Now Playing Tracks

SO AS TO FIT THE SITUATION;

An analysis and commentary on the Buddhist sources to Christianity made known through the findings of Dr. Christian Lindtner.

By Dan Hopkins

The main title to this paper is taken from a work of Dr. Lindtner in which he brilliantly shows that Buddhists such as Nagarjuna and Aryadeva were aware of, and quoted from a text titled The Lankavatara Sutra. In light of that work it may also be questioned if some of the writings that are said to record real instances in the lives of both Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are just rewordings of earlier Buddhist teachings. This paper intends to ask the same question with the figure known as Jesus.


Dr. Lindtner’s work on the Buddhist sources to Christianity has offered much new evidence supporting the Buddhist priority over the Buddhist/Christian parallels that so many scholars have deemed extraordinary and beyond noteworthy. Like the parallels, Dr. Lindtner’s finds only make sense when the gospels are seen as utterly dependant on Buddhist sources, that is to say that neither the parallels, nor the cryptic references pointed to by Dr. Lindtner, make any sense if we maintain that Christianity influenced Buddhism. All of the previous scholars neglected to search for verbal similarities in the texts from both traditions circulating at the foundation of Christianity, which is unquestionably the later of the belief systems. This has led to a host of Christians claiming that the apostle Thomas was martyred for preaching about Jesus in India. Besides religious persicution being unknown in India and parts of present day Pakistan and Afghanistan, which Thomas would have considered India, his message was far from new, and as we will see parts of Thomas’ gospel can be traced to the earliest of Buddhism, such as his Jesus as a “white-washer”, must be the Pali Sita-Kamma.

Just before the appearance of Christianity the Buddhists lifted their ban on the Buddha’s words being translated into Sanskrit. Sanskrit became so popular with the Buddhists that some Sanskrit words and terms were adopted into the Pali cannon of the Theravada tradition [1], not to mention the Chinese, Tibetan and Central Asian manuscripts, such as those early manuscripts in the Kharosthi script which depend on Sanskrit. Some philologists have shown that these Sanskrit authors were probably Brahmin converts to Buddhism. It has also been shown that after Vedic times the Brahmins in an unprecedented manner developed Sanskrit in what has been called an unnatural or artificial way. They also developed literary schemes built upon formulas, and where some Greeks and Jews employed Gematria and Isophia to convey hidden meanings, the Sanskrit alliteration and metonymy devices allowed authors many ways to convey multiple or hidden meanings. In light of the Buddhist sources to Christianity the meaning of ‘metonymy’ is relevant because it can be read –change name, from meto (change) and (o)namo (name), to those bilingual in Greek/Sanskrit it could also mean, ’change homage’ (i.e. from Buddha to Jesus), or, ’above homage’, and one would expect a person familiar with the Greek and Sanskrit to know the Pali form of the awaited hero of the Buddhists, Maitreya (Gematria and Isophia value of 666, a number for the sun/son and the Vedic sun is often called Mitra, or, “friendly”), which is Metteya, from Metta, allowing them to see this Asian name as a paronomasia from the Greek, and we can further see, by the etymons in paronomasia, a meaning of paronomasia comes close to one drawn from ‘metonymy’, oname in Greek also can mean, ‘homage’. However, it can be said with a reasonable degree of certainty that these words were used with a single meaning, and as Dr. Lindtner has shown this was not so with many words and phrases in the earliest Greek Gospels, a style of speech used by the Buddhists.

That all of the sudden a host of new Bodhisattvas enters the Buddhist mythos, all from a single Bodhisattva, tells us of the willingness of the early Buddhists to make the many from the one (this may be why “one” demon tells Jesus that his name is Legion (‘many from one’ does not appear first in Virgil, rather early Buddhism). To illustrate the mass conflation let us take Maitreya who is also equal to the Buddha and Pundarkia, the white lotus/parasol, who may also be the goddess Sitatapatra, a name which was a mystical central Asian spell (syi dan dwo bwo da la) and who has her parallels with a couple of Greek goddesss’, who likewise carry white umbrellas.

