Was Jesus a Buddhist?

Interesting indeed.

However, I'm fairly sure there would have been some more obvious record of Jesus being a Buddhist in middle-east and western texts throughout the ages if it were true.

The video states that the principles taught by Jesus are more in keeping with Buddhist principles than with Judaism, but I feel it neglects to take account that both of these ways of life have changed and adapted with society over the past 2000 years, to the extent that it's not fair to perform such a comparison in todays world.

The story of Yus Assaf is also very interesting, but to make claims that he was Jesus is stretching it a bit (hey let's face it we get people nowadays claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus etc. 😉 ). The footprints outside the grave could be interpreted as scars showing crucifixion, but could eaqually just be stylized impressions of feet with lines showing the crease of the toes on the foot. It's all very nice them coming to the conclusion that the "scars" align for a single nail through the feet, but those imprints do not even look like real foot imprints. They look carved or as if they have been impressed from a statue or modelled likeness of feet.

At the end it says that if it was Jesus, he spent most of his life in Kashmir, and that he did not die on the cross or ever resurrected. But if that's the case, how come the supposed scars on the feet? And what of all the teachings he gave in his life from other countries?

It would be interesting to see the rest of the programme rather than just that 7 minutes odd snippet from it, which may be out of context for all we know.

I'm sure that, like many wise people, they travelled and learnt from different cultures and religions and gurus/masters, so there probably is a good chance that Jesus did learn things from Buddhist teachings as well as those of Judaism and others. There is many a crossover between all the different religions, dharma teachings and vedic philosophies such that you can really see a lot of things in common across them, with most differences being those things that are intended to intimidate or control or clearly come from the ego. It is the pure teachings that remain the same in all.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

If Energylz, he really did died on the cross?

Best Wishes

RP

Hi Pixie,

I certainly believe it is possible that Jesus traveled to India during the missing years. Some traditions have it that Joseph of Arimathea was Mary’s uncle and was a rich trader (there is a legend that he had tin mines in Cornwall and that Jesus might have been to the UK as a young man (thus the words in the song Jerusalem)

If you look at a map, India wasn’t that far from Israel and in the 1st Century there are many proofs that his disciple Thomas traveled to India and today there are still many Thomasine followers. So, I certainly believe that it was possible that Jesus travelled to India with his uncle.

However, I don’t buy the rest of it! There was a BBC investigation a few years ago into this tomb and they certainly came down on the side of it all being a hoax in order to sell as 1973 book (rather like the Da Vinci Code)!

The idea that Jesus survived crucifixion and visited Kashmir was first raised in the 1973 book "Christ in Kashmir", by local journalist Aziz Kashmiri. Several other books followed it.
"Jesus Christ, after crucifixion, migrated from his native land, reached and settled in Kashmir, completed his mission, passed away, and was laid to eternal rest," Kashmiri writes in his book.
Local Muslim scholars and historians, however, ridicule Kashmiri's theory. Muslims revere Jesus as one of God's prophets, but they do not believe he died during his crucifixion.
"If Isa (Jesus) visited Kashmir and settled here, we would have all become Christians. But that is not the case in the valley," said Irshad Ahmad, a Muslim scholar.

OK, now to answer the question of the title – Was Jesus Buddhist? NO. He was Jewish through and through (even though many Christians and Jews would prefer that wasn’t the case!)

Of course there are similarities in both religion’s teachings. To me, there is one universal Truth and Jesus and Buddha both learnt from it, through the universal divine Mind (which I see as God, though Buddhists would disagree with that concept)

The video has many inaccuracies sadly. It starts off with the 3 wise men, suggesting they were Buddhists. But it has been widely accepted that they were from Persia (now Iran) and were Zoroastrian priests.

The video states that concepts like loving your enemies and blessed are the meek are Buddhist concepts, not Jewish. Sorry, but they are found in the Hebrew scriptures.

