JESUS LIVED IN INDIA

Holger Kersten: "It is simply of vital importance to find again the path to the sources, to the eternal and central truths of Christ´s message, which has been shaken almost beyond recognition by the profane ambitions of more or less secular institutions arrogating to themselves a religious authority. This is an attempt to open a way to a new future, firmly founded in the true spiritual and religious sources of the past".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---


Thus begins Holger Kersten´s book "Jesus Lived in India". This German book is a thorough, methodical and authoritative examination of the evidence of Christ´s life beyond the Middle East before the Crucifixion and in India and elsewhere after it.

This article is a summary of Kersten´s exhaustive research into Christ´s travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir. Kersten notes the many parallels of Christ´s teachings with other religious and cultural traditions and suggests that at least some of these figures may have been one and the same personality. It is not possible, Kersten asserts, to disprove that Christ went to India. The current information documenting Christ´s life is restricted to the gospels and the work of Church theologians. One can hardly trust these sources to be objective considering their obvious interest in maintaining the authority of their Church and its grip on the masses.



The Russian scholar, Nicolai Notovich, was the first to suggest that Christ may have gone to India. In 1887, Notovich, a Russian scholar and Orientalist, arrived in Kashmir during one of several journeys to the Orient. At the Zoji-la pass Notovich was a guest in a Buddhist monastery, where a monk told him of the bhodisattva saint called "Issa". Notovich was stunned by the remarkable parallels of Issa´s teachings and martyrdom with that of Christ´s life, teachings and crucifixion.

For about sixteen years, Christ travelled through Turkey, Persia, Western Europe and possibly England. He finally arrived with Mary to a place near Kashmir, where she died. After many years in Kashmir, teaching to an appreciative population, who venerated him as a great prophet, reformer and saint, he died and was buried in a tomb in Kashmir itself.

The first step in Christ´s trail after the Crucifixion is found in the Persian scholar F. Mohammed´s historical work "Jami-ut-tuwarik" which tells of Christ´s arrival in the kingdom of Nisibis, by royal invitation. (Nisibis is today known as Nusaybin in Turkey) . This is reiterated in the Imam Abu Jafar Muhammed´s "Tafsi-Ibn-i-Jamir at-tubri." Kersten found that in both Turkey and Persia there are ancient stories of a saint called "Yuz Asaf" ("Leader of the Healed" , whose behaviour, miracles and teachings are remarkably similar to that of Christ.

The many Islamic and Hindu historical works recording local history and legends of kings, noblemen and saints of the areas thought to be travelled by Jesus also give evidence of a Christ like man; the Koran, for example, refers to Christ as "Issar". Further east, the Kurdish tribes of Eastern Anatolia have several stories describing Christ´s stay in Eastern Turkey after his resurrection. These traditional legends have been ignored by the theological community.

Kersten also suggests that prior to Christ´s mission in the Middle East, he may have been exposed to Buddhist teachings in Egypt. After his birth in Bethlehem, his family fled to Egypt to avoid Herod´s persecution. Surprisingly some scholars now acknowledge that Buddhist schools probably existed in Alexandria long before the Christian era.

More clues are drawn from the Apocrypha. These are texts said to have been written by the Apostles but which are not officially accepted by the Church. Indeed, the Church regards them as heresy since a substantial amount of the Apocrypha directly contradicts Church dogma and theology. The Apocryphal ´Acts of Thomas´, for example, tell how Christ met Thomas several times after the Crucifixion. In fact they tell us how Christ sent Thomas to teach his spirituality in India. This is corroborated by evidence found in the form of stone inscriptions at Fatehpur Sikri, near the Taj Mahal, in Northern India. They include "Agrapha", which are sayings of Christ that don´t exist in the mainstream Bible. Their grammatical form is most similar to that of the Apocryphal gospel of Thomas. This is but one example giving credibility to the idea that texts not recognised by the Church hold important clues about Christ´s true life and his teachings.

In tracing Christ´s movements to India and beyond, Kersten also discovered that many of his teachings, which have been gradually edited out of the modern Bible were originally Eastern in nature. Principles such as karma and re-incarnation, for example, were common knowledge then, and seem to have been reaffirmed by Christ. Imagine the implications that this discovery holds for Western Christianity and its churches, who have kept Christ in their doctrinal top pockets and have constrained the entire Western culture within the narrow teachings of blind faith, organised religion and original sin!

Further clues are cited from The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas which are of Syrian origin and have been dated to the 4th Century AD, or possibly earlier. They are Gnostic Scriptures and despite the evidence indicating their authenticity, they are not given credence by mainstream theologians. In these texts Thomas tells of Christ´s appearance in Andrapolis, Paphlagonia (today known as in the extreme north of Anatolia) as a guest of the King of Andrappa. There he met with Thomas who had arrived separately. It is at Andrapolis that Christ entreated Thomas to go to India to begin spreading his teachings. It seems that Christ and Mary then moved along the West coast of Turkey, proof of this could be an old stopping place for travellers called the "Home of Mary", found along the ancient silk route. From here Christ could easily have entered Europe via France. He may have even travelled as far as the British Isles, for in England there is an ancient oak tree called the "Hallowed Tree" which (says local legend) was planted by Christ himself.

