need to dwell upon this, unless it
came up. The average layperson believes that there is one God, who created
everything, who loves good over evil and order over chaos. These are all good
starting points for fruitful discussion. The modern monotheistic belief of the
average Zoroastrian is quite helpful here. Both the Zoroastrian and the Christian
believe that God desires what is good. Both believe that God has called us to do
what is good. Yet the Zoroastrian is stuck with the dilemma of seeing the human
capacity of free will as the testing ground for the ultimate war between evil and
good. But itis the overwhelming sense of evil and disobedience where the Christian
parts company with the Zoroastrian. How is it that we can know what is good and
what is right, yet still choose to do what is destructive? This points to something
more dramatic than disorder or evil spiritual influence - it points to the failure and
rebellion of the human heart and mind. The Zoroastrian like others knows adultery
is wrong, knows it is destructive, knows that Ahura Mazda has condemned it - and
yet still chooses to do so. This can lead again to a discussion of the need for a Savior.
The Savior concept in Zoroastrianism is a rather irrelevant notion. At the end of the
age the savior will come and usher in the final reconciliation of Ahura Mazda and its
creation. But the concept of personal salvation is missing. If the human will is truly
good and free, then it follows that there would be need for a personal savior.
Conversely if the problem with the human heart/mind is right at the center of the

problem - then the need for a personal savior is paramount. This is where the
Christian can introduce Jesus as the only solution to the problem of the fallen human
heart. The atonement of Jesus on the cross is a shining example of the creator God’s
holiness and love all in the same place and at the same time.
Another potential witnessing point is the concept of ultimate reconciliation. If this is
the case then our alleged free willis just an illusion. It means that our choices to do
good works, thoughts and deeds are ultimately no different than any contrary
actions. The unrepentant murderer is just as reconciled as the one who takes care
of the poor. So all the effort the Zoroastrian puts in does not make any real
difference in the longrun. This undermines what they truly believe about a real
difference between good and evil. They know there is a real distinction yet in the
end it all washes out. So while not as vacuous as the Hindu notion of Maya which
makes the world an illusory dream, the Zoroastrian eschatology amounts to the
same end. The Christian can respond by bringing up the eternal nature of God and
therefore the eternal characteristic of holiness and sin/rebellion. If good and evil
truly are eternal, then they cannot be dismissed but rather are upheld by God’s
eternal character. This means there must be something different brought in to
reconcile the dilemma - which again points us back to the atonement.

As with all the other religions - one must love and prayer for our Zoroastrian friends and neighbors.

Bach, Marcus. Major Religions of the World. Abindon Press. New York, NY 1959
Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrians. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London, UK. 1979

Boyce, Mary. Textual sources for the study of Zoroastrianism. Rowland & Littlefield.
London, UK. 1984

Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrianism: A Shadowy but Powerful Presence in the Judaea-
Christian World. Friends of Dr. Williams. UK. 1987

Clark, Peter. Zoroastrianism. An Introduction to an Ancient Faith. Sussex Academic
Press. Suffolk, UK. 1998

Kotwal, Firoze M., Boyd, James W. A Guide to the Zoroastrian Religion. Scholars
Press. Atlanta, GA 1982

Malandra, William W. An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion. Readings from the
Avesta and Achaemenid Inscriptions. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis,

MN 1983

Mather, George A. Nichols, Larry A. Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions And The
Occult. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, MI 1993

Mehr, Farhang. The Zoroastrian Tradition. Boston, MA Element Books. 1991

Moulton, James H. The Treasury of the Magi: A Study of Modern Zoroastrianism.
Oxford University Press. London, England. 1917

Parrinder, Geoffery. Ed. World Religions From Ancient History to the Present. Facts
on File Publications. New York, NY 1971

Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions. Harper San Francisco. San Francisco, CA.
1991

Zaehner, Robert C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. Phoenix Press.
London, UK. 1961

While Rob was waiting for them in Memphis, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of churches and not Hindu Temples and Buddhist Stuppas.  So he acquiesced in the coffee shops with both Goths and pagans, as well as in the media day by day with those who had no life outside their social networking websites.  A group of Reformed and Arminian preachers began to debate with him.  Some of them asked, “Where did you get those cool glasses?”  Others remarked “He seems to be advocating foreign gods” They said this because Rob was preaching the really special enlightened news that everyone is ok and already loved by god because they already are god!”  Then they took him to MSNBC and other big media sites, higher than all others, and said, “Tell us exactly what we want to hear!”  You are bringing some wonderfully soothing ideas to our ears, and we would like to be scratched behind the ears some more - purr, purr.  All the emergents who lived there spent their time doing nothing but listening to the Prophet Bono and being down with the poor, whatever that means.