"But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." (Ps 37:11)

"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:17&18)

Also, Jesus lived a traditional Jewish life, going to the synagogue, celebrating the Jewish fetivals and he often quoted the Hebrew scriptures, which he was brought up with, not Buddhist scriptures. Here are some of the places where he did this:

Matthew 22:29, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:40. Matthew 4:4
He spoke of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4-6) , Abel (Luke 11:48-51), Noah(Matthew 24:37-39), Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:29&30)

And his disciples and Paul (an important Jewish figure before his transforming experience on the road to Damascus,) also quoted extensively from the Hebrew Scriptures and were all Jewish, following the faith until it broke away from the synagogue and became Christianity, not Buddhism! 🙂 I know that many people would love to separate Jesus from Christianity, but it isn't possible.

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Principled

I didn't say or indicate that I believed the video that is why i said in post#1 "Have a look at...." It was something I just fell upon and it amused me.

Why not take the Jesus out of Christianity? The world would be a better and less sectarian place. I like Energylz line, quote in post #2: "It is the pure teachings that remain the same in all."

Best Wishes

RP

Was Jesus a Buddhist? The Buddha wasn't even a Buddhist, he was born into a Hindu family. I don't think the great world teachers care about the labels we come up with.

Paramahansa Yogananda said...

Christ is not the property of either East or West - an East West bond is manifested in his life. He belongs to both, and to all the world. His universality is what makes him so wonderful. Jesus took the body of an Oriental so that in being accepted as guru by the Occidental he would thereby symbolically draw East and West together.

The ideals of Christ are the ideals of the scriptures of India. The precepts of Jesus are analogous to the highest Vedic teachings, which were in existence long before the advent of Jesus. This does not take away from the greatness of Christ; it shows the eternal nature of truth, and that Jesus incarnated on earth to give to the world a new expression of Sanatana Dharma.

The parallelisms of Christ’s teachings with Yoga-Vedanta doctrines strongly support the records known to exist in India, which state that Jesus lived and studied there during fifteen of the unaccounted-for years of his life - no mention is made of him in the New Testament from his twelfth to thirtieth year. Jesus journeyed to India to return the visit of the three ‘wise men from the East’ who came to pay homage to him at his birth.

Even in the name and title of Jesus, we find Sanskrit words with a corresponding sound and meaning. The word Jesus and Isa (Pronounced 'Isha') are substantially the same. Is, Isa and Iswara all refer to the Lord or Supreme Being.

Why not take the Jesus out of Christianity? The world would be a better and less sectarian place. I like Energylz line, quote in post #2: "It is the pure teachings that remain the same in all."

I say, let's take the religiosity out of Christianity instead! Mary Baker Eddy said:
[COLOR="Blue"]
The truth is the centre of all religion. It commands sure entrance into the realm of Love. (Science and Health 20)

God is universal; confined to no spot, defined by no dogma, appropriated by no sect. Not more to one than to all, is God demonstrable as divine Life, Truth, and Love; and His people are they that reflect Him--that reflect Love. (Miscellaneous Writings 150)

Which is roughly what Barafundle was saying above! 😉

Love and peace

Judy

God is universal; confined to no spot, defined by no dogma, appropriated by no sect. Not more to one than to all, is God demonstrable as divine Life, Truth, and Love; and His people are they that reflect Him--that reflect Love. (Miscellaneous Writings 150)

I do like that very much, Judy. I don't think there could be a more perfect definition of the philosophy of Sanathana Dharma.

Eventhough I put this video on the Buddhist forum, I think Jesus' teachings are more similar to Hinduism than Buddhism, since Buddhists don't believe in God, don't believe the existence of an immortal soul, and don't believe in a savour as Buddha told his followers to sort it out themselves.

RP

Eventhough I put this video on the Buddhist forum, I think Jesus' teachings are more similar to Hinduism than Buddhism, since Buddhists don't believe in God, don't believe the existence of an immortal soul, and don't believe in a savour as Buddha told his followers to sort it out themselves.

RP

I imagine that Buddha taught in a very similar way to Ramana Maharshi. If one had to label him he would be said to be Hindu, though he would not have applied such a label to himself.

