2013 JDLong.swami Vivekananda and Religious Pluralism

Vedanta Conference, 2013

University of Massachusetts, New Dartmouth

1

Swami Vivekananda and Religious Pluralism

Jeffery D. Long

Professor of Religion & Asian Studies, Elizabethtown College

Introduction:

Among Swami Vivekanandas most significant contributions to global culture are

his reflections on religious pluralism, which can be defined broadly as the idea that there

is truth to be found in many religious traditions, and not only one. Inspired by his master,

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Swami Vivekananda articulated a vision of interreligious

harmony and cooperation that is even more desperately needed today than it was over a

century ago, when Swamiji proclaimed it at the 1893 Chicago Parliament of the Worlds

Religions. This paper will present some of the main features of Swami Vivekanandas

thought on religious pluralism, such as the distinction between acceptance and tolerance,

the fact that the worlds religions are not all the same, the idea of non-conversion, and

the idea of mutual enrichment among diverse traditions.

Beyond Tolerance to Universal Acceptance

In a world marked by violence and pronounced intolerance amongst the adherents

of diverse worldviews, one hears a good deal about the virtues of tolerance, and calls for

tolerance are an increasingly prominent feature of public discourse. But well intentioned

as these calls certainly are, is mere toleration of difference the best that humanity can do?

Swami Vivekananda envisioned inter-religious relations that would go far beyond

the secular ideal of tolerance, in which practitioners of diverse traditions merely co-exist,

toward an ideal of universal acceptance. In his famous first address at the Parliament of

the Worlds Religions, he says of the Hindu tradition, I am proud to belong to a religion

which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only

in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true.1 Tolerance is, of course, far

preferable to intolerance. It is, however, a lesser virtue when compared with acceptance.

1 Vivekananda, Volume 1, p. 3

oemNotehttp://www.parliamentofreligions.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/JDLong.Swami-Vivekananda-and-Religious-Pluralism.pdf



2

In a 1900 lecture entitled The Way to the Realisation of a Universal Religion,

Swamiji draws a stark distinction between the lesser virtue of tolerancewhich he goes so

far as to equate with blasphemyand the much greater virtue of acceptance, saying, Our

watchword, then, will be acceptance, and not exclusion. Not only toleration, for so-called

toleration is often blasphemy, and I do not believe in it. I believe in acceptance.2 His

rejection of tolerance is clearly not an endorsement of intolerance, but a call to move to

the even higher plane of acceptance. As he explains, Why should I tolerate? Toleration

means that I think that you are wrong and I am just allowing you to live. Is it not blas-

phemy to think that you and I are allowing others to live? I accept all religions that were

in the past, and worship with them all; I worship God with every one of them, in what-

ever form they worship Him.3

As I sometimes ask my students, if one of your friends were to say to you today,

I tolerate you, would that be a compliment? How do we feel if someone tells us that

they merely tolerate us? What gives them the right to decide who is allowed to exist and

who is not? And what gives us the right to do that to another? We would of course not

want to face the alternative of intolerance, which is all too prevalent in the world today.

But tolerance alone is not enough. We can tolerate someone while ignoring them. But to

truly see the divine in all, which is what Vedanta teaches us to do, we must go beyond the

minimum requirement of tolerance and move toward acceptance. We must see the other

not as other, but as our very own.

Indeed, this is the teaching, not only of Swami Vivekananda, but also of the Holy

Mother, Sarada Devi, who tells all of us, Learn to make the world your own. Nobody is

a stranger. The whole world is your own.4 This is true acceptance, based on the deep

Vedantic insight of the fundamental unity and inter-connectedness of all beings.