Before Dr. Lindtner’s finds are covered I would like to briefly comment on the conclusions of those well respected scholars who have attempted to criticize his work in Comparative Gospel Studies. One scholar believes a lot of Dr. Lintner’s Gematria equivalences, puns, and unorthodox, or “fuzzy” translations, from the Buddhist Sanskrit to the Greek gospels, to be incidental and due to the close relationship between the Greek and Sanskrit, he neglects to offer explanations for Dr. Lindtner’s gematria equivalences and homophonic puns and discounts the Buddhist/Christian parallels examined by other scholars. This scholar is correct in assuming that separate literary works of religious or systematic traditions in related languages can give rise to incidental puns, ironic or alternative or fitting translations that are never intended by the authors.

The previous scholar asks if we may find similar puns drawn from comparing the New Testament with the US constitution, but this is not an adequate comparison as one body of texts (NT) is of a religious and allegorical nature, while the other is a governing document. A fair comparison would be a relatively short allegorical work compared to the whole of the mythology behind the language used by the allegorical author. This mythology may be less technical than Buddhism but should provide some incidental punning. But who could conceive of the puns, syllabic and gematria equivalences, and parallels pointed out by Dr. Lindtner as existing between Buddhism and Christianity in any other literary works? The reader needs to only ask themselves, “What are the odds”.

Dr. Lindtner has shown how the gospel authors constructed the gospels by translating a Buddhist verse so that the meaning had changed but the sound was mimicked (Sanskrit Samudga), which Dr. Lindtner describes as ‘dvi-samdhana’, or ‘double joining (meaning)’. Restoring these translations to their original is known as samudha, restoring the morphed texts that evolved from the Lotus sutra missionaries was actually known as samudha-pundarika-paddhati. Regarding these translations Dr. Lindtner gives many examples in his book but English readers are directed to his website JesusisBuddha.com and his paper A New Buddhist-Christian Parable.

He starts off with the first words from Matthew;
biblos geneseôs, ´Iêsou Khristou, huiou Daueid, huiou ´Abraam
Which Dr. Lindtner shows to be a wonderful copy of the following Buddhist original;
kulasya vamsas, ksatriyasya, deva-putrasya, brâhmanasya
The reader should first notice that Matthew’s word for book (biblos) and ancestors (geneseos), reads like a title for Matthew’s book, but this is not so because the genealogy is only the first chapter to the “book” of Mark and when beginning Matthew’s first sentence its proves to have, as Dr. Lindtner shows, an equal number of syllables to the Buddhist original. Mark’s first sentence is also a title, but to his whole story.
‘Kulasya vamsas’ (Genealogy {vamsa} of the great propagator {Kulasya}) is more religious than ‘biblos geneseos’ (book of genealogy) and again accounting for the primitive word form in the gospels.
Ksatriya-sya (He who is {sya} a freeman {‘a Ksatriya’}), was translated as Khristou-Iesou and here Dr. Lindtner shows the yasya of Ksatriyasya was translated as Ieous, or Jesus.
Deva-putrasya (son of (putrasya) God (deva)), a title of Northern Buddhists kings, as Dr. Lindtner shows also comes very close to Matthew’s “son of David”, and so we first have Buddha as the “son of God”, which is also brâhmanasya which translates as “son of Abraham”.
Similarly Dr. Lindtner points to many other Buddhist translations found in the gospels, to quote another example from his groundbreaking work;
“The Sanskrit original of Matthew 8:11 is to be found in the Samghabhedavastu I, p. 196:
Sakra-Brahmâdayo devâ…devaparisadi…Kuberas ca…
Brahmâ has become Abraham, Sakra has become Isaac, and Kubera(s) has become Jacob, Greek ‘Iakôbos. The kingdom of the gods, or of god, in which they were sitting, was a building in the kingdom of Kapilavastu.”

