Jesus: Did He Study Buddhism and Hinduism?
81Jesus
JESUS IN INDIA; STUDENT OF EASTERN RELIGIONS?
The Untold Life of Jesus and his studies of Buddhism and Hinduism.
This is a speculative theory and not in any way meant to deny or discredit any alternative beliefs.
The research behind this hub comes from several sources, including the teaching of James Deardorf who is one of the worlds foremost Post-ascension scholars of Jesus, and of certain scrolls discovered by Russian scholar Nickolas Notovich in the Hemis Gumpa monastery. These collected works have some interesting evidence about Jesus living in India and studying Buddhism. It points out how Eastern his teachings are (especially the lost scrolls discovered in Nag Hammandi).
According to the facts compiled, after spending 6 years studying Judaism (age 12-18) he decided to travel, taking the famous Silk Road to India (He could have made the trip in one year). He may have had a very specific reason for making the trip.
Prior to this, according to the ancient Buddhist texts of Isa, there's a story of traveling Buddhists finding a child Lama on a trip to Palestine. The Three Wise Men (Who are unidentified in the bible) may have been these travelers and may have set the stage for Jesus' eventual trip to East, or may in fact have returned to find him when he reached manhood, to take him back and teach him.
He reportedly spent time in Tibet where he studied Buddhism. Later at Jagganath, the Temple of Krishna in Kashmir he studied Hindu. After 12 years immersed in Eastern religion, he returned to the land of his birth on his crusade to educate and unite the tribes of Israel, where he spent three years preaching his very Eastern philosophy, which lead to his crucifixion.
The problem with the story of the crucifixion is that Jesus dies far too quickly. He supposedly dies in 6 hours, unlike the usual period of days it takes to die from difficulty breathing (Crucifixion death is not brought about by the wounds but by slow suffocation.) Generally, the Romans would break the legs of a person who is crucified, making it more difficult for the body to support their weight, and they could still live for days. Jesus' legs weren't even broken but he still supposedly died in 6 hours. Why? There isn't enough blood loss from crucifixion wounds for someone to bleed to death so soon. So how could he have died so quickly?
The belief is that the Roman soldier who pronounced him dead was either sympathetic to the Hebrews or was just too hasty in his pronunciation of death. Jesus was removed from the cross while he was still alive. Joseph of Arimathia brought Jesus to the tomb where he realized that Jesus was still alive. This could have been interpreted as a miracle by the less educated people of the day. He would then have been spirited away from the tomb where he would have been tended to by his followers until he healed. (Perhaps the 40 days of Jesus' post-crucifixion teaching until the "Ascension" were his recovery period.) After recovery, he was still a wanted man and would have had to leave the country or risk being seen by the Romans. Its not unreasonable that he would have returned to the place where he learned and lived peacefully for eight years.
Many Jews had fled to India and since it was Jesus' goal to unite the tribes of Israel, its possible he also went to India hoping to restart his ministry in a safer climate. Ten of the missing tribes had been forced out by the Assyrians in "a north eastern direction", and the tribe of Ben e Israel in Kashmir claim they were descended from Jewish settlers, so Jesus may have gone there for that reason.
After several years traveling around India, he apparently became known as Issa (short for Ishawara, which means messenger of God). Nickolas Notovitch discovered the texts of "the Life of St. Issa" in the Hemis Gumpa Monastery. Jesus lived for a time at the birthplace of Sidartha the first Buddha. Apparently he got into trouble with the powers-that-be once again, for criticizing the Caste system. He went to Kashmir and kept a low profile for a while, eventually emerging as Youza Asouph, who would become one of the great holy men of his day, also considered a messenger of God. Youza Asouph was originally said to have come from a place where he was not respected and chose not to return to his homeland. He was first believed to come from Egypt but he once supposedly said that he was "the prophet of the children of Israel".
When he died, he was buried in an enclosure, which is atypical for a Hindu or Muslim of the time. The position of his coffin is in an east/west angle, indicating a follower of Moses. There are prints of his feet in the floor of his tomb, which have strange marks that are consistent with wounds from a crucifixion. American scholars wanted to get some DNA from the Tomb of Youza Asouph in Kashmir but there were too many protests so the Tomb was closed off and no one can enter.