2 Vivekananda, Volume 2, pp. 373-374

3 Ibid

4 Dasgupta, p. 122



3

One can perhaps draw a parallel between these three states of beingintolerance,

tolerance, and acceptanceand the Yogachara Buddhist teaching of the three levels of

truth: falsehood (corresponding to intolerance, which sees the other as a threat that cannot

be allowed to exist), relative truth (corresponding to tolerance, which sees the other as a

being with its own integrity and value that must be allowed to exist despite its

problematic otherness), and absolute truth (corresponding to acceptance, which realizes

the ultimate non-duality of self and other). As one moves through progressively higher

states of realization, one moves from a deluded identification with the physical body and

its various adjuncts (such as relations of family, ethnicity, nationality, and even species),

which can be destroyed and therefore need to be protected from the strange and different,

to an intellectual identification with the whole (issuing in the virtue of tolerance, needed

for the survival of civilization, but woefully inadequate to a higher spirituality), to the full

realization of ones unity with the whole, issuing in and also sustained and facilitated by

the virtue of acceptance.

Were One, but were not the same

To paraphrase, however, my friend and colleague Anantanand Rambachan, non-

duality is not to be confused with simple oneness. Or to quote the famous song by U2,

Were one, but were not the same. The universal acceptance that Swami Vivekananda

teaches should not be taken to mean that all religions are simply the same. Critics of

what some call Swami Vivekanandas radical universalism have either misunderstood

or distorted his religious pluralism as a teaching that all religions are the same. They

have then attacked this straw man position, which in fact bears little or no resemblance to

Swamijis actual teaching on this subject.

Some also deride this teaching as a form of relativismthe view that everything is

true, and therefore nothing is true. Relativism, a form of skepticism, is rooted in the idea

that we can never really know the truth, and therefore all attempts to express truth are of

equal value.



4

The harmony of religions, however, is rooted not in skepticism, but rather in the

awarenessrealized by Sri Ramakrishna directly, through his many sadhanasthat truth

can be realized, and that this is indeed possible by means of a variety of paths: the many

systems of belief and practice that make up the shared human inheritance.

Contrary to the claims of some critics who, even today, deride the perspective that

he offered, Swamiji was fully aware of the logical, philosophical problems involved in

claiming that all religions are true. He even posed this question himself. How can all

these varieties be true? If one thing is true, its negation is false. How can contradictory

opinions be true at the same time?5

One approach to this question is to argue that the various contradictions among

the teachings of the worlds religions are superficial, or merely apparent, and that there is

a much deeper agreement and harmony among the religions than appears to be the case at

first glance. Swamiji hints at this approach when he asks, Are all the religions of the

world really contradictory? I do not mean the external forms in which great thoughts are

clad. I do not mean the different buildings, languages, rituals, books, etc. employed in

various religions, but I mean the internal soul of every religion.6 This suggests that one

might be able to discern an inner essence of religionstheir internal soulthat they

share, distinguishing this inner essence from that which is superficial, or merely external.

This is the idea of the perennial philosophy championed by Aldous Huxley and by

other intellectuals influenced by the Vedanta movement, such as Huston Smith. It is the

idea of the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things

and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even

identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places mans final end in the knowledge of

the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being.7

5 Vivekananda, Volume 2, p. 365

6 Ibid

7 Huxley, p. vii



5

The perennial philosophy that Huxley describes is essentially Vedanta. Vedanta

recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and mindsthe

infinite Brahman. It includes the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to,

or even identical with, divine Reality in the form of its teaching of the non-duality of the

Atman and Brahmantattvamasi, aham brahmasmi, sarvam khalvidam Brahman. And its

ethic places our final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of

all being. Swamiji taught that Vedanta was not only a Hindu system of philosophy, but

that it is a universal philosophy underlying all religions and philosophies. To be sure, it

is a philosophy that finds particularly clear and powerful expression in the teaching of the

Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. But it is nonetheless a universal, human inheritance.

