We began with a discussion of Christianity, which was started by some remark of mine about Sita and her view of the Buddhist faith. Oddly enough, it was not long before I found myself engaged in a defence of Sita's religion - a change of sides for me, as my part until today had always been that of objector. But I have been a sympathetic objector, whereas Smith is quite the reverse. The hostile gleam that came into his eyes as he denounced the faith of his fathers took me aback at the time, and I cannot recall it now without astonishment. I am certain that Smith is one of the most kindly-intentioned of men, yet he nourishes his prejudices with the milk of hatred. The fact is that with sixteen centuries of Christianity behind him, to say nothing of a Christian upbringing, he has become incapable of taking an impartial view, or even of realising that his view is lacking in impartiality. Just as he might have become a fighting bigot, he has actually become a fighting apostate. Could he but read the New Testament in the same spirit in which he reads his Plato, it would move him to the profoundest depths of his being - just as it did me, when I first read it. Could he but consider the character of Christ as he has considered that of Socrates, he would be overwhelmed by its beauty. But this is quite beyond him; and if he is prone to associate the names of Christ, Socrates and Buddha, that is done, I fear, not with any intention of honouring Christ but rather in order to bring him down from the unique position that Christians assign to him.