"The DaVinci Code" also talks about Jesus having a long life with family and children after his supposed death and ascension.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (4)
- Funny
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
Well, it all depends on your theological views. As I say, I'm not denying or being critical of anyone else's religious beliefs. This is a theory based on scholastic research, including the work of people like Deardorf and Notovich.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and thus came by his knowledge through divine insight. However, non-Christians like myself (I'm a Buddhist) do not see Jesus as the Son-of-God but rather as an enlightened yet very mortal teacher. And as a human teacher, he had to learn somewhere.
True, some people do have greater insight into the human condition than others do; a natural empathy and a clearer connection to the universe. Still, even such people as this need to hone their natural skills and train to use them. Even the greatest minds study.
My theory is that Jesus studied various religions of the world, including Hebrew, Hindu and Buddhism. Possibly others, although I've read nothing regarding that. Studying the world's religions helped him develop his ultimate philosophy of Christianity.
Again, this is just a theory and opinion. I'm not stating that Christianity is wrong.
WOW this is a great article, in fact we both wrote an article around this same subject. You should come read mine! Following!
Thanks, Retsuzen. I'll check your hub out.
Really makes you think. Great subject matter to write about. I wonder if he did.
I think he did. I know many will argue, but I'm convinced by the evidence. Thanks for the kind words.
Nice Hub. I've always thought about this... where was Jesus in those oh-so crucial years between 18 and 30? I can remember being in church as a child and intuitively thinking he must have been "training". Ha, didn't know there were scholars researching this. Very heady!
Yeah, there has been a lot of speculation about what Jesus was doing during those 'Lost Years'. He probably was out training.
The theory that he died too quickly on the cross is flawed, mainly because it is agreed by most historians and scholars that he was already beaten to within an inch of his life. That means that he'd probably lost blood from his injuries and may have had other internal hemorrhaging, etc. Thus death may indeed have been hastened.
This is something I feel correct in many more senses. Being an "so called Hindu" (precisely Sanatana Darma'ist) knowledge is eternal and have have to search for it till the end of Universe (if there is any)....
Secondly I feel what Jesus taught/preach was something which existed in Indian System(s) few thousand years ago.
For you sachin, Jesus rather cried ... only after the Unknown Years of his life not prior to that.... and what this article says that during those years(the lost years in Jesus life) he rather might leant world religions which made him to teach/preach after those unknown years..
SRK. I agree that the things Jesus taught predate Christianity.
And Jay, it wasn't unique for people to be beaten or tortured before crucifixion, so that doesn't explain why the average victim lived days longer than Jesus did.
I'm not a Buddhist, but I find it increasingly interesting, especially now that I have discovered secular or atheist/agnostic Buddhism. I've not sure whether to take the idea of a Jesus-Buddhism connection seriously (Notovich's claims are considered fraudulent by many), but I am still intrigued.
Thank you for the food for thought.
Thanks, Chasuk. I'm not surprised that some would consider Notovith's claims invalid. It's a normal response when a system of worship is questioned. The Gnostic Gospels, for example, have been challenged. Personally, unless I see concrete evidence otherwise, I believe what Notovich has to say.
Intriguing topic, that's for sure. Very much enjoyed reading this hub.
Thanks, BQ. Glad you liked it.
This was so interesting robwrite(can i call u rob or-RW?:)
Man... my interest is peaked for sure.What a great topic. I must know more!
Thanx so much for simplifying something that would have take me volumes to find!, voted 'UP'
great hub~ Peace ~ gregZ
Glad I could peak your interest, Greg. And call me Rob.
Clearly the article is lacking the many 19th and 20th cent. books dedicated to Buddhist/Christian parallels. These authors cover parallels that could not exist in two seperate traditions. Many of these scholars, such as Max Muller, openly stated their wish to convert India to Christianity. Muller was forced to accept a borrowing from Buddhism, but his ignorance was probably willful as he states that he would be greatful to anyone who could point out the historical channel by which this borrowing could have taken place. Muller, as with the others, knew that many Jews used the Greek bible that they believed was translated by Ptolemy Philadelphus, the same General of Alexander whose name is engraved in stone on Asoka's edict in which it is claimed that he was a Buddhist. Muller would also cover the OT/Buddhist parallels such as with Susana and the opening legend of Solomon and all of the Buddhist fables copied by Aesop and the other Christian plagiarisms of Buddhism such as Barlaam and Josaphat, Saint Eustace, King Arthor, Legendary Markos, etc..