In his travels through Persia (today´s Iran) Christ became known as Yuz Asaf (leader of the Healed). We know this because a Kashmiri historical document confirms that Isa (the Koranic name for Christ) was in fact also known as Yuz Asaf. The Jami - uf - Tamarik, Volume II, tells that Yuz Asaf visited Masslige, where he attended the grave of Shem, Noah´s son. There are various other accounts such as Agha Mustafa´s "Awhali Shahaii-i-paras" that tell of Yuz Asaf´s travels and teachings all over Persia. It seems that Yuz Asaf blessed Afghanistan and Pakistan with his presence also. There are for example two plains in Eastern Afghanistan near Gazni and Galalabad, bearing the name of the prophet Yuz Asaf. Again in the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, Thomas says that he and Christ attended the Court of King Gundafor of Taxila (now Pakistan), in about 47AD, and that eventually both the King and his brother accepted Christ´s teachings. Kersten claims that there are more than twenty one historical documents that bear witness to the existence of Jesus in Kashmir, where he was known also as Yuz Asaf and Issa. For example the Bhavishyat Mahapurana (volume 9 verses 17-32) contains an account of Issa-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). It describes Christ´s arrival in the Kashmir region of India and his encounter with King Shalivahana, who ruled the Kushan area (39-50AD), and who entertained Christ as a guest for some time.

{Christ´s life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery.|

The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or "The final resting place of Mary". The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa´s (ie Christ´s) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead and scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.

Following Christ´s trail into Kashmir, 40km south of Srinagar, between the villages of Naugam and Nilmge is a meadow called Yuz-Marg (the meadow of Yuz Asaf, ie. Jesus). Then there is the sacred building called Aish Muqam, 60km south east of Srinagar and 12km from Bij Bihara. "Aish" says Kersten is derived from "Issa" and "Muqam" place of rest or repose. Within the Aish Muqam is a sacred relic called the ´Moses Rod´ or the ´Jesus Rod´, which local legend says, belonged to Moses himself. Christ is said to also have held it, perhaps to confirm his Mosaic heritage. Above the town of Srinagar is a temple known as "The Throne of Solomon", which dates back to at least 1000BC, which King Gopadatta had restored at about the same time as Christ´s advent. The restoration was done by a Persian architect who personally left four inscriptions on the side steps of the temple. The third and fourth inscription read: "At this time Yuz Asaf announced his prophetic calling in Year 50 and 4" and "He is Jesus -- Prophet of the Sons of Israel"! Herein lies a powerful confirmation of Kersten´s theory. Kersten suggests that Christ may have travelled to the South of India also, finally returning to Kashmir to die at the age of approximately 80 years. Christ´s tomb, says Kersten, lies in Srinagar´s old town in a building called Rozabal. "Rozabal" is an abbreviation of Rauza Bal, meaning "tomb of a prophet". At the entrance there is an inscription explaining that Yuz Asaf is buried along with another Moslem saint. Both have gravestones which are oriented in North-South direction, according to Moslem tradition. However, through a small opening the true burial chamber can be seen, in which there is the Sarcophagus of Yuz Asaf in East-West (Jewish) orientation!

According to Professor Hassnain, who has studied this tomb, there are carved footprints on the grave stones and when closely examined, carved images of a crucifix and a rosary. The footprints of Yuz Asaf have what appear to be scars represented on both feet, if one assumes that they are crucifixion scars, then their position is consistent with the scars shown in the Turin Shroud (left foot nailed over right). Crucifixion was not practised in Asia, so it is quite possible that they were inflicted elsewhere, such as the Middle East. The tomb is called by some as "Hazrat Issa Sahib" or "Tomb of the Lord Master Jesus". Ancient records acknowledge the existence of the tomb as long ago as 112AD. The Grand Mufti, a prominent Muslim Cleric, himself has confirmed that Hazrat Isa Sahib is indeed the tomb of Yuz Asaf!

Thus Kersten deduces that the tomb of Jesus Christ Himself is in Kashmir!

The implications of Kersten´s discovery are monumental. Christ´s life in India, after the crucifixion, challenges current Church teachings at their very foundation. The theology of Saint Paul, the major influence on modern Christianity, is empty fanaticism in the light of this discovery. Threatened also are the doctrines of obedience to the Church, original sin, salvation through blind faith and the non-existence of reincarnation, etc. Yet these ideas underlie the morality and ethics, (or lack of them), that govern the entire Western social structure, from the legal system to medical health care schemes. It is no wonder that the modern Churches and their secular interests refuse to consider such a proposition as Kersten´s!

I find it interesting and somehow kind of make sense to the similiar between Jesus and Buddha's teaching plus that it is possible since Buddha did live 500 hundreds years before him.

Hmm very interesting... didn't read it thoroughly but it makes you think.


-Norm

No Offense Intended

i dont believe much of what i read because it sounds like all research to me. (Although i dont understand some of it) People are all about proving things these days. We dont need to know things that assume so much. That book was probably written by someone who obviously didnt trust Gods word. The bible is the word of God and that is that.

The whole beauty about Christ is that we shouldnt pry into the miracle of life.Thats what makes it a wonderful thing. I love Jesus even without knowing all that information. I dont want to know anything that someone put into a book unless its the bible. I dont believe that Buddist and Christ are simliar at all. Buddha is mainly about meditation and healing (im not sure but thats what a friend told me), Christ is about having a relationship straight to the Lord, speaking directly to him in english or the ancient tongue.

PEACE - TYLER

Well, Buddha is all about meditation. I don't think this is true, but it does make a good read.


-Norm

Buddhist is not all about meditation and healing??? <--- I don't think so.
Well I am a person of evidences and there are facts that Buddhist did exsist
but not God. And I think it a possiblity(not that I am believing it all) because if you look at Buddha 8 noble path and the ten commandments it sound very similar .

As a Buddhist, i believe it more about resisting temptations and strive yourself to connect the mind and body to achieve the what you think it hard. Desires is suffereing.
The eight fold path

1. * Samma-Ditthi — Complete or Perfect Vision, also translated as right view or understanding. Vision of the nature of reality and the path of transformation.