Rob then posed provocatively in the high media place and said “Fellow Christ followers, whatever that means, I see that you are very spiritual, whatever that means.  For between shootings of my next pretentious video clip I saw that all of you and everyone in the world as well, worships something and even more -  it is so awesome that it is a non-exclusive, non-de script, non-judgmental, warm fuzzy that is in everything and everyone already” This prescription that you put on the altar  - “To an unknown God” is a perfect antidote to all those toxic and noxious churches littering your city.   I am amazed at how your enlightened selves are already aware of the spirituality of all things and I need to learn from you as I do from the Dahli Lama and Ken Wilbur and Marcus Borg, Spong, Schliermacher, Meister Eckhart and so many other spiritual giants”

“The god/goddess/consciousness that fills every atom of creation already is in charge of our happiness and self-fulfillment and wishes to bring the best to everyone, in a non-totalitarian way, and does converse with us, unlike those who meet in those buildings around town filled with the noxious orthodox faith.  And we must serve that warm fuzzy by redistributing the wealth and taking care of the environment.  Remember my peeps - we are the gospel - whatever that means.  (And did you know that if you take the Greek word evangelion and stew it like applesauce and then invert the meaning paradoxically and mystically - that it means exactly what I need it to mean?  But I digress...) did you know that when we breathe we are inhaling spirituality and then we exhale spirituality?  Why even Bin Laden is cool with the warm fuzzy/energy source/non - descript thingy out there.  Those toxic people in those churches probably would tell you that their totally totalitarian paternal being made everything and put everything where he wanted and had them live out as he planned - evil modernists!!!  But I know from reading that Eastern book, as least as filtered through layers of Gademer and Derrida, says something like “We are already ok with everything and everyone.  The Gita - err I mean the Bible, tells us that there really is no hell but if there was we make it up here, but I mean who can say for sure?  No hell - do I know that?  No hell - Did I really want to tell you about that?  I thought about that looking at  my co-exist dew rag...

So since everyone is really already cool with their own internal divine higher selves, we should not think that the divine source of all is self-existent and holy and judgmental - you know - all those things invented by Kant and Descartes.  In those totally totalizing colonial modernist dualistic foundationalist churches, they are slandering me daily.  This is so unfair - I told them I believed everything they believed, but that they are toxic and noxious and I, am merely humbly presenting the real new kind of Pagianity that somehow has been missed all these years.  It is so unfair to be slandered, especially when I went to such great lengths to not really take a position, except when I did, and then flip flopped on my flip-flopping.  

Since we are all cool with the diving fuzzy thing and we know that it is going to get better each and every day and that fuzzy things never tell us anything we don’t want to hear - I declare a moratorium for five years and then we should celebrate a non-judgment day!  We don’t need to talk about that bloody cross (broken springs don’t really hurt us do they?) and resurrection is all about nature coming back each spring like the goddess right?  And since those toxic modernists took all their stuff from our fellow mithras followers anyway – then someday we will all be one happy divine self - kind of like my spirit guide Ken Wilbur taught.  

When they heard about the oneness and divinity of all things, some of them sneered and declared him a wolf in sheep’s clothing and others said they couldn’t wait for the movie.    At that Rob left Memphis on his book/media tour.  Some of the people became followers of Rob.  Among them was Mouwius a member of the wolves guild and a woman named Tickle, and a number of other former sheep signed up for their own Nooma sutras...