I cover all of this and more in my 2007 book "Father and Son, East is West".
Thanks for reading, Daniel.
This is a wonderful article Rob. There are many possibilities and much more information that has been withheld or lost through time. Thanks for this great hub.
You're right, Marlin. There is clearly quite a lot of information that has been lost to history which would be very interesting and enlightening.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
great hub i actually thought of writing on this myself
Thanks eyeofinsight. If you do write something about it, I'd like to read it.
Thank you for sharing!! This is very enlightening.
Glad you thought so, Shez2rare.
Thanks Robwrite for sharing.
Yes i have also heard that from two senior yogis, one from India and the other one from Taiwan. They mentioned Jesus did spend few years in India practicing meditation. They also mentioned someone has written a book on this but i couldn't recall the book and author's name.
Hi Majjhina; Thanks for letting me know what the monks said. It's good to have validation.
You are welcome. They are not Buddhism monks though, but they are full time social worker from a social and spiritual movement non-profit organization from India. I learned yoga and meditation from this organization.
Nice and very interesting topic which i so much enjoyed reading from but dont have anything to say because i believe that all and sundry has his/her own belief. So anything which you belief, hold and stick to it tight.
I agree with you, crystolite. Everyone has a right to whatever belief resonates with them.
Thanks for sharing your views;
Rob
Even though I do like your idea, it would explain some things I feel as well. Though I am wondering, why would Jesus need to learn Buddhism, or any other Faith system when he already knew them? When he stayed in the Temple, he was teaching the elders, not visa versa.
Love,
The question, Rose, is what Jesus was doing during those lost years between the time he left the temple and the time he re-appeared to institute his new teachings of Christianity. The argument I'm making is that he was learning other religions, just as he'd learned the Hebrew religion. I believe he studied many world religions before his started preaching his new philosophy of Christianity. Now some may argue that he didn't have to learn--he just knew! But i think there's enough imperical evidence to show that he did his research before he started his three-year ministry.
Thanks for reading,
Rob
As a Christain I believe that Jesus was taught by the Holy Spirit. He needed no instruction from man, his knowledge came directly from his/our Heavenly Father.
As for his death, as the Son of God he was immortal. No man took his life rather He gave it up volunteraly.
He had power to lay down his life, He had power to take it up again.
After suffering for the sin's of all mankind, starting in the garden and ending at the cross He commended his spirit into the hands of his Father saying,"It is Finished."
This is my take on it.
I like that take by ruffridyer....
Hi ruffridyer; I'm not going to say you're wrong because this is all a matter of belief. I'm not trying to discredit Christianity, just offering an alternative theory. For those who believe Jesus was the son of God and messiah, that's fine. In my view, he was an enlightened but very human man.
I can't say which is true. This is what I believe, based on historic research but you may be right. Who knows?
Rob
Great Article! Whether people believe it or not it is very interesting and gives much food for thought! I am curious to find out more now. I was raised in a very Roman catholic household and private catholic school so my belief system was pounded in my head for years. I chose later to find my own theories and beliefs. Very enlightening:)
Hi tblambert; glad you liked it. I was raised in a Christian home, too, and I was yelled at for having doubts, but I think it is good for everyone to doubt and to look into things more closely, with intelligence and curiousity, rather than blind faith. People should come up with their own answers, not accept what they are told. I like Buddhism because the Buddha encouraged people to ask questions. He said "Do not believe what I say just because I said it."
Whichever religion you choose, it should be because you chose it, not because you've been trained to accept it.
Thanks for reading,
Rob
Well said:) I have enjoyed Buddhism due to its "non" religious like ways. Kindness & Love are my religion....says it all!
Kindness and love is a great philosophy to follow. That's what religion should be.
Rob
Robwrite, you summarize this hub very well. I spent most of December watching all of the documentaries on this subject. Up to this point, I really ignored the subject of Jesus. Now that there is a connection between Jesus and Buddhism, it has peaked my interest. Voted up.