2. Samma-Sankappa — Perfected Emotion or Aspiration, also translated as right thought or attitude. Liberating emotional intelligence in your life and acting from love and compassion. An informed heart and feeling mind that are free to practice letting go.

3. Samma-Vaca — Perfected or whole Speech. Also called right speech. Clear, truthful, uplifting and non-harmful communication.

4. Samma-Kammanta — Integral Action. Also called right action. An ethical foundation for life based on the principle of non-exploitation of oneself and others. The five precepts.

5. Samma-Ajiva — Proper Livelihood. Also called right livelihood. This is a livelihood based on correct action the ethical principal of non-exploitation. The basis of an Ideal society.

6. Samma-Vayama — Complete or Full Effort, Energy or Vitality. Also called right effort or diligence. Consciously directing our life energy to the transformative path of creative and healing action that fosters wholeness. Conscious evolution.

7. Samma-Sati — Complete or Thorough Awareness. Also called "right mindfulness". Developing awareness, "if you hold yourself dear watch yourself well". Levels of Awareness and mindfulness - of things, oneself, feelings, thought, people and Reality.

8. Samma-Samadhi — Full, Integral or Holistic Samadhi. This is often translated as concentration, meditation, absorption or one-pointedness of mind. None of these translations is adequate. Samadhi literally means to be fixed, absorbed in or established at one point, thus the first level of meaning is concentration when the mind is fixed on a single object. The second level of meaning goes further and represents the establishment, not just of the mind, but also of the whole being in various levels or modes of consciousness and awareness. This is Samadhi in the sense of enlightenment or Buddhahood.

THis is a very old theory. It isn't imopssible since a good chunk of Christ's life is undocumented.

If you ever get a chance to study Gnostic Christianity, a lot of the ideas sound a lot like hinduism rather than modern christianity or judaism.

Gnosticism is possibly the first sect of christianity. The other two were a more jewish oriented sect and proto-orthodox (this eventually became mainstream christianity and wiped out the other two out of existence)

funny...
yeah Buddha and Jesus are not similar at all...
Jesus is superior to Buddha by preaching love and love for God...
but Jesus claimed he was the only way that leads to God...
Buddha is superior to Jesus by preaching inner potential of each individual, meditation...
Buddha never talked about God... but he never denied His existence...
what was the use of talking about God, when people wouldn't understand the meaning of Love, how could they understand the meaning of God...

concerning Jesus in India...
i believe he went there...
the period between 12 and 33 years is the most important one in a man's life because that is when a person's character really develops, but that part of life of Jesus is missing in the Bible...
anyway i think that doesn't change the status of Jesus as the Son of God.

but it's interesting to compare Krishna's life and Jesus' one, and see they're very similar except that Krishna came on Earth before the Christ...

Glory to Jesus and Buddha

i personally believed jesus studied in india. there are too many similarities between jesus and Buddha.


@ thread started...no one is really going to read all of that stuff. maybe you want to shorten it. just sayin'...

i agree with ya, i didn't even bother to read a sentence!!!

but Jesus didn't have to be in India to learn Buddhism it's all along the silk road and traders. plus during his time there are tons of religions that bloomed off each other. given that Jesus lived in the eastern Mediterranean, it's not a surprise. in fact Buddhism isn't the only eastern religion that Christianity is linked with.

I seriously hope u are not saying Jesus was same as Buddha, cuz that would be stupid as hell. If you were to say Jesus was a disciple of Buddhist philosophies, then that's acceptable. Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus was born, and that is indisputable.

oh yeah, i do know buddhism was along the silk road. he could have possibly been 'schooled' along the route. who really knows until we find archeological evidence.



hey kkd, i'm not afraid of you.

i know buddha lived years before jesus. i'm not an idiot. i'm saying jesus, between the ages of 12 through 29, could have very well been taught about buddhism.

*christians everywhere are getting scared*

LMAO

dp

it's a funny thing that people are talking about Jesus and Buddha, i think that Jesus' preaching is closer to Hinduism than Buddhism, especially's to Krishna's one :

do you minid explaining?? i would really like to hear. thanks.

Um...what part of my post was supposed to scare you?

There's no actual evidence that Jesus was even a real person much less that he lived in India.

Jesus is like the Hebrew version of Krishna. Redemptive figures are a part of a lot of societies' mythologies, it's part of human nature to admire such people. Hope for a better future drives civilization to a large degree, unlike the tribal who is happy with status quo.

The earliest reference I know of concerning Jesus in Asia comes from Irenaeus late in the 2nd century. According to him, Jesus survived the crucifixion and lived as a teacher in Asia until age 50 when he died. He claimed Bishop Papias also believed this and that the information came from John who repeated it to many others also. But Irenaeus didn't say India specifically. I've even heard a far-out one that Jesus survived the crucifixion and fled to Asia and finally died at 102 in Japan!

Ultimately, though, I don't believe in a historical Jesus. There is no evidence he ever existed much less journeyed to India. He bears some resemblances to Buddha because both are mythological figures that have the genesis from the same root. That root looks to me to be Greek paganism (yes, Greece was heavily Buddhist once boasting a sangha of tens of thousands of bhikkus--in fact, Buddhism made inroads into places as Hungary). The story in John of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well and the story of Buddha meeting the girl with the pail of milk-rice is too similar to be coincidence. And let us remember that early Christians and Gnostics believed in reincarnation.

And someone mentioned Krishna and he too is another Christ. Born on December 25th, a new star appears in the sky, an evil king is alarmed by the star, Krishna born in a cave, his mother a virgin, he gathers disciples, he performs miracles, he is killed by being hung between heaven and earth and his blood falls to the earth and rejuvenates it. But then there allegedly are old legends of Buddha being crucified between two malefactors at the foot of the Himalayas.

