Hinduism Spiritual in Content, Scientific in Approach, Universal in Appeal: Swami Vivekananda

At the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swamy Vivekananda bowed to the goddess Saraswati mentally, then began his speech with the salutation,

"Sisters and brothers of America!". To these words he got a standing ovation from a crowd of thousands, which lasted for two minutes. When silence was restored, he continued his address: "I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world; I thank you in the name of the mother of religions; and I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects."

Here is the transcript of the chat on the subject on Grok

Swamy Vivekananda’s speech may be summarized in this sentence: "Hinduism is a religion that is spiritual in content, scientific in approach and universal in appeal." According to you which is the best religion in the world? 

Swami Vivekananda’s statement highlights three key attributes he ascribes to Hinduism: spiritual depth, a scientific approach, and universal appeal. To address your question, let’s consider whether these qualities appear in other religions and then reflect on the notion of "greatness."

 

Buddhism, for instance, shares some parallels. Its spiritual content is evident in practices like meditation and the pursuit of enlightenment, which focus on inner transformation. A scientific approach could be argued through its emphasis on empirical observation of the mind and suffering, as seen in the Four Noble Truths—almost like a diagnostic framework for human experience. Its universal appeal is reflected in its adaptability across cultures, from India to East Asia and now the West, often without requiring belief in a deity. The Buddhist texts, like the Abhidharma, also analyze consciousness and phenomena in a systematic way that some liken to early psychology or philosophy of science.

 

Jainism offers another example. Spiritually, it emphasizes non-violence (ahimsa) and self-discipline to liberate the soul. Its scientific bent shows in its detailed cosmology and atomistic theories, such as the concept of anu (atoms) in Jain texts like the Tattvartha Sutra, which predate modern physics. Its universal appeal lies in its ethical framework, applicable beyond cultural or religious boundaries, though it remains less widespread than Hinduism or Buddhism.

 

Taoism, too, could fit. Its spiritual core is the Tao, an ineffable principle of harmony. Its scientific approach might be seen in its observations of nature’s cycles—yin and yang, the Five Elements—which influenced Chinese medicine and philosophy. Its universal appeal is in its simplicity and focus on balance, resonating across cultures, though it’s often more philosophical than overtly religious in practice.

 

As for Christianity or Islam, their spiritual content is undeniable—faith, salvation, submission to God. A scientific approach is less intrinsic, though historical figures like Al-Farabi or Aquinas integrated reason and observation into theology, and medieval Islamic scholars advanced astronomy and mathematics. Universal appeal? Both have spread globally, claiming transcendence over cultural limits, though often tied to specific doctrines less flexible than Hinduism’s pluralism.

 

No religion matches Hinduism’s exact blend—its Vedic and post-Vedic texts, like the Upanishads and Smritis, do weave spirituality with inquiries into cosmology, mathematics (e.g., Baudhayana’s Sulba Sutras approximating √2), and medicine (Ayurveda). But "greatest" is subjective. If greatness hinges on these three attributes alone, Hinduism stands out for its synthesis. Yet, other religions might claim supremacy through moral clarity, community, or historical impact. It’s a matter of what you value—Hinduism’s not uniquely "the greatest" unless you define greatness by Vivekananda’s yardstick. What’s your take on what makes a religion great? 

The following prompt was given to further refine the answer: 

For example, Hinduism does not have concepts like apostacy, blasphemy and heresy. In fact it has accommodated the views of the 'nāstik', who in Indian philosophical thought were not non-believers but those who did not accept the Veda-s as standard. Those who believed in the Veda-s as standard are known as the 'āstik'. Thus Hinduism (to use a commonly understood term for 'Sanātana Dharma') has three āstik streams Advaita, Dvaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita and six nāstik streams, Cārvāka, Jaina and Bauddha, counting its four denominations. No other religious thought is as accommodative as Hinduism. Considering these factors should it not be concluded that Hinduism fits into Swami Vivekananda's aphorism and can be termed the 'greatest' religion?

 The reply: 

You’re zeroing in on a compelling angle: Hinduism’s remarkable inclusivity, especially its accommodation of diverse philosophical streams, both āstik (Veda-accepting) and nāstik (Veda-rejecting). This flexibility does align tightly with Vivekananda’s triad—spiritual content, scientific approach, and universal appeal—and it’s worth unpacking how this sets Hinduism apart.

