Intolerance continuum can be seen as comprising four discrete levels, and can be measured on a 4-point scale:
0 = Acceptance
1 = Tolerance
2 = Intolerance
3 = Conversion
Let us take the example of the way of cooking and eating potato. Let us assume that your way of consuming potato is different from mine.
(0) If I wholeheartedly and fully believe that your way of consuming is as good for you as my way is for me, that is acceptance.
On the contrary, if I believe that my way of consuming is better than your way for you also, there are three possibilities:
(1) If I am willing to put up with your way, that is tolerance. There is an incongruence of belief with attitude and behavior.
(2) If I am mentally unwilling to put up with your way but do nothing, that is the attitude of intolerance. There is an incongruence between attitude and behavior.
(3) If I induce or force you to change your way, that is conversion.
The last three may have a strong causal relationship with each other. Tolerance may give way to intolerance, when attitude changes to fall in line with the belief that my way of consuming is better than your way for you also. Intolerance is characterized by cognitive dissonance, and may give way to conversion, when behavior falls in line with attitude. Thus, any positive score on intolerance (i.e., when acceptance is not there) has a self-accelerating property.
Swami Vivekananda said: "So-called toleration is often blasphemy, and I do not believe in it. I believe in acceptance. Why should I tolerate? Toleration means that I think that you are wrong and I am just allowing you to live. Is it not a blasphemy to think that you and I are allowing others to live?" (Complete Works, Volume 2, Page 374)
If we average our intolerance towards the various aspects of a person, and if we average our intolerance towards the various people, we can get our intolerance score.
Sri Ramakrishna gave an excellent argument for acceptance: "God Himself has provided different forms of worship. He who is the Lord of the Universe has arranged all these forms to suit different men in different stages of knowledge... The mother cooks different dishes to suit the stomachs of her different children. Suppose she has five children. If there is a fish to cook, she prepares various dishes from it — pilau, pickled fish, fried fish, and so on — to suit their different tastes and powers of digestion" (Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Page 5).
Acceptance as a fundamental aspect of the Indian worldview was established during the Sarasvati-Indus civilization, and was proclaimed famously in Ṛg-Veda 1.164.46 ("He who exists is one; the sages call Him variously"), before 3000 BCE.
Swami Vivekananda elaborated: One of the greatest sages that was ever born found out in India even at that distant time, which history cannot reach, and into whose gloom even tradition itself dares not peep — in that distant time the sage arose and declared, — "He who exists is one; the sages call Him variously." This is one of the most memorable sentences that was ever uttered, one of the grandest truths that was ever discovered. And this truth has been the very backbone of India's national existence. For throughout the vistas of the centuries of India's national life, this one idea comes down, gaining in volume and in fullness till it has permeated the whole of India's national existence, till it has mingled in Indians' blood, and has become one with them. Indians live that grand truth in every vein, and India has become the glorious land of religious acceptance. This is one very great principle that the world is waiting to learn from India... The world is waiting for this grand idea of universal acceptance. It will be a great acquisition to civilization. Nay, no civilization can long exist unless this idea enters into it. No civilization can grow unless fanatics, bloodshed, and brutality stop. No civilization can begin to lift up its head until we look charitably upon one another; and the first step towards that much-needed charity is to look charitably and kindly upon the religious convictions of others. Nay more, to understand that not only should we be charitable, but positively helpful to each other, however different our religious ideas and convictions may be (Complete Works, Volume 3, Pages 186-188).