Hi; I'm very glad I could pique your interest. That's what I always try to do. Thanks for the vote-up.
Glad you stopped by,
Rob
I have always found it interesting that out of all religions, only Christianity saw the neccessity of a physical resurrection for their founder. Krishna died a natural death, Buddha died a natural death,Muhammad died a natural death; none of their followers felt the neccessity of a resurrection to physical life in their defunct bodies. The natural assumption is that the spirit or atman of Muhammad,Krishna and Buddha simply returned to the domaine of spirit where it had orignally come from. I am not sure why Christianity had to go one better and claim that their founder rose up in his reanimated body on the third day. He certainly didn't resume life in that body (or so we are told)so what was the point in the resurrection story at all? If reincarnation is true, there is no point in resurrection. Why would I want my old imperfect body back? Likewise I have always found Christian burials confusing because at one point the clergyman is saying that the person is now in heaven and then later says that God will raise them up on the Last Day. Well which is it?
Hi Bobin; You make a lot of very good points. The whole story of the ressurrection is very strange and confusing to me. I'm not knocking christians, I'm just saying I don't get stories like this one.
Thanks for the comments,
Rob
Have you seen this BBC documentary? It posits exactly the same points you are making here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YbUEZfJJaQ&feature
Hi Suzi, thank you. This is very similar to the documentary I saw, "Jesus in India."
I appreciate the information,
Rob
Dear friend :
could you please tell when Jesus live in India for meditation... with evidence... please..?
This theory is based on books and articles written by academics; Books like "Jesus in Kashmir", "The Unknown Life of Jesus" and "Jesus Lived in India", " as well as the many others who've made the Buddisht/Christianity connection, including documentaries like "Jesus in India" and the one posted above on Youtube. If you want more information about the subject, go to the "Tomb of Jesus" website.
As for the time frame, it was during his "lost years" after he finished his training in Judaism in the Temple and the time he reappeared at 30.
praveenantony 38 hours ago asked:"could you please tell when Jesus live in India for meditation... with evidence... please..?"
Reply: Well there is no empirical evidence; it's simply a very interesting theory based on the facts that what Jesus was teaching was nothing new, but was already being taught in the East. It may have been new to the Jews, but not to Buddhists and Hindus. As I say, there is no empirical evidence, but then there is no empirical evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or that the Magi ever visited him there, other than the Bible itself. But then some Bible scholars feel that Jesus was actually born in Nazareth and that later copyists simply changed it to Bethlehem to make it fit an earlier prophesy. Who knows? And why is there no record of the 18 missing years of his life? There is no empirical evidence for Jesus feeding 5000 people with two fish and five loaves of bread. Did he miraculously cook the fish too or were the Jews into sushi?
There is a mildly entertaining novel, written by Jeffrey Small, called "The Breath Of God". It explores this very controversy. The author, a self-proclaimed expert on this issue admits that there is no conclusive evidence of Jesus having traveled to India, let alone studied Eastern religious traditions.
The renowned teacher and Vietnamese Buddhist Monk Thich Nhat Hanh also wrote a book entitled "Living Buddha, Living Christ" in which he explores the similarities in the Buddha's teachings and those of Christ. He does not, in any way, suggest that Jesus was a student of Buddhism at any time in his life. What he does is celebrate the blessings that both faith traditions offer to not only their followers, but to those who seek a deeper understanding of both.
Hinduism, Vedanta and Buddhism are, in reality 180 degrees opposite to Judeo-Christian teachings in that they speak of a creation in progress, working toward perfection. They do not speak of a "Fall of Man." Whereas Judeo-Christian thought starts out with perfection, followed by a fall from grace that cannot just be forgiven,but must be purchased or ransomed by, at first, animal sacrifices and strict adherence to THE LAW, and later, a human sacrifice of the Son of God.
Christianity teaches that man is "born in sin and shaped in iniquity" and deserving of death. Eastern religions do not suggest such negativity; they only state that we have simply allowed ourselves to become distracted and have forgotten our son-ship and divinity and need to recapture it. They teach that we are all sons of God and a part of the divine and that our divinity need only be rediscovered. It is not dependent on the whims of a priesthood to bestow it upon us nor is it necessary for us to have someone else die for us since no one can take on another's Karma.