Bill Honsberger
6-07-01
Professor Ishimatsu
RLGS 3814

This paper will look at the origins and development of the particular Hindu school of thought known as Advaita Vedanta.  I will first look at the medieval roots of Vedanta as founded by Sankara and later critiqued by Ramanuja.  I will then show how Vedanta was transformed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by interaction with colonial and nationalist ideas and by interaction with the world at large.  

“I believe in Advaita; I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter, for all that lives.  Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and if one man fails, the whole world fall to that extent…”(1) With these words the Father of modern India, Mahatma Gandhi, revealed the thoughts that were a major influence on him in 1924.  However, the ideas he mentioned date back hundreds of years to the thoughts of an influential thinker named Sankara, and they also reflect the ideas of more modern Indian scholars who were shaping and adapting ancient ideas to a contemporary present.  The terms Advaita, which means non-dualistic, and Vedanta, which literally means the end of the Vedas, together refer to a series of thinkers and ideas that go back to the eighth century C.E.  

The most notable scholar who is usually seen as the originator and systemizer of Advaita is Sankara (788 – 820 C.E.).  The school of Advaita is described by some as theology and by others as a philosophy.  It seems to have elements of both.   There are some commentators who see Advaita as the culmination not only of Hindu thought, but also of all religious thought.  For example Satprakashanda, a follower of Vivekananda (1863-1902), says, “Strictly speaking, Vedanta is not a particular religion but the common basis of all religions.” (2) While this bit of hubris may seem far-reaching in its scope, it is a logical entailment of the non-dualistic system as proposed in Vedanta.

Vedanta accepts the scriptural authority of the four Vedas, the Upanishads, the two great epics, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana, and the Brahmasutras.  It gives little acknowledgement to the Puranas and Tantras.  In fact, one could argue that in the great ebb and sway of Hindu thought in general, that the Advaita “revolution” was the backlash against a major emphasis on idols and “bhakti” devotion to numerous gods and goddesses.  Amidst the huge sea of millions of deities, Vedanta attempts to synthesize the earlier texts of Hindu scriptures into an overarching system, which, while not totally dismissing bhakti, relegates it to a secondary place in favor of a higher and ultimate unity “behind” or “underneath” all the respective deities.  Advaita was built upon the earlier Mimamsa tradition of exegesis.  This tradition, dating back to the second century C.E., stressed the Vedic tradition of dharma, the ritual understanding of how people are to act in the universe.  As Clooney notes, “Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the event of sacrifice: dharma, the object of Mimamsa inquiry, is the sum of all right relations, the activated, fully understood and rightly connected set of all the small and large activities and things which together constitute the sacrificial whole.” (3) Even though Advaita is modeled on the same paradigm, it does break in some significant ways and claims to have superseded its predecessor.  It is often called the Uttara (later) Mimamsa.

Born into a family of Shiva worshipers, Sankara has been transformed over time into an avatar, a literal incarnation of Shiva himself.  Seen as a child prodigy, his hagiographers state that he had mastered the four Vedas by the age of eight, the age when boys normally begin to study the Vedas! Even as a young man he showed his desire to become a renouncer, a “sannyasin”, and seek “moksha” or liberation from the wheel of birth, death, and rebirth, or “samsara”.  At sixteen he left his family home and became a sannyasin.  For the next sixteen years he would travel to many parts of India, visiting temples, reading and studying, debating with different groups and writing his commentaries.  There are several legends about the deal his parents made to have a son who would do so much but live only a short life, and Sankara only lived until he was thirty-two.  But in that short time he wrote voluminous commentaries and refuted many opponents from differing traditions.

