October 2011 - Advaita Ashrama

Religious Pluralism and
Inter-religious Dialogue
Prof. Dilipkumar Mohanta
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan calls
Swami Vivekananda a ‘spokesman of the
Divine Logos’.1 And Swamiji, true to his
nature and also to the spirit of India’s pluralistic
cultural history, says that different religions ‘are
different forces in the economy of God, working
for the good of mankind; and not one can
become dead, not one can be killed.’2 Moreover,
this truth was demonstrated by his guru
Sri Ramakrishna, who said: ‘Yatho mat, tatho
path; as many opinions, so many paths.’ Elaborating
on this saying Sri Ramakrishna said: ‘If
you believe that God is formless, then stick to
that belief with firm conviction. But don’t be
dogmatic; never say emphatically about God
that He can be only this and not that. You
may say: “I believe that God is formless. But
He can be many things more. He alone knows
what else He can be. I do not know; I do not
understand.” ’ 3
Given the diversity of human nature and
temperament, the uniqueness of each religious
tradition is essential for its existence. When
Swamiji speaks of unity in the context of religions,
he does not speak of uniformity. This
unity lies at the core of all religions. His thorough
reading of India’s cultural history enables
him to decipher the cultural semiotics
that reveals the open, free, and potentially creative
pluralistic Indian mind. Defending the
pluralistic approach Swamiji says: ‘There may
be almost contradictory points of view of the
same thing, but they will all indicate the same
638
thing.’ 4 This may be considered as an important
clue to understand religious pluralism and to
initiate inter-religious dialogue; but each religious
tradition, according to Swamiji, contains
within itself a special evolutionary pattern. This
implies that religious traditions, as different
ways of life, are shaped by sociocultural contexts;
and as sociocultural contexts are in flux,
religious traditions also undergo change. If any
religion resists change, it creates rigidity and
advocates exclusivism. Swamiji remarks that religions
‘become dangerous only when they become
rigid, and will not move further’ (2.500).
Unless a minimal condition of openness and
receptivity is fulfilled no inter-religious dialogue
can be initiated, for such a dialogue must
allow us to question and disagree with sincerity
and respect. It surely does not stop with the
practice of tolerance of other faiths, but it has
to accept other religions as true. The pluralistic
hypothesis about religion relativizes one’s
own religion by situating it within the broader
context of religious plurality. It indicates a direct
experience of ‘otherness’, which is difficult
to ignore in today’s world. This feeling or, to
use a Paul Tillich’s phraseology, ‘ultimate concern’
is the essential feature of any true religion
for the age, which has to teach the sacrifice of
one’s personal interests for a common good and
the sensibility to feel on a par with others. It
is sad that in many institutionalized religions
very few people have the attitude of accepting
others’ faiths as true as their own.
PB October 2011