Some have questioned, though, whether this response to the question of the many

disagreements among the worlds religions is too simplistic. By reducing the religions of

the world to those areas where they agree with one another and with Vedanta philosophy,

does one not do violence to their rich diversity? Is this truly acceptance, or is it forcing

the other into our own preconceived mold, perhaps in a way that would preclude any real

dialogue, where we might learn something different from the other? This question has

been posed with particular sharpness by adherents (including myself) of the perspective

known as deep religious pluralism, which seeks to advance a vision of pluralism that is

not bought at the expense of genuine differences among religious traditions.8

Significantly, Swami Vivekananda anticipated the criticism that the perennialist

approach reduces all religions to a common denominator without respecting their genuine

differences and articulated over a century ago the central point that made recently by the

proponents of deep religious pluralism. In his own words, Every religion has a soul

behind it, and that soul may differ from the soul of another religion; but are they contra-

dictory? Do they contradict or supplement each other?that is the question.9

8 See David Ray Griffin, ed., Deep Religious Pluralism (John Knox Westminster Press, 2005).

9 Vivekananda, Volume 2, p. 365.



6

Again, Swamiji does not affirm that all religions are the same. Each religion is

distinct. It has its own soul. And while contradictions may indeed obtain among the

doctrines and the practices that have been formed on the basis of its core idealsnot only

among religions, but even within the same religion, leading to division and sectarianism

Swamiji poses the question: Do the core insights of the various religions necessarily

conflict? Or might these central ideals be logically compatiblein Swamijis words

supplementary? Might it be that each religion represents a core ideal, and that these

ideals are not contradictory, despite each being distinct? Might they even be mutually

affirming?

Swamiji takes a side on this issue: I believe that they are not contradictory; they

are supplementary. Each religion, as it were, takes up one part of the great universal

truth, and spends its whole force in embodying and typifying that part of the great truth.

It is, therefore, addition, not exclusion. That is the idea. System after system arises, each

one embodying a great idea, and ideals must be added to ideals. And this is the march of

humanity.10

Swami Vivekanandas approach to religious diversity has definite implications for

human conduct in the face of the great variety of beliefs and practices that exist. When

one encounters a religious or philosophical claim that is contrary to ones own view, the

proper attitude to take is to adhere to ones own view, but simultaneously to be open to

the possibility that a kernel of trutha genuine insight into an aspect of reality that one

has not yet consideredmust rest at the core of the worldview of the other. This is not

relativismthrowing up ones hands in despair and asking rhetorically, Well, who really

knows the truth? Nor is it absolutism: clinging to ones view while rejecting all others.

It is a middle patha third waybetween these two extremes toward which conversations

about religious pluralism tend to veer.

10

Ibid, pp. 365-366



7

Pravrajika Vrajaprana summarizes Vivekanandas approach to religious diversity

when she writes that, The worlds spiritual traditions are like different pieces in a giant

jigsaw puzzle: each piece is different and each piece is essential to complete the whole

picture. Each piece is to be honored and respected while holding firm to our own

particular piece of the puzzle. We can deepen our own spirituality and learn about our

own tradition by studying other faiths. Just as importantly, by studying our own tradition

well, we are better able to appreciate the truth in other tradition. 11 Swamijis emphasis

on the fact that the ideals of the religions do differ is important to highlight, particularly

given the fact that critics of religious pluralism have often attacked this position with the

argument that it is absurd to assert that all religions are essentially the same when they

are very clearly quite different from one another.12

As Vrajaprana points out, This is not

to say that all religions are pretty much the same. That is an affront to the distinct

beauty and individual greatness of each of the worlds spiritual traditions. Saying that

every religion is equally true and authentic doesnt mean that one can be substituted for

the other like generic brands of aspirin.13 A religion is like a medicine: not all

medicines are alike, but all have the power to healor to harm, if taken under the wrong

conditions.

To say the worlds religions are distinct, but that their central ideals are logically

compatible, is quite different from saying that they are the same. Swamijis teaching on

religious pluralism affirms the differences among the worlds religions: that the ideal to

which each is oriented is distinct. These ideals, however, like the pieces of a jigsaw

puzzle, are each part of the great universal truth. They are not the same, nor are they

interchangeable. But their basic truth can be accepted and affirmed, and practitioners of

each tradition can learn from and share the insights of the others.

