This dissertation examines Vivekananda (1863-1902) as an itinerant monk rather than the nationalist ideologue he has become in recent scholarship. Historians have approached Vivekananda as either a pioneer of Hindu nationalism or as the voice of a universalist calling for service to humanity. Such labelling neglects the fact that he predominantly navigated between those polarised identities, and overlooks the incongruities between his actions and his ideas. By contextualising his travels within various scales of history, this dissertation puts Vivekananda's lived life in dialogue with his thought, as articulated in his correspondence and speeches. It shows that purposeful movement characterised Vivekananda's life. Instead of searching for enlightenment, he travelled throughout the subcontinent as a wandering monk to territorialise spirituality. He carved out his own support base in Madras to reclaim the region from the Theosophical Society, and dwelled in native courts to accrue the patronage of native princes to build the Ramakrishna Math and Mission with him at the helm. His web of princely patronage also carried him to the Parliament of the World's Religions (World's Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893), as a representative of 'Hinduism' rather than a Hindu representative of a religious community or organisation. His rise to fame at the Parliament also unfolded through spatial dynamic. His performance triggered highly gendered and disordered spectacle, which starkly contrasted with the British Royal Commission's obsession with discipline at the main Exposition. Furthermore, his speeches painted an anti-colonial geography of fraternity, and instilled new malleable subjectivity in his western female followers. After his death, his life and ideas continued to challenge the colonial state's distinction between 'spirituality' and anarchism. Thus, Vivekananda territorialised spirituality in both India and America not only by travelling, but also by inhabiting the interstices of empire. By examining Vivekananda through space, this dissertation creates a new template for contextualising Vivekananda in national, imperial, and international histories, leading to new insights on the man, his ideas, and his legacy.

Today, several interreligious organisations are publishing joint statements of obvious moral character. These may regard such things as environmental issues, peacebuilding, or freedom of thought. This raises the question of how such statements are to be justified and what role different theological and religious traditions play in justifying joint values. This study seeks to understand and critically examine these questions.  The theoretical foundation is derived from Marianne Moyaert's development of Paul Ricœur's critique of joint interreligious ethics. From this, three main areas are analysed in four interreligious documents. First, what space is given to individual traditions as a source of moral knowledge? Second, to what degree is an ethic of consensus or compromise expressed? Third, how are pluralism, particularism, and radical pluralism expressed?  The study suggests three conclusions for justifying interreligious statements. First, joint published documents should include both theological resources from different traditions and an explicit invitation to dialogue. Second, a dialogue that seeks common values but accepts tension, seen as a critical instance, should be appreciated. Third, interreligious dialogue and its statements could be understood as a way of, with the help of different faith traditions, examining their own and other instances' values.