 His teachings on Advaita center on several important ideas.  The most important is “The Brahman is real; the world is unreal. The “jiva”(individual soul or spirit) is verily Brahman and no other.”  This needs to be unpacked quite a bit.  The Vedas teach about many gods, but to Sankara, the key is Brahman.  Using many Vedic and Upanisadic texts, Sankara argues that all the deities mentioned in the scriptures are merely hints of the one real god.  When Sankara argues in this way, his point is not that the other gods are not gods, but rather, they really represent the one true reality of the universe – Brahman. In the same way, all that appears in the world to the senses is “unreal”.  In this sense, Sankara thought that the world is “Maya”, the dream or illusion.  Maya also means “that which measures”, and is used in the sense that Maya measures the unmeasurable, diversifies the undiversified, and changes the immutable.   The world is illusion because of “avidya” or ignorance of the true nature of things.  The jiva is the individual soul or “atman”.  Each bit of the world is atman.  So in essence Brahman really is all that there is, but the individual is blinded by his/her own ignorance into thinking that he/she, as an individual, is separate from the universal one.  Maya blinds from the true or higher nature, and through knowledge of the truth “tat tvam asi” (that art thou) the atman recognizes what is real and Maya has no more power over the enlightened mind.  

There are several other important ideas for Sankara.  The first is Nirguna Brahman.  By this he meant that Brahman is pure being, consciousness and bliss (Sat-cit-ananda), and without attributes.  This Satcitananda is not three qualities or attributes of Brahman; rather it is “its essential nature.  Looked at ontologically, we realize the Being or “Sat’ aspect of Brahman.  From the epistemological viewpoint, Brahman is revealed as “chit” or consciousness.  And from the point of view of the highest value Brahman is “ananda” or bliss itself.” (4) The idea of nirguna Brahman is in direct contrast with Saguna Brahman or God with attributes.  In bhakti devotion it is common to speak of the grace, mercy, love, or anger of the deity. Many of the deities were known for their “specialties” in that they fulfilled certain roles for their devotees.  For example, Ganesha the elephant-headed deity was (and is) prayed to for help in starting new endeavors, as Ganesha will clear the path of all obstacles.  Brahman for Sankara was beyond all these worldly things. The attributes of Ganesha were of Maya; they were not the ultimate reality.  Brahman is also beyond form (nirakar).  Brahman could not be perceived in the world of forms.  This was quite radical in a time of overwhelming idol devotion.
 
Brahman also involves transcendentally.  Brahman is the all-pervading Self immanent in the phenomenal world.  In this sense Nirguna Brahman is manifested as Saguna Brahman in relation to the created universe.  So Sankara could argue that Nirguna Brahman was “present” in all of creation but not in the sense of reality, but “behind” or underneath the false perception of reality – maya.

The goal of life is to realize or recognize the unity of Brahman and the identification of the individual self with the ultimate self.  This one thing should dominate one’s life.  There are different methods of recognition of the true reality, but the ultimate path for Sankara is that of self-knowledge (jnana) through textual study and meditative experience.  Moksha or liberation comes in the ultimate sense when the atman/jiva recognizes its true self. Man must realize this liberation intuitively because Brahman is without physical senses. This also cannot be done by reason, whose only role is to show the impermanence of Maya. This liberation is not attained by works or devotion but rather through wisdom and realization.  Once liberated, the atman is released from Maya and is absorbed into Brahman consciousness.  The individual is under bondage and liberation does not literally cause he/she to be absorbed, because that would mean that there is change in Brahman.  The famous illustration is that of the “snake-rope”.  One thinks one sees a snake but the illusion vanishes when one realizes the true nature of the rope.  But there still are physical consequences in Maya, such as shortness of breath from fear and so on.  

Others think that Sankara saw the soul or atman also as an impermanent entity.  As in Theravada Buddhism, Menon sees that “The Jiva is the Self immanent in the material mind, but it is not itself the Self…the Self has no individuality or manifoldness or limitations and admits of no divisions.”  (5) So absorption (atman returning to Brahman as the drop into the ocean) is really a metaphor for a change of thinking.

