Swami Vivekananda 150 - A Tribute - 5th part

To say that he was liberal would be an understatement as he had greatest respect for all religions and sects. He never lost this, despite the harsh treatment that he received in the hands of the Christian missionaries. Some of the best and most liberal minds of the Western churches like the Church of England and Unitarian churches of America were his friends and many of them used his teachings or invited him to speak from their podiums on Sundays. He was an ardent lover of Jesus Christ. One of the books that he always kept in possession during his itinerant days was Imitation of Christ by Thomas A Kempis. It was his genuine and sincere love for the greatest ideal of Christian world, that enhanced his appeal among the liberal section of the populace and the intelligentsia who were fed up with dogmas and doctrines devoid of love or tolerance. His teachings on the positive side, the divinity appealed to them in contrast to the Church’s over emphasis on sins. His Karmic theory was much more logical and rational as compared to the dogma of original sin. Therefore educated and sensible people naturally were attracted.

Many times during his itinerant period he stayed in a Muslim household. When asked by Munshi Jagmohan of the province of Khetri as to why, despite being a Hindu sannyasin he was staying with a Muslim, he replied that a Sannyasin neither has religion nor has caste. He can stay anywhere he likes. He had atleast one Muslim disciple, one Mr. Sarafraj Hussain who took up the name of Mahammedananda. His vision for India was a Vedantic brain with an Islamic body, i.e. Vedanta or the service to all mankind as God should be the core philosophy while the practical application of it should be derived from the Islamic practices of Universal Brotherhood, charity and community living. He revered the Prophet and interpreted his teachings in the most liberal and sublime light of Vedanta.

However the one person, for whom he had the greatest regard apart from his Guru Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, was Lord Buddha. His only regret was that the followers of Buddha failed to understand him, just as followers of Christ or that of the Prophet failed to understand their resp. liberal teachings and universalism and indulged in sectarianism and bigotry, which were the exact opposites of what these wise men had taught.

He was beyond castes and creeds. He supported only the scriptural basis of the caste system, that it is merely a trade guild, whereby one follows his own nature and profession suited to that nature. A Brahman is learned, literate, wise and should maintain a pure life based on truthfulness. A Kshatriya is one who protects the others, who can display valour, strength and courage. A Vaishya is adept in trade and commerce and a Sudra would be good in servicing others. The same statement is made in Gita by Sri Krishna, that the four varnas have originated out of the divisions of the threefold nature of mankind and the profession required suiting that nature.  Sri Krishna also recommended the ideal behavior of the people belonging to the four castes and further stated that emancipation is possible for all of them if they follow their nature and assigned duties to the perfection instead of adopting some other nature. In modern world also the four castes are very much present and their needs felt without anybody admitting it – Brahmans or the educated scholars, academics and intellectuals, Kshatriyas are the army, police and politicians for governance, administration and defence, Vaishyas are the corporate bodies and industries carrying out trade and commerce and Sudras are those employed in the service industries. What Swamiji revolted against is the oppression of one caste by another, the mutual dissents and fights in the name of castes, the behavior of the society towards the outcastes or Harijans and Dalits and the privileges forcefully enjoyed by the so called upper castes. He smoked a Chillum from a Bhangi, a so called outcast to establish his sympathetic bond with them. Wherever he saw oppression he protested and like a true sannyasin did not care about the consequences. He understood the poor and oppressed  admired them for their simplicity and piety and they returned his love and generosity in many cases.