Jesus never went to India, he was already there. Jesus is a holdover hero, the demigod, vestige of our fascination with a mythical past called the Age of God-Men and Kings. Genesis 6:4 states: "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." They reared great stone structures all over the earth and taught us how to read the stars. The Romans had that period prior to the Caesars when they were governed by a series of mythical kings such as Tarquinius Superbus. Of course, Remus and Romulus fall into this same age of the distant, murky, mythical past of kings, heroes and god-men. Our royal families are believed to be the remnants of this nearly-forgotten past such as Japan's Jimu-tenno, the first emperor. So we apotheosized our emperors and bestowed titles as "son of god" and "son of heaven" upon them. That's why Buddha was a peaceful prince and why Jesus was the Prince of Peace. Christ means king.

It boils down to ancestor worship. We are all ancestor-worshippers whether we think we are or not. The further in the past we go, the closer we get to the Great Heroes & Demigods who once ruled earth. That's why we revere our ancient writings--we believe that they came from this murky age to us. No one knows who really wrote them. They were handed down to us from some ancient, glorious past.

India certainly had its age of god-men & kings--several of them, really. It was then that Jesus walked and so did Buddha and Mahavira and Krishna and Ikshvaku and Sanjaya, etc.

bravooooooooooooooo!

hats off to u

No offence but you post made me laugh. Let me correct you here. Krishna was born in a prison, his mother Devki was not a virgin as you stated here, she was married to Vasudev. So Krishna was the son of Vasudev and Devaki. Krishna died when a hunter mistook him for a deer in a jungle and shot an arrow which pierced his foot. That is how he died. I never heard or read anywhere Buddha being crucified. Lord Buddha went in a parinirvana state, means he gave up food water etc and died in Kushinagar.


If I am not wrong Christ means one who is crucified right?


Ikshvaku is the naame of a clan or dynasty, it is not an individual. Mention of a person named Sanjaya comes in Mahabharat, he narrates the events of the great battle to the blind king Dhritarashtra.

Christ translates to "Anointed one" or "chosen one". Also often translated to Messiah

What now? Jebus was Indian?

Mate he sure got around...

I've read from somewhere by German writer saying that Jesus Christ could be Mahayana ( Liberal Buddhist sect) monk in quest for Bodhisatarva Ideal from northern India.

I hope this will not offence anyone, just a random thought, not serious one though.

Lol, this post was embarrassing to read.

A cave, a prison, a dungeon. It's all the same thing mythologically. Krishna is spirit being held prisoner inside matter.



There are some versions that he was her eighth son but some that say she was a virgin:

Crishna was born of a chaste virgin, called Devaki, who, on account of her purity, was selected to become the "mother of God."
Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions
Zeus, Father of the gods, visited Semele in the form of a thunderstorm; and she gave birth to the great saviour and deliverer Dionysus. Zeus, again, impregnated Danae in a shower of gold; and the child was Perseus Devaki, the radiant Virgin of the Hindu mythology, became the wife of the god Vishnu and bore Krishna, the beloved hero and prototype of Christ.

Thus one of the familiar religious emblems of India was the statue of the virgin mother (as the Hindus repute her) Devaki and her divine son Krishna, an incarnation of the great god Vishnu.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/virgin.htm



That's one version (and a copy of Achilles' death).

Krishna was crucified. Jesus was crucified.

During the crucifixion, Krishna was wounded by an arrow. During the crucifixion, Jesus was wounded by a spear.

At noon on the day of Krishna's crucifixion, the sun darkened. From the sixth hour to the ninth hour on the day of Jesus' crucifixion, the sun darkened.

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/krishnajesusmyths.html



Moreover, even though Graves himself does not cite this variant "Beddou" specifically among the crucified in his short discussion of the article in The New York Correspondent, he does list "the Buddha" as one of the 16 cross-borne saviors, and it is evident that he thought of the two as the same individual. The basis for Graves's claim regarding the crucifixion of Buddha is not unfounded, nor did he "just make it up" as his uninformed detractors like to charge. In Suns of God, I spend considerable time on the alleged crucifixion of Buddha, preceding it with a long chapter on the purported crucifixion of Krishna, in order to establish a pattern of sacred-king sacrifices and gods depicted in cruciform. Once again, Graves got this information from Godfrey Higgins, but Higgins was followed also by the Christian lawyer Henry O'Brien in The Round Towers of Ireland, who was adamant that the crucifixes above doors of the mysterious Irish towers were not of Christ but of Buddha. (For more on that subject, the reader is referred to Suns of God.)

In his Anacalypsis, Godfrey Higgins discusses Buddha being taken as a criminal and crucified after picking a flower in a royal garden. This story sounds genuinely ancient, and it appears that Higgins knew about ancient Sanskrit texts that contained this or a similar tale possessing its most germane aspect: To wit, that Buddha was represented as having been crucified. In fact, independently of Graves's work this Buddha crucifixion in Sanskrit texts has been determined by Sanskrit scholar and professor Dr. Christian Lindtner, who possesses a PhD in Buddhist Studies, as appearing in pre-Christian Buddhist literature. In this regard, Dr. Lindtner states:

In the original Buddhist source, one Gautama, a predecessor of Sâkyamuni, has been impaled, or "crucified."