Dr. Lindtner offers many such proofs that the gospels are fuzzy rewordings of Buddhist originals. He points to relevant puns and Buddhist words assimilated into the gospels that allow for more fitting interpretations to the allegory of Jesus; For instance the impossibility of a camel (Kamelos) passing through the eye of a needle (raphis, Luke uses medical term for a needle, calling it a ‘splintered’, or’fractured’ needle (known in both India and the Greek world)) was first the odds of a Buddhist sea-turtle (kurmas) passing through a ring of foam in the ocean. Since the Greek L and Sanskrit R are commutable the kurmas becomes kulmas, and I would like to further point out that the Greek Kamelos offers an excellent pun on kumaras, another word used to describe the Buddha and some legendary Buddhists; hence as the Buddhists believed a Buddha could go through the eye of a needle we see the Buddhist ability of changing size, from the infinitely small—to big, just as Ananda was said to fit through a keyhole, fits the gospel version. In the Buddhist version the turtle has “one eye” (or blind in one eye, kuna) which comes close to Jesus’ impossible illustration given that even a baby camel could not pass through the eye of a surgeons needle, unless they could change their size. Jesus saying ,”It is more difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” makes no sense and as Dr. Lindtner reminds us, both the gospel and the Buddhist version are dealing with a heavenly rebirth, and while we may say, in the Buddhist version, the chances of the one-eyed turtle poking his head through a single ring in the ocean are virtually impossible, it is none the less a proper supposition while the Christian version effectively proposes nothing, and if it was Jesus’ intent to convey that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, he would have said so! Furthermore, the Buddhist version as it appears in the Lotus sutra states that the yoke (yogu pun off of yoga, i.e. passing through the yogic samadhis) was splintered or itself an aperature which is similar to Luke’s phrasing. But there are also puns in the Buddhist version as the turtle (kurmas) puns off of kamelos and kumara (Buddha) who goes through a splinterd (or faulty, cchidra) yuga (yoke) punning off of the yugan who goes through the “pure stages of meditations in Pali; this is dhonena yugan samagama which reminds us of Jesus’ last words ela ela lama sabachthani when translated from Sanskrit (ara ara rama sabbachathani). If the translation is “Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?”, the only thing it would share in common with Buddhism are those likewise embarrassing accounts in the Buddhist texts; the Buddha farts after enlightenment and some texts record him dying from eating pig, family line from incest, etc..
In comparing the Buddhist and Christian gospels, Dr. Lindtner is the only scholar to consider the gospel allegory in light of the Buddhist sources. He shows the key names of the Buddha within the earliest Greek gospels. I will only examine a few.

Tathagata as ti-agathon and ti-agathou - Matthew 19:17, literal trans. from the earliest manuscripts:
why, and said to him, why me asking about who is good (tou-agathou (?), one are that good.
The previous verse describes Jesus’ response to a man who calls him good master (ti-agathon) before asking him how to live forever. The Greek word translated as ‘forever’ is ouranon, and, as Dr. Lindtner points out, if we read the our- as a negation like the nir- in nirvana we have a clever rendering of nirvanam (ouranon), hence the Tathagata has achieved nirvana, or life eternal. Also noted is that many Christians did not follow this command as Agathos was a popular Christian name. It should be known that the Greek word for ‘good’, agotho, actually stems from, ago, to lead, or guide, and it has been shown that in the Buddhism propagated throughout ancient Europe, the Buddha was viewed as a good guide/leader. Ago, is seen in the name Augustos, as in Caesar Augustos, the Caesar being the Buddhist Kazi, a name/title taken by some kings of ancient Benares (kasi). Another name of intrest is Agogus, mentioned by Aristides, which later formed words like synnagogue, demagogue and paed-agogus. The first king of the Greeks is Ogyges who appears to be identical with the first king of the Buddhists who was named Okkaka, a name said to derive from ukka, (Vedic ulka, Latin volca(nus)), which means ‘torch bearer” and shows the Greek lexicographers probably wrote the Pali Okkakas as Ogyges. The Buddhist Okkaka could have his name derived from Oka, “resting place” referring to the resting place of the Sakyas. Here it should be added that Okkaka (Sans. Ikshvaku) had 10,000 sons and the followers of the next Buddha will have descendants for 10,000 generations [2], and when Jesus uses this number in Luke 14:31 we have three Buddhist originals; the unfinished tower (of a Theist or Brahmin in search of Brahma), the king who considers his army (Surangama), and the substitution of salt for religion (Gospel of Buddha and Mahaparinibban sutta).
Deriving Okkaka from Ukka leaves the picture of a tourch carrier (ukka) near the opening to a flame (mukha) which may well have appeared in the character of Prometheus (pra-mathas [3]) and the Greek as the fable about Icarus being neither to close to the sun, nor to far, the middle-approach which Dr. Lindtner has reminded me appears early in Greece, and may prove to be from the same source as the pre-Buddhist Indian epic called ‘The Ramayana’ in which there is a strong parallel account of Icarus.
Sakyamuni as Suken-mian - Matthew 21:19 “And having seen one fig tree (Suken-mian) on the road, he came to it and found nothing on it and said, ”no longer on thee will fruit be produced until (eis) the aeon (aiona)””—“and the fig tree (E-suken, or The Sakya) dried out at once”.
Several translations put the fig tree in Jesus’ way, probably trying to make sense for why Matthew writes ‘fig tree one”, but being that Buddha compared himself, and his future votaries, to a fig, or udumbaras, in several Mahayana texts known to the Jesus authors and also in the Pali texts, it is plainly evident that Jesus is cursing the Buddha, or more correctly said Jesus is a curse to the Buddha (i.e. he represents the Pratirupaka Dharma). Jesus found nothing on the tree because it was the wrong season and this is also allegory pointing to the end of the first Buddhist age (500 years), in which a counterfeit religion (Dharma-pratirupaka) appears, the true Buddha returns to restore his Dharma at the end of the aeon or world-age. That the gospel authors knew the Buddhist fig is evident by it both representing a parasitic religion [4] and the following Pre-Christian Pali verse from the Sutta Napata, the Buddhist snake becomes the wineskins of Jesus [5];
He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none,
— such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin.