Ramana Maharshi's statements on the nature of God could seem to be contradictory as he spoke of a God in anthropomorphic terms and at other times as being beyond attributes. His comments though were phrased to suit the differing levels of understanding he encountered in his audience.

Question: Is God the same as Self?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The Self is known to everyone, but not clearly. You always exist. The be-ing is the Self. ‘I am’ is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement ‘I am that I am’ in Exodus 3. There are other statements, such as Brahmaivaham (Brahman am I), Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman) and Soham (I am he). But none is so direct as the name Jehovah which means ‘I am’. The absolute being is what is. It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self.

Is that Buddhism, Hinduism, or Christianity?

Is that Buddhism, Hinduism, or Christianity?

Or Judaism? 😀

Or even, all one!

Love and peace,

Judy

meek inherit the earth etc, may have similarities with "buddhism"...but then these are truths that belong to no country or religion. i would say that jesus and the buddha were vessels of what is called "the perrenial wisdom".

the 3 wise men are to me, spiritual beings, known to some as the great white brotherhood who appear a long with "the star in th east" or king of the world, known to some as sanat kumar, during the rising of the kundalini of jesus or buddha once they had come of age. the ressurection is the twice born or rebirth after the 3 day kundalini experience, to a higher state of consciousness. the crown of thorns symbolises, to me, the opening of the crown chakra, which is said to feel like having pins pushed into ones scalp.

krishna and osiris are also depicted on a cross.

i feel it is possible jesus visited many countries after entering "the fountain of truth" and becoming one with the perrenial wisdom or love. i certainly don't think he died. also i don't think buddha himself would consider himself a buddhist, so hopefully jesus isn't/didn't/wouldn't either.

atb...

Buddha never said he did not believe in a God, he never said he did not believe in an immortal soul, these are things people have assumed from what he said and did not say - in most cases he left unsaid so much in the belief that people needed to find these things out for themselves - so others have filled in the gaps with thier own polyfilla.

love
chris

Hi CC

The more I read and discuss Buddhism the more I get the impression that the existence or non-existence of "God" is irrelevant to Buddhists.

As for the immortal soul 'Atman', Buddha taught that all things are impermanent (including the god realms), so how can there be a permanent soul? In What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Sri Rahula on page 59 Buddha is quoted in saying:

'O bhikkhus [monks], when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truely and really be found, this speculative view: "The universe is that Atman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity" - is it not wholly and completely foolish?' In a footnote on this page it suggests that in Buddha's view: all theories of Atman were false, mental projections.

Love

RP

Hi RP,
I think that what Buddha said was that everything was impermanent, including the soul until it was united with the Universal soul. The problem is that he kept silence on so many things, allowing others to find thier own answers, therefore one often has to read between the lines at what he did not say rather than that which he did.

love
chris

On the basic question of whether Jesus was a Buddhist, I tend to find interesting the text, basically a gospel, allegedly found by Nicholas Notovitch in Leh, Ladakh, in the 1800s. He copied this down, and published it under the title, "The Unknown Life Of Jesus Christ." If that's hard to find today, the whole was reprinted in the larger book of 1984, "The Lost Years of Jesus" by Elizabeth C. Prophet.

In comparing the Notovitch information found in Ladakh to the Kashmir story (Jesus married Mary Magdeline, never died on the cross, they lived happily ever-after in Kashmir, mostly popularised by Holger Kersten in 1983 - "Jesus Lived In India"), I find Kersten's book to be pretty largely lacking in any real evidence. It's actually largely a stringing together of Kersten's thoughts and pure speculations. The Notovitch text reads as much more likely IMHO. It's controversial as the text itself is missing again and we have no copy. Critics therefore say Notovitch made it up. However, several other scholars and travellers later claimed to have seen the or a manuscript like it in either Ladakh or elsewhere in Tibet, including Swami Abhedananda, Nicholas Roerich, and Madame Caspari as recently as the 1950s.