Dr. Lindtner further states:

The Sanskrit manuscripts prove without a shadow of doubt:

Everything that Jesus says or does was already said or done by the Buddha.
Jesus, therefore, is a mere literary fiction.
The Last Supper was the Last Supper of the Buddha.
Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was baptism in the name of the Buddha, the Dharma and the Samgha.
All the miracles performed by Jesus had already been performed by the Buddha.
The twelve disciples of Jesus were, in fact, the twelve disciples of the Buddha.
It was king Gautama--not Jesus--who was crucified.
It was Tathâgata--not Jesus--who was resurrected....
There is nothing in the Gospels, no person, no event, that cannot be traced back to cognate persons, events or circumstances in the Buddhist gospels.
...Jesus is a Buddha disguised as a new Jewish legislator, teacher, Messiah and king of Israel.
The Gospels, forming the foundation of Christianity, are, therefore, typical Buddhist literature, fiction, designed for missionaries whose language was Greek.
One would think that such stunning revelations would be fascinating and exciting to those who are passionate about this important subject. Unfortunately, the most vocal camps are those who are incapable of appreciating such astounding information because of mind-dulling "religious" conditioning and those who are equally hypnotized by their ability to digest and regurgitate encyclopedia entries as "comprehensive studies."

http://truthbeknown.com/beddru.html



No. It has been translated as messiah, anointed one and king. Never as one who is crucified.



Ikshvaku (Devanagari: इक्ष्वाकु) was the first king of the Ikshvaku dynasty and founder of the Sun Dynasty in Vedic civilization in ancient India. He is believed to be the son of Manu (the first man on earth), sired by the Sun God, Surya. Manu gained the knowledge of Dharma and humanity from Vivasvat (Surya). Thus, the lineage of the Sun Dynasty began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikshvaku



I am referring to Sanjaya Velathiputta, a sage who lived allegedly in the times of Buddha along with Mahavira and a few others. Supposedly, Buddha took his top disciples from and he was said to spit up blood when he heard it.

Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta (literally, "Sanjaya of the Belattha clan") was an Indian ascetic teacher who lived around the 5th or 4th c. BCE, contemporaneous with Mahavira and the Buddha.

In the Pali literature, Sanjaya's teachings have been characterized as "evasive"[1] or "agnostic."[2] Hecker (1994) contextualizes it as "a kind of dialectical existentialism" in juxtaposition to the popular materialist views of the day (for instance, typified by the ascetic teacher Ajita Kesakambalī.)[3] For example, in the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2), Sanjaya is recorded as saying:

'If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not. If you asked me if there isn't another world... both is and isn't... neither is nor isn't... if there are beings who transmigrate... if there aren't... both are and aren't... neither are nor aren't... if the Tathagata exists after death... doesn't... both... neither exists nor exists after death, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.'[4]

In the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1), Sanjaya's views are deemed to be amaravikkhepavad, "a theory of eel-wrigglers."[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaya_Belatthaputta

Once again, I believe these are the great enlightened sages of the Age of God-Men & Kings. They are not historical.

Y?
Please explain to me what is so embarrassing because i really don't get it.

If you say that you don't agree with his post then say it, but what is embarrassing?

@jor don't try to argue with me on Lord Krishna. There is no contest here, and don't try to distort facts by quoting incorrect information. Everything written in websites is not true.


There is a lot of difference between a cave and a prison. Is there any need to show you the dictionary? Also mythologically they are two different thiings, so get over this fact. Devki was not a virgin. I can clearly see those websites are distorting facts to prove parallels between Krishna and Jesus which is not nice.


There is only one version which says that Krishna was shot by an arrow, all Hindu scriptures say the same thing. Mahabharat was written much before any Greek or Roman started reading and writing.


Lord Krishna was never crucified. He was shot by an arrow. Have you ever read any Hindu scripture in your life or you just gain your half-fetched knowledge by accessing stupid websites which give incorrect information?


I can also launch a webpage stating any type of crap. One need not believe everything that is in the cyberspace. Don't believe that website. Show me from which Hindu scripture this website has taken these fictitious things.


Looks like you got some knowledge. Thanks for the clarification. And you also thank me for my clarifications.


Okey good wiki always to the rescue. Ikshvaku as a person is not known much I have never heard or read about his life yet. But Ikshvaku as a clan is well known. Lord Rama also belong to Ikshvaku clan. Instead of Iksvaku you should named Manu as a great individual.


You should have specifically mention his full name.

NOTE - I don't feel like replying to the rest of your post, as it is too crappy even to read. Don't ever refer or quote Christian scholars. They are not an authority on Hinduism and Buddism. And my advice to you and to other posters. Read some books first before arriving at any conclusion. Strive to be knowledgeable enough to differentiate a right from a wrong.

thx varman 'cause the other guy was saying crap...

Aw, now, don't get mad.



Actually, I didn't learn this from websites. I learned it a couple of decades ago simply by study and talking with qualified people. I quote from websites for convenience. I don't care if you acept them or not. That's neither here nor there.



There's a difference between a prison and a house but both caves and houses can be and have beenused as prisons. But mythologically they are identical because they are stand for the same thing.



Last time I checked, I was the only one showing anybody anything.



I guess I'll have to since I am under orders from VAMAN the Great not to argue with him.



It's DEVAKI not Devki. You've misspelled it that same way more than once so i have to conclude you don't know as much as you think you do.

I distorted no facts. I gave you sources. Again, it doesn't matter to me if you accept those sources or not since I have no interest in trying to convert you or prove I'm some great scholar of Krishna--which I am not.

For someone who thinks he is, you're not doing a very good job. Why don't you can the attitude and do a little research. There's a huge difference between being a scholar and being a believer who thinks his belief qualifies him as some sort of scholar but who can't even argue a point without getting authoritarian and hostile.



Once again, I don't care if you believe my sources or not. And they may be wrong for all I know. But I'll accept them over anything you say because you are acting like an @$$ and you are obviously not a scholar.