What about all the changes in the world?  How is it that the world has a beginning and ages and seems to be changing if in fact Brahman does not change?  Shankara replied to these questions:
To the ordinary ignorant people, - who under the influence of avidya
resolve the underlying unity into the multiplicity of the changes and
thus identifies the two, - the multiplicity of the changes is the only
Reality…But those who have realized the truth that the underlying
is untouched by the evolving multiplicity of changes – do not
regard these changes as something separate and apart from
Brahman, do not look upon them as so many independent and
self-sufficient things complete in themselves… (6)

Sankara thus has set up in essence a two-tiered universe.  The lower tier consists of Maya brought about by avidya.  For this reason, the physical universe appears the way it does.  People trapped in this tier by their ignorance think that they exist as separate atmans.  But ultimately enlightened souls are liberated from their ignorance and “sees” that this world can be transcended and not ultimate, and finally recognized that they are not separate but rather identical to Brahman.  In this moment their consciousness changes and they now still may live on in the second tier, but remain unaffected by all that happens in it.  Good, evil, life, death, and all the rest have lost their hold on them.  The upper tier is pure being, consciousness and bliss.  This is the true and ultimate reality of Brahman.  One famous Advaita illustration is the ocean and raindrops.  The hydration cycle pulls the water from the ocean and the clouds move the water over land.  Then the water is released as rain drops to fall to the ground.  But somewhere in the process the individual drops forgets that they were part of the ocean.  They were mistakenly thinking  that they were individual drops.  So the raindrops fall and then sweep into streams and rivers and finally return to the ocean. It is their return to the ocean, which is moksha and Samadhi (absorption into Brahman) all at once.  They don’t change and become the ocean.  They merely lose their illusory bondage and return to their pristine state.  
So how does one live in this two-tiered reality?  It is interesting to note here that Sankara often worshipped publicly in temple and gave prayers and devotions to different deities.  Many have speculated on the lack of consistency at this point. In some of his writings Sankara also criticizes bhakti devotion as basically the point of view of a child or foolish person. But then he would also say that idol worship was better than no worship at all as it still moved one towards the ultimate realization of Advaita.  This type of inconsistency haunted much of Sankara’s writings and, as we will see later, it is also typical of many modern Advaitans.  Ravi Zacharias, in commenting on the story of “Arjuna’s dilemma” from the epic Bhagavad-Gita, recounts an old story about Sankara’s duplicity on this point.  Sankara had just finished lecturing the King on the deception of the mind and its delusion of material reality.  He goes on “The next day, the King let loose an elephant that went on a rampage, and Shankara ran up a tree to find safety.  When the King asked him why he ran if the elephant was nonreal, Sankara, not to be outdone, said, ‘What the King actually saw was a nonreal me climbing up a nonreal tree!”  (7)  One might add here that modern Advaitins look both way before they cross the street too.  

In rejection of these teachings but staying within the same scriptural traditions as Sankara, comes Ramanuja (1017-1137).  He was a devotee and leader of a Vaisnava community.   He is considered the leader thinker of Visistadvaita Vedanta.  This means qualified non-dualism.  Like Sankara, Ramanuja is concerned with scriptural adherence and claims that Sankara has misread many of the important Vedic passages. Sankara’s hermeneutic involved seeing a two-tiered system of understanding the text.  The higher meaning always refers in some way to monistic Brahman.  The lower meaning refers to Brahman as incarnate deities.  Ramanuja rejects this distinction and call for an even reading of all texts.  His own commentary on the Brahmasutras rebuts Sankara on several points.  As one writer puts it:
Ramanuja’s theory of language is a decisive element in his philosophy.  He
repeatedly expresses opinions to the effect that language mirrors reality.  He
writes, for example, “the plurality of words is based on plurality of meanings;
the sentence, therefore, which is an aggregate of words expressing some
special combination of things, and hence has no power to denote a thing
devoid of all difference.” To say the same thing in the recently developed
paradigm-case argument jargon “here is a jar” is meaningful if there is a jar.
But ‘here is a jar’ is meaningful.  Therefore here is a jar.  This stance with
regard to language leads Ramanuja to reject as meaningless all sentences
that do violence to the elementary laws of logic.  Hence his arguments
“tend to refute the view that there is a difference and absence of difference
at the same time.” (8)

The system is qualified non-dualism because in some important ways Ramanuja still agrees with Sankara, even while he criticizes him.  Ramanuja would agree that Brahman is the ultimate reality and that Maya hides that ultimate reality.  He would agree that moksha from Samsara is the central goal of life.  But his critique of Sankara is centered on the fact that for all intents and purposes idol worship, bhakti devotion, is been relegated to a secondary status or even worse and the thinking of children and fools.  Ramanuja’s understanding of Brahman is Brahman is Atman, and that means that each bit of Atman really is Brahman. Therefore Brahman permeates the universe with his presence.  As such Brahman has qualities.  He is Saguna Brahman.  Ramanuja claimed this was not pantheism because he still wants a distinction between creator and creation.  His own Vaisnava beliefs saw moksha as being with Vishnu is heaven, saturated by the grace of Vishnu but not identical with Vishnu.  So Brahman pervades the universe but is in some way not the universe.