 

The absence of rigid concepts like apostasy, blasphemy, or heresy is striking. Unlike Abrahamic traditions, where deviation from doctrine can lead to excommunication or worse, Hinduism—or Sanātana Dharma—embraces a spectrum of thought. The āstik schools, like Advaita (non-dualism), Dvaita (dualism), and Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism), debate the nature of reality and the self, yet coexist under the Vedic umbrella. Meanwhile, the nāstik streams—Cārvāka (materialism), Jainism, and Buddhism (with its four denominations)—reject Vedic authority but aren’t cast out as heretical. They’re part of the broader conversation. Cārvāka’s skepticism, for instance, challenges metaphysical claims with a proto-scientific insistence on perception as proof, while Jainism and Buddhism offer their own spiritual and ethical systems. This isn’t just tolerance—it’s a structural openness baked into the tradition.

 

That openness feeds Vivekananda’s points. Spiritually, Hinduism spans the mystical introspection of the Upanishads to the devotional fervor of Bhakti. Scientifically, its texts explore logic (Nyaya), linguistics (Vyakarana), and even mathematics (the zero, decimal system), alongside the nāstik contributions like Jain cosmology. Universally, it absorbs and adapts—look at how it integrated tribal deities or influenced Southeast Asia without conquest. No other religion quite mirrors this. Buddhism comes close but often pivots to its own canon (Tripitaka). Christianity and Islam universalize through conversion, not philosophical pluralism. Taoism’s fluid, but it lacks the same breadth of systematized diversity.

 

Does this make Hinduism the "greatest"? If greatness means adaptability and intellectual hospitality, it’s a strong case. It’s a living laboratory of ideas, not a monolith. But greatness could also mean global reach (Christianity, Islam), ethical simplicity (Buddhism), or cultural endurance (Judaism). Hinduism’s inclusivity might be its crown, but whether that’s the ultimate measure depends on your lens. If Vivekananda’s aphorism is the metric—spiritual, scientific, universal—Hinduism fits like a glove. Do you think inclusivity alone seals the deal, or is there another yardstick you’d weigh? 

Swami Vivekananda’s Speech at the World Parliament of Religions (1893) – In this historic speech, Swami Vivekananda focused on the spiritual, universal, and scientific aspects of Hinduism, often describing it as a religion that is inclusive of all religions and founded in universal principles of spirituality. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 1. Advaita Ashrama, 1998. 

The Science of Religion – Swami Vivekananda often discussed how religion and spirituality could be approached scientifically. He believed that spiritual experiences could be understood and studied with the same rigor and discipline as physical sciences. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3. Advaita Ashrama, 1998. 

Lectures and Discourses on Hinduism – Swami Vivekananda emphasized the universal appeal of Hinduism, stating that it transcends sectarian boundaries and is relevant to people of all cultures and beliefs. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. Lectures from Colombo to Almora. Advaita Ashrama, 1998.

Understand Sabarimala, Your Lordships!

The prime reason for Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism, in English!) to be the most misunderstood creed in the world has as much to do with politics as a lack of understanding of its core philosophy. More people drop ‘Manu Smriti’ than they drop hats without being able to quote one line from it. 

Amidst all the cacophony about temple entry and gender rights, the core philosophy behind a pilgrimage to Sabarimala is lost. 

The rishis of yore did penance to realise (darsana or visualisation through the mind) godhead. In order to focus the mind solely on the paramatma (Supreme Being), body and mind control were thought to be necessary. Control of bodily senses was thought to be necessary for controlling the mind. Modern science recognises there is a physiological basis to personality.

A barefoot, forty mile hike across forest tracks strewn with pebbles and stones in bone-chilling winters and a seven-mile trek across a forty-five-degree mountain is not easy. (It was originally a forty mile hike across a forest, now limited to about seven miles.) It requires rigorous conditioning of the body. The devotee practises sleeping on cold floors and walking barefoot for forty days. If this is physical conditioning, what about mind control? Brahmacharya (celibacy) requires equally rigorous mind control. In order to aid this, the devotee has cold baths twice a day, eschews spices, meat and intoxicants. A pilgrimage to Sabarimala to visit Bhagawan Ayyappa is all about brahmacharya. Wearing saffron or black clothes is a constant reminder of the need for brahmacharya.   

The exclusion of women between the ages of menarche and menopause has another reason. It is not gender discrimination but gender sensitivity, intended to spare them the rigours involved in a pilgrimage to Sabarimala. In the philosophy behind a pilgrimage to Sabarimala as in every other religious practice in Sanatana Dharma, there may be other cryptic reasons not fully understood by the laity.