That doesn't matter a wit. My point is that Krishna was not historical. You can attach any death to him that you want to. And people obviously did. Now, you may not like that and I'm sorry for that but it doesn't change the fact that there are different versions of Krishna's death and even if you pick the shot-through-the-foot story, it's still copying Achilles' death or it comes from the same source since Achilles is another god-man-hero just like Krishna and Jesus.

This may help:

On Krishna [being crucified], so far as I can recollect, the basis of it was an ancient cave temple somewhere in India that contained icons of Krishna apparently crucified. The legend is around 3000 years old. Two problems arise, the first is whether the icons have been properly interpreted, and the inference is that they have not, but the other is that the compilers of the Hindu sacred texts have altered the legend in the present era—when Christianity reached India with the Nestorians—to avoid any implication that they had derived it from Christianity, or indeed to eliminate any possibility of Krishna being mistaken for Christ that might have assisted Christian proselytizing. That this is possible is indicated by the accretion of the legends of Gopala to those of Krishna in the early centuries AD, showing that the Krishna legends were still changing in the Christian era.

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/epistles/020DBroundsberg.php



Well, here's some non-Wiki sources:

Then Lord Krishna as Vishnu initiated Lord Vivasvat, the Spirit of our sun. The lineage was later guarded by the kings of the solar dynasty. Then Vaivasvat Manu, King Ikshavaku down to Harishchandra, then to Lord RaghuNath (Rama), 47th in descent from Ikshavaku (He is the 8th Rudra, esoterically connected with Shiv Goraksha Babaji).

http://www.hamsa-yoga.org/the-nath-lineage

And here's a passage from Bhagavad-Gita:

sri-bhagavan uvacaimam vivasvate yogamproktavan aham avyayamvivasvan manave prahamanur iksvakave ’bravit

"The Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krishna, said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikshavaku

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/categories/Cha...-Bhagavad-Gita/



I think perhaps you should take your own advice.

Those sources of information you provide Jor look pretty awful. Not to say there aren't some parallels between Jesus and Krishna, but seriously having read your posts, those links and a little background onto precisely what you're saying, these theories appear more than slightly dubious.

Thank you. That was my point. It doesn't matter how good the sources are since Krishna was not historical anymore than Jesus or Buddha or any of the others. No two scholars are going to agree on what is a good source and what isn't so I could care if you or anyone else puts any stock in them. Besides, understand that I was just doing quick random searches for material because I was being accused of making all that stuff up. I wanted to prove I did not and I care not a wit if the sources I quoted are worth two $hits--I proved my point.

My point is, we can give Krishna any death or life we want to because he wasn't real. And obviously people did give him any death and life they wanted to including whoever wrote Bhagavad-Gita or Mahabharata or anything else.

We don't go around saying Lincoln gathered disciples, was betrayed and crucified. We don't say Kennedy was crucified and rose from the dead. We don't say William Pitt performed miracles and promised to return after his death. We don't call Winston Churchill the son of god who raised a dead man. These types of things are saved for only a very small class of cultural figures and we do this to them because we CLEARLY see they are not historical. We make a clear distinction between historical heroes and statesmen and mythological heroes and saviors.

We might attribute some of these same legends to kings and emperors but only because they are kings and emperors. All these saviors are kings, princes, and other types of royalty also.

WTF? krishna bhagwan IS REAL. how much of an idiot, not to mention disrespectful person you have to be to doubt this? the battle of kurukshetra existed ok. HE IS REAL & HE IS GOD.

now please close this thread.

Read the person's post again. It was just so awkward to read. She goes on about how something is not believable because there's research behind it, but then says the Bible is the true word of God "without knowing information"? So research is unreliable, but speculation with no proof is? Seriously, the whole post sounded like something from someone with a double digit IQ.

Well you don't need prove to believe everything, ain't it?Just because
you can't find proof of something does not mean it does not exist.
I can't see God but i believe in him. And no scientist can show me where god is. Neither can
they prove that he does not exist.

If he/she wants to believe in bible and only bible, then let him/her, because nowadays sciencetist
are only trying to prove this or prove that and let people lose their faith.

Some people believe in krishna that he was God or something, i dont believe that he is a God of any saught probably to hindu but not to me.
How would people like it if sciencetist were trying to prove that he does not exist. That would be disrespectful to hindu religion aint it. Have any recent person ever seen krishna? yet people believe in him and that is a good thing, because it is called faith.

I also don't believe jesus looked like this

I didn't say you need proof to believe something or that something doesn't exist without proof. I said it was ridiculous that she thinks that something that is researched is unreliable and then goes on to say that something is definitely true even though she admits she doesn't even know much. That's a joke.

Krishna would be considered a war monger in today's age while Christ more like a Gandhi figure, although both had a striking similarity. Both conveyed a strong message, believe in me and you will be saved, I am the only way, a recurring message for both. Anyhow both are mythological beings, so there's no need to get worked up over this topic.

first its the mormons with jesus in america, and now this. wow.

Proof please.



There's nothing disrespectful about doubting Krishna was real. It's funny to call me disrespectful and also call me an idiot in the same breath.

Religious scriptures are NOT histories and were not written to function as histories. They are political tools that enable one sect to destroy another. If sect A has a different version of the myth than sect B and too many people embrace sect B's version, then sect A gets the royals to call a meeting and they discuss compiling a scripture which omits sect B's version and makes sect A the orthodox version. After a few generations of putiing out this scripture as the one and only truth, the other traditions are relegated to "esoteric" or "apocryphal" heresies. Hinduism is not only NOT different, they might even be the originators of this kind of thing. But, regardless, it happens in ALL religions. Like so:

"There is a tradition, though not to be found in the Hindoo scriptures, that Krishna, like Christ, was crucified.

