Creeds must disagree: it is the whole fun of the thing. If I think the universe is triangular, and you think it is square, there cannot be room for two universes. We may argue politely, we may argue humanely, we may argue with great mutual benefit: but, obviously, we must argue.

Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to say that I must not discuss it; I may not say that Buddhism is false, and that is all I want to say about Buddhism.

It is the only interesting thing that anybody can want to say about Buddhism — either that it is false or that it is true.

But in these modern assemblies, supposed to be tolerant and scientific, there is spread a general and tacit agreement that there shall be no violent assertion or negation of faith; and this is not only hypocritical, but unbusinesslike, for it is not getting to the point.

In short, the awkwardness of a real congress of creeds is merely this: that if two absolute creeds meet, they will probably fight; and if they do not fight, there is really not much value in their having met.

It is absurd to have a discussion on Comparative Religions if you don't compare them.

And if the representatives of two energetic Eastern philosophies do begin to compare them, there is, of course, always the possibility that this delicate scientific analysis may be conducted with long curved knives.