His view of Maya is also distinct from Sankara.  This “soft” version of Maya sees avidya as the real problem and liberation coming through realization, but liberation can also come through bhakti.  Since the idol really does “contain” deity in some meaningful way, then devotion is just as appropriate as self-realization.  Maya still hides the reality of divinity, but itself has some existence.  Ultimately at the end of the day Ramanuja still wants to agree with Sankara that Brahman in undivided, but that in some sense is eschatological.  During the present age Brahman permeates the universe and so Ramanuja “saves” idol worship from the ravages of the iconoclast Sankara.  

Now I want to turn from the medieval roots of Vedanta and go to more recent representatives. Some important historical information must be mentioned here. In the mid 1700’s was colonized by the British Empire.  The effects on India were dramatic, and one could say that is true of the British as well.  Without going into great detail various groups arose in the 1800’s, which in their own ways opposed the colonizers and reacted to the outsiders.  The reason this is important is that in India religion is life.  It is the very sine qua non of the population.  So political movements reflect the character of the country.  Groups like the Brahmo Samaj, the Arya Samaj and others tried (and still do) to instill a sense of nationalism, a “pan-India” consciousness. This attempt to develop this broad consensus of nationalism has primarily been centered on “Hinduism for India – India for Hindu”.  But what is Hinduism?  Is it Advaita or Dvaita?  Is it the more central deities like Vishnu, Shiva and Krishna or the ancient deities of Indra and Agni?  Is it focused on Dharma for Brahmins or do the Untouchables have a role as well?  All of these questions are troubling (for the student of religion as well!   ) For those trying to marshal the whole of the populace to throw out the oppressors.  

One notable influence on these “reformers” of Hinduism is that many of them had deep and meaningful contacts with western ideas and religion through the British schools and government agencies.  Many of them went to the schools and were confronted with Christianity, western philosophy, and new technologies.  According to Andrew Fort “the connection of neo-Vedantins to the Hindu tradition came after a Western, Christian-influenced and English-language-based intellectual formation”. (9) In some ways these influences help shape the type of Hinduism that is produced by them.  What some scholars refer to as “syndicated” Hinduism models this approach. A synthesis of what seems to basic across the board to all the diverse groups that comprise Hinduism.  

The first prominent reformer is Rammohun Roy (1774-1833).  He was the founder of the Brahmo – Sabha.  He was trained in many languages and had “sympathies” with both Christian and Islamic thought.  His attitude towards the Vedas is interesting and problematic.  His commentators are very divided about his attitude as to whether the Vedas are divinely inspired or not.  Regardless of this contention they agree that for Roy the doctrines of the Vedas are more important than the texts themselves.  This openness allowed him to view non-Vedic literature with an eye to whether they taught the proper doctrines.  So then he was willing to go far beyond the Vedas.  In one of his earliest Persian tracts entitled Tuhfatu’l al-Muwahhidin (A Gift to Deists), Roy gives a very minimalist outline of Vedantic faith, which he saw as a general outline for all faiths.  The outline included “the existence of God, which is derived from the design of the universe and the human being’s innate capacity to infer God from it, and a morally accountable soul existing after death, a belief necessary for the maintenance of social order.  The minimal moral principle was a concern for the welfare of mankind.” (10) It is this matter of social welfare that will be a contentious point for the later Vedantic tradition.  The rest of the ideas are very controversial depending upon how they are defined, but a classical Vedantist could say they agree with all of them, within their own understanding.  Roy also championed the idea of brahmanistha grihastha (the pious householder), which went against the traditional idea that access to the Vedas should be denied to the majority of India’s people.  This precedent marks many of the later reformers.