To wit, the legend of Krishna's death has been interpreted to mean that he was pinned to a tree, essentially representing a crucifixion. However, it is not just tradition but artifacts that have led to the conclusion that Krishna was crucified. Indeed, there have been found in India numerous images of crucified gods, one of whom apparently is Krishna, important information not to be encountered in mainstream resources such as encyclopedias.

Moreover, it appears that Krishna is not the first Indian god depicted as crucified. Prior to him was another incarnation of Vishnu, the avatar named Wittoba or Vithoba, who has often been identified with Krishna. "

http://tribes.tribe.net/solarmythologynast...4d-55df50cf8026

The Vishnu Purana speaks of Chrishna being shot in the foot with an arrow and states this was the cause of his death. Other accounts state that he was suspended on a tree in some respects - "crucified".

www.geocities.com/nephilimnot/buddha.html

For those who say that hanging on a tree is not how Jesus was crucified, I turn your attention to Acts 10:39, "And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem, whom they slew and hanged on a tree."

And also Acts 5:30, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."

That's why I never said Krishna was nailed to a cross. I said he hung between heaven and earth.



There is no historical basis for it and it was never intended as anything but a lesson is Hindu metaphysics. I don't believe even the Krishna Consciousness people, who write about this battle extensively, actually believe it was historical. In fact, you're the first one I've ever heard of say it was.

The people who believe that the Kurukshetra War was a historical event, date it variously from 5561 BCE to 800 BCE, based on the astronomical and literary information from Mahabharata. The mythology of the Kurukshetra War is also traced to the Battle of the Ten Kings mentioned in Rigveda.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_War

If this battle was historical, how do you account for the huge disparity in the dates? And it's based on astronomical and literary information? That means there is no physical evidence by which to date it accurately. It never happened.



No, he wasn't. You are. I am. So is everybody who is alive or who has ever existed. That excludes Krishna who was merely a metaphor for our god-nature. And I sincerely hope this isn't some misguided belief of yours based on race because Krishna means "black." That had nothing to do with race.



It's going to take a bit more than your whining to close this thread. Get over yourself.

What do u mean by that?

do u mean that everyone is God?

Yes. And that's good terminology. Everyone is God. NOT everyone is a god. Everyone is God. Or everyone is One. Or Every is One. E pluribus unum.

In fact, that was the lesson behind the Hindu narrative of the Battle of Kuruksetra. War is a cancer that kills its host. Making war on your enemy is making war on yourself. Making war on yourself is suicide. Suicide is pointless and stupid.

So don't make war.

Someday, we will awaken to the truth that we are God. That we are One. That there is only unity. At the center of the universe is a beating heart--so tiny and so huge that it cannot be measured. It can only be experienced by living it. So live it. And give up war.

Krishna:



Wittoba:



Christ:

I'm not a God, and i don't believe that i created myself- the universe exist before me, you and everyone else. In the beginning there was the heaven and the earth.
God created me and my parents. and every other generation.
Even if a person wants to believe in evolution, who created evolution?
Did man create evolution? the universe couldn't just start up all by itself out of nothing (The gases didn't just form by themself.
Something had to created it- and that is God. And i am not God and could never be God,
God is perfect, I'm not and i definitely don't worship myself. And i don't have to see
God to know he exist. And i believe that there is only one God. My God is not Allah.
The bible says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and
"You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God." Jehovah did not make the same rules as allah.

Everyone will choose their own destiny and free to believe what they want, i can't tell people what i believe, but i take pride mine.
I'm not going to argue with u or anyone else about what i believe, because at the end of the day my believe with remain within me. And there is nothing any sciencetist could do to prove to me that there is no God.

No, I believe that was caused by the act of fu-king.



No one. Just like no one created life. Life just came to be. Likewise, life adapts in order to continue.



So I suppose this god of yours started up out of nothing. And if the answer is that god has always existed then I can just as easily say the universe has always existed. If no one created your god then it makes even more sense to simply say no one created the universe.



And who created this god? Someone had to do it, right? He couldn't just create himself, now could he?



Well, you are--like it or not. It's a big responsibility so bear it with dignity.



Says who? You? Are you perfect? No? Then how can you tell me or anyone else what perfect is? In order for you to know what perfection is, you'd have to be perfect yourself. Just like grading a calculus test. You can't grade it if you don't know your calculus. Likewise, you can't grade something as perfect unless you are perfect. So statements as "God is perfect" are meaningless. They don't tell us anything useful.



Of course not. You don't have to. Why would God worship him/her/it/themsel(f)(ves)?



Those were priests and royals who wrote that crap. People wrote that stuff and only people. It was just a way of perpetuating their power. You don't really believe the Ineffable Father--above all comprehension, language and conception--could give two $hits whether you bow down to an idle or read a bible or go to church, do you? The only thing you have to do is wake up and help others to awaken.



You already are.



I don't think scientists are interested in that. Scientists are interested in science. The only time they get wound up about god is when some fool fundamentalist tries to legislate his/her pathetic, small-minded conception of god into our lives, culture and work. God is already there because we are God. All we have to do is realize it.

So the stars, the moon, the sun, planets, the grass, the trees and the ocean were all created because of fu-cking?







My responsibility is to worship the true and living God.
And that is not u or me.





Another who came first the chicken or the egg theory lol

If the universe started from nothing, that nothing had to come from something.

The universe did not just suddenly form all by itself.

What do they call people like you? because in my whole life i never came across anyone who worship themself.