In the gospel, apparently written out East in Pali and Sankrit, found by Notovitch, the "lost years" of Jesus not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, from age 12 to about 29, have him travelling East to Persia, India, and Tibet. The account of these years has him both learning as well as teaching. He mixed with and learned the teachings of both Buddhists and Hindus, learned their practices and healing methods, was able to read and teach from their texts, but strongly condemned the caste system.

Anyway, to sum up my point, should the Notovitch account be true, and one suspects Jesus' life moved along such lines anyway (hence the missing years of his Palestinian life from 12 to 29), Jesus would have returned to his homeland at 29 being versed in the teachings and practices of Hinduism, raja yoga, Buddhism, Zorastrianism, etc. He'd have embraced Buddhist concepts, but by no means exclusively.

Was he a Jew? Racially, but not in heart, surely? I'm officially C of E, yet I'm not in reality. Many examples in the gospels have Jesus establishing new ways contrary to Judaic culture - a lesson Peter was famously slow to take on board.

V

Hi Chris, that's not the impression I get from reading Buddhists books. Buddha was radically opposed to the idea of the Self/Soul/Atman and knew that it wouldn't go down well with the masses that had a psychological investment in believing in the Atman. He kept to that principle thoughout his teaching until he died. There is the story of Vaccohagotta asking the Buddha about the Atman and Buddha not replying, but that doesn't mean that the Buddha was silent about such matters all the time. Can show something completely different to support your arguement.

For everyone else including V:

Have a look also at part 7.

Best Wishes

RP

Hi RP<
I'm not an expert in this - just what i've gathered, but I have not seen texts quoting Buddha saying he was opposed to the concept of a soul, I have seen translations and views that suggest this is what he meant, but there are translations and views to support whatever any particualr person wants and are often based on his silence - they extrapolate without evidence. He largely kept silence, and this was deliberate, whether it was due to politics or because he felt that others should find their own path, he left so many ideas open, and this seem a thoughtful act.

I see a lot of Buddha in Jesus's teachings, where Buddha holds silence often Jesus did as well, or perhaps he used parables to allow people to find out what he meant rather than lead them directly.
Both also seem to agree "as you sow, so shall you reap", something I believe strongly (though not everyone here does lol).

I've seen the hidden story before - it has some convincing apparent evidence I think - but many have reasons either to deny or agree with it all - a complicated world of self-interest that paints over truth without thinking.

love
chris

There is the story of Vaccohagotta asking the Buddha about the Atman and Buddha not replying, but that doesn't mean that the Buddha was silent about such matters all the time.

Reminds me of a section of Journey to the West (a.k.a. "Monkey Magic" (the t.v. series of the 70's)) I read this morning...

Chapter 93
In the Almsgiver's Garden, Antiquity and Causes Are Discussed
In the Court of India, the King Meets the Monks

"The Prajna-paramita Heart Sutra is constantly with me, like my habit and begging bowl," Sanzang replied. "There has not been a day ever since the Rook's Nest Hermit taught it to me that I have not recited it. I have never forgotten it for a moment. I can even recite it backwards. How could I possibly forget it?"

"You can only recite it, Master," said Monkey. "You never asked the hermit to explain it."

"Ape!" retorted Sanzang. "How can you say I don't understand it? Do you understand it then?"

"Yes," Monkey replied, "I do."

After that neither Sanzang nor Monkey made another sound. This had Pig falling about with laughter, while Friar Sand was hurting himself, he was so amused.

"Nonsense," said Pig. "We all started out in life as monsters. We're not Dhyana monks who've heard the sutras being explained or Buddhist priests who've been taught the dharma. He's pretending, just putting on an act. How can you say you understand? Well then, why aren't you saying anything? We're listening. Please explain."

"Second brother," said Friar Sand, "leave him be. Big brother's only talking big like that to keep the master going. What he knows about is how to use a cudgel. What does he know about explaining sutras?"

"Stop talking such nonsense, Wuneng and Wujing," said Sanzang. "Wukong understands the wordless language. That is true explanation."

