Towards the Truth

The Inconsistence of
Christianity
Bhikkhu Dhammapāla’s second address in the debate
It was certainly a great surprise to most of us, when last time
we were told that one “can be a Christian, even if one never has
heard of the ten commandments or of the Sermon of the Mount”.
The only possible explanation I can think of, is that anyone who
leads a naturally good life is by nature a Christian. It is strange
that we Buddhists make the same claim, that anyone who abstains
from doing evil, who does the right thing, and purifies his mind, is
a follower of the Buddha. Except for the two personalities of the
Founders we have here at least something in common to start with.
But now the difficulty arises, when one has to fill in his censuspaper.
Is a person who lives a good moral life according to the
so-called natural law as well as according to the Roman-Dutch law,
without worrying in the least about religious dogmas or philosophic
viewpoints, is such a person, who is as good and faithful as a dog,
is he a Christian or a Buddhist? It is clear, that one requires more
than morality to call oneself either Christian or Buddhist? One
must have conviction. And to have conviction one must know at
least something: at least one must know the object of one’s faith,
the purpose of one’s morality. And therefore my reverend opponent
rightly pointed out, that it was a principle in Christianity “to at-
17