11

Vrajaprana, pp. 56-57 12

See, for example, Frank Morales. 13

Vrajaprana, pp. 56-57



8

Dialogue: Not Conversion, but Mutual Enrichment

This is a point to which Swami Vivekananda gives special emphasis: that inter-

religious dialogue is integral to the process of spiritual evolution for each person in every

religious tradition. The specific form that this process will take will differ from person to

person, and of course from tradition to tradition. But all who engage in it will benefit

spiritually. This is not a project of conversion, but of mutual enrichment. As Swamiji

explains, Do I wish that the Christian would become Hindu? God forbid. Do I wish

that the Hindu or Buddhist would become Christian? God forbid. The seed is put in the

ground, and earth and air and water are placed around it. Does the seed become the earth,

or the air, or the water? No. It becomes a plant, it develops after the law of its own

growth, assimilates the air, the earth, and the water, converts them into plant substance,

and grows into a plant. Similar is the case with religion. The Christian is not to become

a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must

assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to

his own law of growth.14

Having been drawn, myself, from the practice of the Roman Catholic Christian

tradition in which I was raised to the practice of Hinduism, I do not believe that Swamiji

is here disallowing the fact that one might be drawn to a particular tradition and begin to

practice and identify with it, even if it is different from the tradition into which one was

born. He is saying that it is not necessary for everyone to practice the same tradition: that

what matters is not ones religious label, but the spirit behind ones practice.

The ideal of a universal religion of which Swami Vivekananda speaks is not of

a single religion conquering and replacing all others. It is an ideal, rather, of what one

might call a commonwealth of religions, each learning from and assimilating the ideals of

the others while continuing to develop in its own distinctive way.

14

CW 1, p. 24



9

As Swamiji explains, My idea is that all these religions are different forces in

the economy of God, working for the good of mankind; and that not one can become

dead, not one can be killed. Just as you cannot kill any force in nature, so you cannot kill

any one of these spiritual forces. You have seen that each religion is living. From time

to time it may retrograde or go forward. At one time, it may be shorn of a good many of

its trappings; at another it may be covered with all sorts of trappings; but all the same, the

soul is ever there, it can never be lost. The ideal which every religion represents is never

lost, and so every religion is intelligently on the march.15

Conclusion

Swami Vivekanandas ideal of universal acceptance, of diverse religions as being

not so much contradictory as complementary, as forming distinct pieces of a vast jigsaw

puzzle, as participating, each in its own way, in a broader, transcendent vision of the

reality that we all share and inhabit, is even more relevant today than it was when he first

articulated it, over a century ago. It has, fortunately, become an influential ideal in the

Western world. But it is not yet shared by all.

Swamiji said at the end of his first address to the Parliament of World Religions,

I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honour of this convention may

be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen,

and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal.16

It is a deep and tragic irony that this speech was delivered on September 11, 1893that is,

precisely 108 years to the day before the notorious attacks which, for many in our time,

have come to symbolize that very fanaticism, persecution, and hatred which Swamiji so

fervently hoped would be ended in his time. Clearly, much work remains to be done to

realize Swami Vivekanandas fervent hope.

15

CW 2, p. 366 16

Vivekananda, Volume 1, p. 4



10

As long as there is religious bigotry, and as long as violence is carried out in the

name of religion, the need for Swami Vivekanandas vision will be pressing and urgent.

This becomes all the more evident when one takes into account the destructive capacities

that our ever-increasing technological abilities make available to an ever-widening pool

of actors on the global stage.

The urgent need to save our world from destruction by promoting the Vedantic

vision of universal acceptance compels us, in Swamijis words, to, Arise, awake, and

stop not until the goal is reached!

Documents

2013 JDLong.swami Vivekananda and Religious Pluralism