As for the Heart sutra I'll let people look that up, but in simple terms it's referring to the detachment from ego/mind/self/atman to reach awareness of emptiness and thus become enlightened.

So, I would say, in buddhism, the concept of Self/Ego/Atman etc. was recognised, but also the recognition that they are all an illusion and the only thing that truly exists is emptiness. I think I recall the saying/teaching "All form is empty and emptiness can take form" (or some such phrase).

🙂

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Thanks for the link, RP.

It's interesting, however the inevitable flaw with anything 'on the screen' - TV or YouTube - is that we don't get to go into nitty-gritty detail. The Muslim professor in Part 8 talks of "many, many" writings from various countries, and dates one at 177 AD. But one would wish to know more detail, and how on earth such accurate dating was done (even the canonical gospels are of an unknown precise date).

When he starts talking about Jesus being "of the East" he clearly means the Far East, not Palestine. This is going much too far IMHO: there's zero evidence, and probably not even the Eastern writings on him say that. His first twelve years are generally agreed upon.

As for Jesus going East to India etc in general, I believe that he did. Probably to Egypt too, and possibly to Greece. Of course, tradition says to SW England as well. His life-story is covered somewhat up to age twelve in the canonical gospels, then goes quiet. He emerged as a man of 29 who by then was instantly challenging scribes and those who lived by the letter, not the spirit, of the 'Law' (I mean spiritual law). It's difficult to imagine that he very suddenly became that kind of man, and was just some carpenter who kept his mouth shut through his teens and twenties. The concept that he simply wasn't there in Palestine has logic to it. In seeking Wisdom, or in wishing to mix with the Wise, wouldn't one travel?

Interestingly I don't think any of the Gnostic or excluded gospels speak of Jesus aged 12-29 (?), which adds to the impression he wasn't at home.

Among those who believe Jesus went to India etc, there are two quite different concepts however. In the West they are mainly put forward by Holgen Kerster (one viewpoint) and the Nicholas Notovitch book (reprinted from 1984 within E.C. Prophet's work). The two views were debated way back on HP and it became clear then that people seem generally to make up their mind according to their view of Jesus (what he was) and also their view of humanity and human potential itself.

The Notovitch story only adds to the canonical gospels, filling in the missing years. It agrees with all we know of his time in Palestine, and writes of the Crucifixion and Ascension.

I've noticed that the Kersten version, the Kashmir-based story, tends to appeal to people who want to 'humanise' Jesus and kind of bring him down to earth. In other words, let's get rid of his miracles, we don't need to believe in those, let's get rid of the idea he Resurrected (Kersten suggests a potion was taken which made him appear to die on the cross - basically that he was just a stage-magician type), then he marries (people like to think that he couldn't maintain celibacy as that's a psychological challenge to them albeit unconscious IMHO), lots of little Jesus's are running around in Kashmir, and he dies in his seventies.

Again, given the power and authority, the sheer dedication demonstrated by Jesus, in his three-year Palestinian mission aged 29/30 to 33, is it again logical to think that he just "ran" away, and lived very quietly, doing not much else, for over 40 more years?

Anyway, those are the two basic views and 'stories' of Jesus in India. Clearly I prefer a Notovitch-like perspective; it makes more sense to me anyway. 🙂

V

Hi V

I know what you mean about TV programmes. They very rarely go into any deep level whether it religion or science. Sensationalism and camera angles seem to be more important. I just find it fascinating that how the "concreteness" of belief can be shattered or as shown on one of the YouTube Hidden Jesus snippets how a Coptic Christian cannot handle the fact of the existence of the Gospel of Thomas. One thing is for certain, a lot of people want to buy into the idea of the Christ figure.

Best Wishes

RP

Hi Giles

Thanks for the Journey to the West link. I shall enjoy that over the winter months!

Best Wishes

RP

I've got the hard copy, all 2400 odd pages of it. On chapter 93 out of 100 so nearly done. 😉