So what now lol, you want to run down my throat to make me believe that i am a god,
And I'm not forcing you to believe in God- i care not what u believe, bow down to your reflection for all i care.Y u waste your time typing all that. I believe in God- ACCEPT THAT. And there is nothing u can do to let me change my mind so whatever. Your not god so stop fooling yourself
And i will never believe that u are. Stop acting as if you think your some god damn philosopher for crying out loud.

Lord forgive me for calling out your name in vein.
but some people will make me turn even a bigger sinner lol.

In my whole life it's the first i ever heard someone say that all humans are god.
I even heard people say there is no God but you really cut the cake. lol
People die, God can't die, he's son Jesus died which is part of the trinity but God is forever.
Nothing can create the Creator. He is omnipresent. People did not create the universe therefore
they could never be God. Could man create the ocean, the stars, the sun and the planets? Man can only use materials from God's creations- man can make a plane- cars, computers etc. But they could not make a tree, they can't make stars, they can't make the sun? we can't even look at the sun much less to create it, they can't make a man with flesh and blood- but God made it so that men reproduce, can a man make soil? They could make artificial soil, but will it be the exact composition as the what the creator created? We are not God and could never be. God knows everything, which man is yet to discover, because he God is the Creator- he can do all. As far as i am concerned.

I am not perfect because i am not God, God is perfect to me, because look at how the human is made up, all the organs, function together whether consciously or unconsciously- if that is not perfection- i don't know what is. The human body is much more complicated than aerospace. Which only God could create.

Hindu believe in their religion, Muslim believe in theirs and i believe in mine, but I'm not forcing people to believe what i believe but i take pride in what i believe. i can tell people my beliefs and they tell me theirs - but when they start telling me what to believe that is when they are crossing the line. But it seems as if you want to force people to agree with u. It does not work that way my friend. So you can type a whole essay, i believe what i believe.

And also if people want to believe in Krishna then stop rushing them..It's their life.

You claim that i am arguing, just because your offended that i dont believe that i am god...too bad.
If you want an argument then bore me, because it seems as if your hot for me. hehe


Gods rocks


forgive him lord lol








Lol here comes another loooooooooong boring essay

Christians have the tendency to screw with the minds of people of other religions. That is what you are doing here, spreading ignorance. It will make any sane peorson angry.


Are you associated with some Baptist organization? I am well aware of the tactics that missionaries use to spread misinformation about native religions to get converts. If they couldn't get direct converts they will stoop down to some other tactic for example trying to get jesus accepted as one of the avtars in Hinduism. Your qualified people seem to have experties in engineering false theories.


You need some lessons on word meanings. In a prison a person is confined against his/her wishes. A cave is a natural hollow passaage where a person can take shelter on temporary or permanent basis and the person is free to move whenever, wherever he/she wishes.


You think you know too much? Now you will correct me in my own language? Devaki is just an English spelling.

The correct pronunciation is Devki or more precisely Devkee (देवकी)


The sources should be credible enough. The problem is you are needlessly arguing with those poster here who are the followers of Hinduism, some of them are that much knowledgeable even your imagination can't reach that far. The life of Krishna is very clearly documented in upnishads, Puranas, Mahabharat etc. There are no conflicting versions in any of these texts.


I didn't make a single comment on Jesus in this thread whether he was in India or not. I don't even care. Do you think you are a scholar on Hinduism. Have you read any Hindu scripture in your life? Or you just talked to your so called scholars and read about Hinduism on websites and gained some knowledge? You know @Jor you have vey limited knowledge on Hinduism, and whatever little you have that is also distorted.

Anybody will get angry when they see distorted facts floating around in the cyber-space about their religion and some ignorant pople trying to emphasize those distortions.


You are free to say this. But I believe that Krishna existed. Even Jesus is not historical. But Gautam Buddha was a historical figure.


Mahabharat is an independent work, no portion of it was inspired from Iliad. You are the only person stressing on different versions of Krishna's death, which is so wrong.

Here is the English translation of Mahabharat. It is so clearly written.
105. KRISHNA PASSES AWAY

Krishna saw all his people thus destroy themselves as predestined. When he saw the passing of Balarama, he roamed about in deep meditation in the wilderness, pondering on the completion of his avatar. "The time has come for me to go," he said to himself and, lying on the ground fell asleep.

In that wooded beach, a hunter, prowling for game, saw Vasudeva lying on the ground among the shrubs. From a distance, the hunter mistook Krishna for a wild animal resting on the ground.

He bent his bow and shot an arrow at the prostrate figure which, piercing his foot in the insteep, went full through his body. Thus did the great Vasudeva depart from the world of men.
http://www.mahabharataonline.com/rajaji/mahabharata_summary_106.php


My point was Ikshvaku as a clan has more significance.

What the hell?

which christian is going to say some bullsh!t about "we are all Gods,"


I never came across any christian who would say
we are all Gods, in fact in my whole life, it is the first
i ever came a across anyone (christian or not) who said "we are all gods."
That is not apart of the gospel so he could never been related to christianity in any way- that would be way off.



And just because Christians got people to convert does not mean
they used some lying tactic(meaning details which does not live up to Christianity), and i would care less if i got someone to convert to Christianity or not because i don't care what people
choose for their life. Everyone is entitled to choose their own faith.
Why are you asking him if he is apart of some baptist organization as if
you think a real christian is going to spread such sh!t about we are all gods.
Some Christians can be very contradicting though not on purpose all the time,
but that is one quote you'll not hear from them.
If he said he just believed in evolution maybe that would make more sense or even to say that he does not exist, but to say we are all gods-
i never heard this in all my life.

Would he be doing Christianity any justice if he got people to convert then they came to find out what he preach was false?

I'm not even a real christian since I'm not baptized and not really living up to the christian standard...

He definitely does not sound like any christian missionary