Ramakrishnan (1836-86) was a Hindu mystic who unlike most of the other reformers did not have Western training.  He grew up in a Vaisnava family and then become a priest at a temple for Kali.  Known for his fanatical devotion to Kali, he claimed to have an experience of Kali, which gave him a vision for the underlying truth of all religions.  He became a bhakti devotee to Allah, Jesus, Buddha and a host of other religious figures.  He did not travel far, had limited reading and writing skills but was very influential primarily because of his discipleship of Vivekananda.  His version of Vedanta emphasized experience over Vedic texts, and this is a big break with both Sankara and Ramanuja. According to Swami Satprakashananda, Ramakrishnan simplified Vedanta into the following teachings:
1) To realize God is the goal of human life.
2) The methods of God-realization differ according to the seekers’ capacities and conditions of life.

3. By following a progressive course of discipline an individual can proceed towards God from any sphere or level of life.
4. Every religion is a pathway to God-realization.
5. There should be harmony among the followers of different religions.
6. God dwells within man as the inmost self.
7. Man is to be served in the spirit of worshipping God.

(11)

One can immediately see some affinity with Sankara and also some with Ramanuja.  With Sankara, Ramakrishnan affirms God-realization, but contrary to Sankara he affirms a more egalitarian approach to enlightenment.  With Ramanuja he affirms the validity of many different paths, all of which shared their own reality as well as a central reality among them all.  But as a modern Vedantist, he shows his desire to help the masses.  
The next modern Vedantist we will look at is Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950).  His personal life is an interesting study in itself in that he started as a political activist and was involved in armed rebellion.  But then in the midst of his life he switched profoundly, renounced violence and political agitation, and became a Guru.  As Aurobindo started having mystical experiences and expanded his practice of yoga, he learned from his visions that India would be independent and there was no longer any need for armed resistance.  His religious vision was still infused though with nationalistic language and purpose.  He also developed a system of spiritual evolution, which paralleled biological evolution as described by Charles Darwin, which was also seen by Vivekananda, Yogananda and others.  
This “ontological” structure included the following:

1. Sachchidananda – the Absolute; existence, consciousness, bliss.
2. Supermind – Dynamic aspect of the Absolute.
3. Overmind – Mediating plane between Individual Mind and Supermind.
4. Intuitive Mind
5. Illumined Mind
6. Higher Mind
7. Mind – Capable of intellectual knowledge, moving towards intuitional knowledge, through the higher levels approaching Supermind.
8. Soul or Psyche – Inner self, True Self, Essential Self.
9. Life – Vital level, Organic level.
10. Matter or Body – The Inconscient. (12)

Yoga for Aurobindo had a slightly different twist as well.  Usually it is seen as a method of moksha, for him it was a method of transformation.  Following Ramanuja here, he saw the body not as something to be rejected or escaped from, but rather as a partial manifestation of the divine. Like the other reformers he affirms the Advaita traditions and scriptural standards but also adds some Tantric and Vaisnava texts as well.  He also affirmed a universal religion.  “A religion of humanity means the growing realization that there is a secret Spirit, a divine Reality, in which we are all one, that humanity is its highest present vehicle on earth, that the human race and the human being are the means by which it will progressively reveal itself here.” (13)
Another more conservative voice among the reformers is Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950).  Ramana taught very conservative Advaita, along the lines of Sankara. Considered a Bhagavan (God) by many of his followers, he also stressed some non-Sankaran ideas.  Like many of the modern reformers he stressed the value of personal experience over yoga or bhakti or even over textual knowledge.  He also assumed a universalistic position in regards to the world’s religions.  What makes this position rather controversial is that Ramana tried to argue that this sort of open-mindedness was also the position of Sankara himself. His back to the Vedas approach to his faith caused him to differ from other reformers in that he rejected social concern as a major issue for the enlightened one.  His favorite question was to ask “Who am I?” and using that as a starting point for a discussion on the need for the individual to spend one’s life in self-discovery.  His position on social concern can be seen when he would say things like “Because you wrongly identify yourself with the body, you see the world outside you and its suffering becomes apparent to you; but the world and its sufferings are not real.  Seek the reality and get rid of this unreal feeling.” (14) He would also question the motives of some of his contemporaries who seemed so motivated by social issues.

