Jesus Christ lived in India

This is always cited as an odd passage, most likely to be true because it casts Jesus in a less than perfect light. I think it's the only time he ever changes his mind. Here Jesus describes people other than a Jew as a 'dog'. Would this man call other people than Jews 'dogs' if he had spent much of his life outside Isreal.

This text has great significance for the spiritual journey. It suggests a man not fully enlightened or perfect.

 

And perhaps Jesus was testing her faith as well! He indeed helps her in the end.

 

"It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs. "

I guess that is possible as well, we will never know. Still on face value it indicates someone who was a Jew first and foremost. Not someone who lived in India and saw all people as equal.

 

He said that he was sent to help Israel , which his mission was.

And he could also have , seen both the Israelis and the Indians as civilized people and must have regarded the rest as barbaric.

And finally he also tells his disciples to spread his message to all.

 

True but if he was all powerful and all knowing, God himself as many believe I still don't see why he would refer to another group of people as 'dogs'. Surely any group of people no matter how barbaric has people of goodness in it. Especially considering that these 'dogs' were the people who accepted his message whereas the Jews did not on the whole.

I enjoyed reading your source from http://www.atmajyoti.org/spirwrit-the_christ_of_india.asp, and here jesus refers to the Jews as mlecchas, which is powerfully derogatory term meaning one who is unclean, barbaric and abhorrent, an alien to all that is good and true.

One text his people were 'sheep' and others 'dogs', and here his people were 'dogs'.

The two texts seems to contradict each other.

For me it seems impossible to truely know what really occured and whats made up.

I guess that's why I gravitate to the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, because he lived recently and his teachings have been recorded reliably.

 

Phil, just to clarify before I say anything - I am not a christian, and these days I am less and less a fan of c/anity.

However, in fairness to Jesus alleged words - I agree, he seems here to say non Jews are unworthy dogs, and it's hard to circumvent that fact with causistry.
My feeling is that he was first and foremost a Jew. However, there are other passages, such as the story of the good Samaritan, where he says the Samaritan was better than the Jews who left the injured man to lie in the road. So you can look at it in different ways depending which part of the gospel you read.

There's also the fact that joing the magicians and whoremongers being cast into the flames in the book of Revelation are 'idolators' - such as hindu bhaktas I suspect.

later on, christians took very much the attitude that non-christians were 'dogs' or worse. Even the otherwise quite 'nice' english mystic Julain of Norwich only says 'all will be well' for christians. God will hurl the others directly into the pit.
And theres' no getting away from many passages in the Bible, NT and Ot where groups other than Jews/xians are roundly condemned.

This whole nonsense about Jesus going to India, being a Buddhist etc simply obscures the real issues which devolve back to an admixture of Jewish, Egyptian,Greek and Persian influences which make up xian doctrine.

 

As I said before, he could have been testing her faith.

Mleccha means a person who is unrighteous and impure and immoral, just as the jews were in israel at that time.

He doesn't term them as 'dogs', only as mlecchas .

Anyway 'dogs' and 'mlecchas' or 'sheep' doesnt necessarily mean nobility.

Even events in the recent past, no one knows truly what really occured and whats made up. Hence we have to logically deduct all the possibilities and come to that which is nearest to the truth through inference.

 

And how is it nonsense, when nothing is known of Jesus between ages of 18 to 30, where he lived in a land which is close to India, and which can be easily accessed through the Silk Route, and when he comes back, we see him teaching stuff extremely identical to what the Buddha and Indian enlightened masters taught. It makes sense to me. :H

 

There is a slight error in this link. The govardhan math was not founded by Adi shankaracharya at that time.

 

He was here in england dear. Learning from the druids, who earlier on taught the rishis how to go on shamanic journeys and link up telepathically with the Sirians.

 

Swami Abhedananda and Jesus Christ



Swami Abhedananda was a direct disciple of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and brother-disciple of Swami Vivekananda.

In Hemis Monastery, he discovered a manuscript on the unknown life of Jesus Christ, which has been incorporated in the book Swami Abhedananda's Journey Into Kashmir & Tibet published by the Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, Kolkata.


The monks there not only assured them that Notovitch had spent some time in the monastery as he claimed, they also showed them the manuscript-part of which they translated for Swami Abhedananda, who knew from having read Notovitch's book that it was indeed the same writing found in The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. Subsequently, Abhedananda had the English translation of Notovitch's text printed in India where the Christian authorities had until then prohibited both its publication or its importation and sale.


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

 

I think the so-called druids were living in forests, running around naked, and painting themselves blue, 2000 years back at the time of Jesus. I am sure Jesus would have been amused.

 

Yep that's a good point about the Samaritan Snake.


But most of the teachings of Jesus are hard to relay on.

The one about calling other people 'dogs' is so at odds with the rest of his teachings, it makes me think it has more chance of being genuine.

I think we can all agree some things have been altered in the gospals, i can't imagine anyone would make up Jesus saying other people are 'dogs'. It casts him in a less than perfect light.

The gospal of John seems to be one niranjan that is more spiritual and lines up with Hindu and Buddhist belief's. But most modern scholers agree it is the most unreliable. It was written later than the other books for one thing. Most think it was created by a member of the essenes who wanted to push their own ideas.