It is unfortunate that Jesus' positive teachings are largely overshadowed by this sense of punishment,guilt, damnation, hell fire and the ultimate End of the World, as mapped out in the Book of Revelation, which is full of plagues,slaughter and human suffering, all of which will be visited upon us by our seemingly loving, compassionate Jesus.
There is a major contradiction here somewhere between a loving deity and a vengeful one.
Well, you do have to take into consideration that the Bible, as it is, is a human interpretation of sacred and spiritual concepts. It can only be responsibly viewed in the context of the fallibility of the writers.
As for the original topic of this Hub, I can only think that if Jesus was (is) what Christians claim him to be, then He would have had no need to study any other spiritual concepts because He would already know all.
Well yes, you are right. And that being the case, one must ask the question: Was Jesus God, knowing all from birth, or did his followers deify him after his death?
Other great spiritual teachers like Siddartha Buddha followed a normal spiritual path of self-sacrifice, study under other more accomplished spiritual masters, and meditation. They didn't just instantly know everything from birth.
And if Jesus did in fact know everything from birth, then why didn't he start his ministry earlier to reach as many people as possible? 3 1/2 years out of 33 1/2 years isn't very much time devoted to saving the world. What happened during those missing 18 years? Was he just in Nazareth making furniture in his foster father's house?
It is hard to believe based
1. Buddhist consider killings animals as a sin, while Jesus preach that animals are created by god to be killed and eaten.
2. Buddha taught , that there is no super power god. It is you, -yourself who can achieve the ultimate goal.
3. Buddha teach to avoid drinking, while in Christianity drinking not consider as such (correct me if I am wrong )
So how can we argue that he learned these things but preach completely different thing when he go back home.
Well, for one thing, someone doesn't have to agree with every point they're taught. Jesus didn't just copy Buddhism. He took bits of different things, like Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism (and maybe other things, too) and combine them.
You also have to consider the difference of what Jesus actually said and what was attributed to him. The bible was written after his death, so he wasn't there to have text approval. If you read the Lost Scrolls of Nag Hammadi, you'll get a different perspective on what he actually said. Sayings like "If heaven were in the sky, the birds would be closer to God than we are" (which is from the Gnostic Gospels of Nag Hammadi) show an alterntive perspective on Jesus. So you may not be able to take what the bible says verbatim.
Rob
Hinduism and Buddhism are both beautiful religions. Ok, they don't don't believe in Christ- but they espouse universal love, tolerance, understanding and charity. It is fully consistent that Our Saviour would have studied Eastern religions. Peace be with you.
Hello Mark; I completely agree with you. Well said.
Peace and nameste,
Rob
Actually, Hinduism DOES teach that from time to time, when the world sinks into depravity, that God sends an incarnation or an Avatar or one of His Sons to earth to reteach mankind the ways of love and compassion. They believe in a "Christ-Consciousness" if you will; that reincarnates over and over as different manifestations whenever needed by mankind.
They teach that Shiva, Krishna, Rama, Buddha, Jesus and others are simply all manifestations of that one Consciousness rather than believing that Jesus came just once for all time and that he was the ONLY Son of God.
They postulate that when Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me."-John 14:6 , that he was speaking as the Word (John 1:1) or Logos or an Incarnation of God Consciousness and NOT inferring that Jesus of Nazareth was the only way to God, but that uniting yourself and becoming one with God Consciousness in whatever form it takes, is the only route to God, rather than trying to find God through sacrifices, gifts, repetitive and formalistic prayers and rituals, etc.
Hello bob; thank you for that information. Very helpful.