Probably the best know modern Hindu reformer and perhaps first Hindu missionary to the west, was Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902).  Known for his quick wit, charm, and ability to captivate a crowd, Vivekananda become a world known figure when he appeared before the 1893 Parliament of World Religions. Having been a participant in the 1993 Parliament, I can note that he was in many ways the star of that parliament as well.  He grew up in Calcutta and was extremely successful in school, astonishing his British teachers with his breadth of his readings and grasp of western philosophy.  This educational emphasis makes it even more ironic that he became a disciple of someone like Ramakrishnan who had so little interest in education.   One of the more frustrating things about Vivekananda was his maddening way of contradicting himself over the course of his life.  For example even thought his master was supposedly everything to him, he belittles Ramakrishnan’s mystical experiences shortly after his death.  Even more ironic when one considers that Vivekananda had his own mystical experience, which, like his master, convinced him of the oneness of all religions.  (15)
Another example of his mercurial thought process was his understanding of Advaita.  At some points in his life he was a classic non-dualist, sounding very similar to Sankara in his denunciation of idols.  In a letter to an American disciple he said, “He who is eternal, without limits, omnipresent and all-knowing is not an individual person, but only a consciousness.  You, I, and everyone else are but manifestations of that consciousness.  Finally everyone must become his image in full…and then in reality everything will become one.  Religion is nothing but this.  The obsolete and lifeless rituals and notions regarding godhood are but ancient superstitions”. (16) But he also told a monastic order that they need to worship only Ramakrishna. (17) He told another friend “…I wish I could be an Advaitist, calm and heartless…” (18) His trip to America changed the world; his trip was an abject failure, and so on.  
One persistent and consistent them of Vivekananda was his interest in raising the status of the people in India.  His trip to the west had inspired him and he was always commentating how the people in the west could benefit those in the east with their technological expertise while the people in the east could help those in the west with their spiritual expertise. One example of his egalitarian message was in his break with classic Advaita thought on the accessibility of Self-Knowledge.  One of his admirers notes “he proclaimed this message of the divine nature of man to one and all, to the seekers of temporal values as well as to the seekers of Self-knowledge”. (19) This in Vivekananda’s mind would lead to societal liberation.  His motto for his Ramakrishna Order was Atmano moksartham jagaddhitaya ca. (while striving for his own liberation the seeker should work for the good of the world as well).  While his statements about Advaita would seem to go back and forth, his passion to bring about change in India never seemed to waver.

In so many ways modern India and therefore modern Advaita Vedanta, has been influenced by western thoughts.  All of them and many others that we did not look at saw scriptural warrant, particularly from the Vedas for what they espoused.  Many of them affirmed what their contemporaries denounced. For example many would affirm a “kindler, gentler” version of the caste system while others would denounce it for the social horror that it is.  But the dilemma is so clearly illustrated here.  How can one be Hindu and Indian and deny what has been a major part of the culture for so long?  For many, the answer is that it is impossible. For Ramana, Maya is the key and one should not be attached to the current state of affairs, while for Vivekananda the Vedas can be shaped into such a way that social concern was always a part of Advaita!  The contradictions continue to this day.  As Fort points out “Ideas seen as laudable to the West, Such as this-worldly technological progress, valuing ecological harmony with nature, or caring for and actively providing humanitarian social service to all persons without distinction, are claimed to be present but go without support (or even reference) in the classical texts”. (20) When Paul Hacker surveyed ethical teachings in Sanskrit literature he found no evidence at all that the phrase “tat tvam asi” was ever used to justify practical ethical concerns, which was Vivekananda’s claim for years.  (21) All of this aside, one thing that can be said about Advaita Vedanta as well as the whole of Hinduism, is that it has an amazing ability to adapt and change to the wishes of its practitioners.  Called “the embrace that smothers” Hinduism has absorbed many “foreign ideas” before and made them her own and it is clear that the reformers of the past two centuries have done just that, and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.