Most modern experts look to Luke and Mark as being the most historically accurate i think.

But I am no expert on Chrisitan matters at all. This is just recalling things off the top of head I've read a long time ago.

 

Actually they possesed not only the true keys of wisdom, and were the origin of all the world's genuine spiritual teachings, but because of their connection with the Sirians they were able to utilize alien technologies. It was they, from their Sirian space ship orbiting high above the earth who transmitted the ray that brought Jesus back to life in the tomb.
Many of them then left the earth forever prior to the Roman invasion. A few still remain.
Nakedness was natural to the Druids, as to all true wO/men. They rightly held that it is only silly whimpish pussycat types who need clothing. Only later perverted versions of the true Druidic teachings urge on people the need to regard their bodies as dirty and smutty. This then led to the general psychosis surrounding these matters that now has such a grip on the planet's pseudo civilizations.

The only remakable thing about their teaching Jesus is that he was of the inferior male gender. This is why neither he, nor any of the other 'world teachers' whom they instructed were given the higher grades of initiatory experience. This was reserved for females alone, or epicene/bi-sexual males.

 

That concurs with my own limited knowledge.
There are definite Greek influences in John too, probably of neo-platonic origin. But Greek thought had permeated through the entire region first during the hellenistic period, and later under the Romans.
It seems John may be related to the gnostics - and there is an essene/gnostic connection alleged by some (I can't recall who - possibly Rudolph Stiener).

It also seems that the way the christian religion came to be constructed owed a certain amount, if in fact not everything, to the so called 'mystery schools' such as the mysteries of Eleusis, which existed in Egypt, Greece, Asia Minor and probably Palestine too.
It is said that during initiation into the mysteries, the candidate was put through the experience of a metaphorical death and re-birth into spiritual knowledge. The experience also took place over 3 days, like Jesus in the tomb.

In John, Jesus is reffered to as 'the Word', which is actually a translation of the Greek 'logos'. Plato, who was in all probability an initiate of Eleusis, was the philosopher who first brought this concept to prominence centuries before Christ. In one place, he even says that the logos is stretched out over the world in the form of a cross.
It's an obscure philosophy really, but plato sees the logos as something like the 'mind of god' but a mind whose thoughts generate the prototytpes of forms in the actual world. Plato thought that above the physical is the 'world of ideas'. By this he didn't mean the human mind so much, but this world of the logos and the perfect arcetypes of things.

Anyway - the greek influence is clear enough in John.

Also, I think you are probably right - why depict the messiah criticizing non Jews as dogs if he didn't say it, or the intention that he should say it was in the minds of those who made it all up.

 

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

--- Jesus Christ


Hinduism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

 

this passage of writing may interest you niranjan



http://pages.zoom.co.uk/thuban/html/kundalini.htm

 

Thanks for the link, Philuk. It was quite educative and informative.

 

It is the Man who said , " I and my Father are one ", whose power has descended unto millions. For thousands of years it has worked for good. And we know that the same Man, because he was a non-dualist, was merciful to others. To the masses who could not conceive of anything higher than a Personal God , he said, " Pray to your Father in heaven"(Dvaita ). To others who could grasp a higher idea, he said: "I am the vine, ye are the branches ,"(Vishistadvaita) but to his disciples to whom he revealed himself more fully, he proclaimed the highest truth, "I and my Father are one ." ( Advaita )

---- Swami Vivekananda

 

How can you make the spirit pure ? By renunciation. A rich young man asked Jesus , "Good master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? " And Jesus said unto him, "One thing thou lackest; go thy way, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have riches in heaven: and come , take up thy cross, and follow me. "

---- Swami Vivekananda

With the self unattached to external contacts he finds happiness in the Self; with the self engaged in the meditation of Brahman he attains to the endless happiness.
- Krishna (Gita Ch.5, verse 21)

The enjoyments that are born of contacts (through senses with sense-objects) are only generators of pain, for they have a beginning and an end, O Arjuna. The wise do not rejoice in them.
- Krishna (Gita Ch.5, verse 22)




RAMANA MAHARSHI ON RENUNCIATION

http://www.hinduism.co.za/renuncia.htm





As a little boy or a girl can have no idea of married happiness, even so a worldly man cannot at all comprehend the ecstasy of Divine communion.

--- Ramakrishna Paramahamsa



As on the troubled surface of a lake the moon is reflected in broken images , so on the unsettled mind of the worldly man engrossed in Maya, the reflection of God is broken and partial.

--- Ramakrishna Paramahamsa


"There is the case where the mind of a monk, when attending to sensual pleasures, doesn't leap up at sensual pleasures, doesn't grow confident, steadfast, or released in sensual pleasures. But when attending to renunciation, his mind leaps up at renunciation, grows confident, steadfast, & released in renunciation. When his mind is rightly-gone, rightly developed, has rightly risen above, gained release, and become disjoined from sensual pleasures, then whatever fermentations, torments, & fevers there are that arise in dependence on sensuality, he is released from them. He does not experience that feeling. This is expounded as the escape from sensual pleasures."

---- Buddha