Rob
always a profound and provocative writer you are Rob - and so very true in this hub subject which will be posted to my FB music/cinema group with a direct link back here - and could you please do me a favor Rob - check out my buddy Maria at the Hub under her name of SCRITTOBENE - she has some good Dylan hubs and a review of one of his concerts - thanks for doing that Sir - lake erie time 11:00am
HI Colin; I'll do that, and thanks for reading,
Rob
Being upfront and straightforward - I have not yet read your article, I only skimmed a bit to see what course you were taking . . . but ~
When you come to your assertion of "The problem with the story of the crucifixion . . ." you leave out a very crucial part of the Biblical record; in compliance with Jewish tradition the Romans would not leave crucified Jews on a cross on the Sabbath . . . the gospel accounts tell us that, because the Sabbath was approaching, the Romans were breaking the legs of those being executed on crosses (this brought death very quickly, not days as you assert - unable to lift their bodies up to gasp for air, men succumbed to suffocation in minutes). When they came to Jesus a soldier speared Him in His side - His blood loss was not merely from the normal wounds of crucifixion, but from the severe wound of a spear thrust in His torso.
Why His legs were not broken instead (like the others and as was common) might seem a pointless peculiarity, but - one of the many prophesies in the OT about the promised Messiah was that, not a bone of His would be broken. The idea that these men who counted Jesus their teacher, and came to recognize Him as God incarnate, somehow missed that he wasn't really dead but moved to India, while they struggled with direction and then risked (and lost) their lives establishing His church . . . especially when hundreds of His followers record having spent weeks with Him after death in His resurrected body before they witnessed His ascension into heaven, strikes me as ludicrous.
While it IS true, that those crucified on that particular day needed to die and be taken down before the Sabbath, still, one wonders how Jesus could have died so much faster than the two thieves and why HIS legs were not broken also to speed up death? Could it be because the centurion was "in on it"? He was the one who gave Jesus "something" to drink on a sponge and then, shortly thereafter proclaimed him to be dead, with no need for having his legs broken. The spear thrust in the side may not have been as damaging or fatal as we are lead to believe. I have a friend with congestive heart failure whose side is punctured quite regularly to allow the cardiac fluid to drain. In fact, were he not drained, he would die. Crucifixion would create a situation akin to congestive heart disorder because the heart is cramped and not pumping effectively. Piercing the side would have been to keep him alive, not to kill him.
What makes wonder is how we approach the historic record when it comes to things Bibical . . . particularly regarding Jesus - if it's about Moses or the Ark & deluge or David, etc, etc, we can just dismiss it as fairy tales - but we want Jesus, some Jesus, one who is nice and forgives, a teacher of love, etc. If we approached the historic accounts and evidence of Jesus of Nazareth in the same manner as other historic circumstances we would be more than satisfied with the more traditional understanding of who He was and what He did - but because 'we' start denying the Biblical claims we reject what the record presents and search instead for any other alternative 'Jesus'. The 'seeking the historic Jesus' movement of our time is the product of poor research and, essentially, a dishonest treatment of the evidence.
SACHIN 2 years ago
JESUS IN INDIA; STUDENT OF EASTERN RELIGIONS?
The Untold Life of Jesus and his studies of Buddhism and Hinduism.
This is a speculative theory and not in any way meant to deny or discredit any alternative beliefs.
MY ANSWER========
dear friend,
it is very uncertain that you didn't know JESUS as indian do not understand HIM.
NOW, read it carefully....as you know budha when he was a married prince and was going on his chariot and saw people old age, in distress,in agony ,in pain, in diseases..he asked question to his servant why are they suffering like this..coz he didn't know the truth.coz he has to search for the truth....
STRANGE....
BUT ..BUT...BUT.....
when JESUS saw the multitude in pain ,in agony,in diseases,
HE CRIED IN HEART COZ HE KNEW THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING FROM MY ANGER,MY CONDEMNATION,MY GIVEN CURSE, AND HE HEALED THEM ,FORGIVE THEM AND IT IS WRITTEN IN BIBLE HE HAD LOVE AND COMPASSION FOR THEM..HE TOOK THEIR INFIRMITIES...AND HE SAID I CAME FOR THE RANSOM FOR THE PEOPLE...HE SAID I AM THE TRUTH..SO TRUTH DOESNOT HAVE TO SEARCH FOR HIMSELF AS BUDHA DID...
QUESTION FOR YOU MY FRIEND -----CAN I HAVE A B.SC.DEGREE FROM A SCHOOL OR A COLLEGE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE B.SC. DEGREE...SO HOW WHAT BUDHA DOESNOT HAVE CAN GIVE JESUS ?????
answer me at =====sachinvermamin@rediffmail.com