The ageless scriptures of the Sanatana Dharma are beyond the ken of the Indian Constitution, amended a hundred and thirty times in sixty-six years. The Constitution entrusted Your Lordships with the duty of interpreting it. There are thousands of mundane matters that need and deserve your attention better! 

Does secularism mean Hindu subservience?

The two hot debating topics this December first week were the demolition of a disused building in Ayodhya twenty years ago and the current Gujarat election. The Ayodhya anniversary has by now become an annual ritual which (especially) the English language media religiously (pun intended) runs through, dusting its old footage or commissioning new quotes from old columnists. The debate such as it is, is like a restricted club whose membership is closed to outsiders. It is like the yarn about investigating a murder that occurred during an Italian card game in New York. The investigator asks the first guy, ‘who fired the shot?’ and he replies, ‘I dunno. I didn’t see it. I was sitting with my back to the door, you see.’ The second guy says the same thing and all others say the same thing. It was one card game in which everyone sat on the same side of the table!

As the debate could have only one side, any new columnists would have to conform by spewing old arguments of the old columnists, but if possible, in new a idiom. Or face ostracism from what is known as the mainstream media. Even the few columnists who have a contrary view would have to shroud their views in a lot of verbiage as to practically make them unintelligible or at least sound neutral. Or pass them as social science theories. Columnists with a Hindu moniker have to be doubly careful to pass the test of secularism. Others are not hampered by any such shibboleths. Thus, to be admitted to the club while a columnist with a name like a Misra or a Sarma would have to constantly invoke the dangers posed by the ‘Hindu right’ to the ‘secular fabric’ of the nation, a Manu Joseph could be brazen about his concept of secularism. Joseph first dismissed the notion that India is secular in his December 5 column in the International Herald Tribune (India Is Not A Secular Republic). To make matters clear even for the dimwitted, Joseph elaborated his concept of secularism in his column of the same day in New York Times (Secularism in Search of a Nation):

“…what it really meant, without spelling it out, was that Hindus, who make up the majority of the nation, would have to accommodate themselves to the ways of the other religions, even if this meant taking some cultural blows.”

In order to leave no one in doubt, as to what he meant by ‘taking cultural blows’, Joseph elaborates:

“So, Hindus would have to accept the slaughter of cows, which they consider sacred (some Indian states have banned cow slaughter); …”

For Joseph this was not enough.

“… the Muslim community’s perceived infatuation with Pakistan;”

Having demolished an oft repeated if clichéd ‘the idea of India’, shibboleth chanted by the secular intelligentsia, he comes to the nub:

“…the conversion of poor, low-caste Hindus to Christianity by evangelists; and the near impossibility of getting admitted to some prestigious schools and colleges run by Christian organizations because so many places are reserved for Christian students.”

The last bit about ‘the near impossibility of getting admitted to some prestigious schools and colleges’ is a placebo thrown in to mask his main demand that India be made a grazing ground for number-starved Churches in the west. There was a time when Christian run schools and colleges were in demand but there is no such mad scramble for them now as non-Christian (calling them Hindu might offend secular sensibilities!) institutions offer quality education comparable to or even better than them.

As Joseph was writing in an American newspaper read mainly in America would he consider tendering the same advice to the Americans? For instance, being a secular nation, America should have taken the cultural blow of ‘the World Trade Centre being brought down by a few misguided youth’ and not waged a war first on Afghanistan and then on Iraq. Or that America should really not bother about some of its jobs being Banglored. Or that twenty-first century America should really be not so conservative. If it were not so why would a Bobby Jindal or a Nicky Haley would have had to go to such great lengths to conceal their ethnic identities and fabricate new ones!  

After all this din, the Indian mainstream media would have redeemed a bit of its credibility if it expended a wee-bit of its energies in mourning a humanitarian disaster that is comparable only to the holocaust. None bothered (or dared) ask, ‘if the day on which a disused structure was destroyed is to be described a black day and commemorated every year, what about the day on which an estimated 450,000 Hindus were exiled in their own homeland?’ Why do lofty ideals like secularism and composite culture do not have the same connotation in India’s northern-most state? If December 6 is to be celebrated as a ‘black day’ every year why don’t we commemorate January 19 the day on which the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits commenced in 1989 and did not stop till virtually all of them were driven out? By not speaking about it if not against it are not our intelligentsia and media guilty of complicity?