He spoke, for instance, of the points of similarity between the Vedic and the Roman Catholic ritual, holding the latter to have been derived from the former through Buddhism, which was only an offshoot of Hinduism, and "was entirely within Hinduism 1" "Vedic ritual", he pointed out, "has its Mass, the offering of food to God, your Blessed Sacrament, our Prasada. Only it is offered sitting, not kneeling, as is common in hot countries. They kneel in Tibet. Then, too, Vedic ritual has its lights, incense, music." When it was suggested that Hinduism had no Common Prayer., he flashed out: "No! and neither had Christianity! That is pure Protestantism, and Protestantism took it from the Mohammedans perhaps through Moorish influence. Mohammedanism is the only religion that has completely broken down the idea of the priest. The leader of prayer stands with his back to the people, and only the reading of the Koran may take place from the pulpit. Protestantism is an approach to this."
"Even the tonsure", he continued, "existed in India, in the shaven head.... The monk and nun both existed in pre-Buddhistic Hinduism. Europe gets her orders from the Thebaid."
Almost the whole of Christianity, he believed, was Aryan. "Indian and Egyptian ideas met at Alexandria, and went forth to the world tinctured with Judaism and Hellenism, as Christianity." The historicity of Jesus, he said, he had in a way doubted since the significant dream that he had had while on board ship off Crete. However, "two things stand out as personal living touches in the life of Christ: the woman taken in adultery — the most beautiful story in literature — and the woman at the well. How strangely true is this last to Indian life! A woman, coming to draw water, finds, seated at the well-side, a yellow-clad monk. He asks her for water. Then he teaches her, and does a little mind-reading, and so on. Only, in an Indian story, when she went to call the Villagers, the monk would have taken his chance, and fled to the forest!"
Of the early figures of Christianity he remarked that only of Saint Paul could history be sure, "and he was not an eyewitness, and according to his own showing was capable of Jesuitry — 'by all means save souls' — isn't it?" He preferred Strauss to Renan, whose "life of Jesus. is mere froth", and felt that the Acts and Epistles were older than the Gospels. Saint Paul's greatness lay in galvanizing into life an obscure Nazarene sect of great antiquity, which "furnished the mythic personality as a centre of worship". He thought that Rabbi Hillel was probably responsible for the teachings of Jesus. "The Resurrection, of course," he said, "is simply spring cremation. Only the rich Greeks and Romans had had cremation anyway, and the new sun-myth would only stop it amongst the few."
"But Buddha l" the Swami continued; "Buddha! Surely he was the greatest man who ever lived. He never drew a breath for himself Above all, he never claimed worship. He said, 'Buddha is not a man, but a state. I have found the door. Enter, all of you!"'
With regard to the Swami's views on early Christianity, it is worth noting that they were in substantial accord with those of such eminent Christian scholars of that time as Mr. J. M. Robertson, Dr. A. Drews, and Prof. W. B. Smith.