Dr. Lindtner has also reminded us that in the Lotus sutra the udumbaras is combined with the odds of the turtle going through the yoke which we have seen in the gospels. The fig flower is used metaphorically to explain the rare appearance of a Buddha. This metaphor was borrowed from Vedic thought and also appears in other Buddhist sutras known to the gospel authors, most notably the Catusparisat sutra.

Dr. Lindtner also points out that the numerical value of Sakyamuni is 932 which is the same as Jesus phrase, ‘This blood of mine (To Haima Mou)’. With this phrasing Mark and Matthew offer puns on Tathagata (diatheke); Luke, and from him Paul, gives us poterion (cup), either we are to believe that the cup is blood (otherwise the poterion is budha-aryan, and reading Luke’s verse like this it becomes clear to me that his phrasing of Ekchunnomenon (grudgingly-pouring-out) reproduces the Kanakamuni from the Lalitavistara who is presumably Sakyamuni Buddha. The cup as a representation is not from the Hebrews, it appears to be from the Greek culture, the cup used as a representation of the body even before the time of Plato. In his Republic he mentions those of hell who continually poured water into broken jars, in his Gorgius a similar happening occurs in a ritual were water is poured into broken pots. Here to we have what was originally a Buddhist representation from the state of Magadha spread to Greece just when the Makadon kings came to power over Greece. In the Lankavatara sutra we read of those who perpetually enter the wheel of life and death whom are compared to broken pots, and in the Surangama sutra we read of the Buddha telling his disciples that a fundamental error within the minds of the run of the mill person is believing that the mind either comes or goes and the illustration is of a person attempting to carry a jar of emptiness from one point to another. Both Plato and Socrates mention those hell-dwellers who attempt to carry water to pots (pithos) through a sieve, or a type of cloth, we read that Jesus had the ability to do such a thing in the Infancy of Thomas. Plutarch, when writing of the impossible, uses what appears to be a common phrase, “you are pouring water into pots” presumably a proverbial Roman contraction of an earlier, “you are pouring water into broken pots”, the earlier Buddhist phrase was, “such and such is like a broken pot which cannot hold water. Also noted is the later appearing Hindu poem the called ‘Ghata-karpara’ often translated ‘Broken Pot’, were ghata means ‘broken’ or ‘smashed’ were it usually means ‘pot’, the karpara meaning ‘pot’.
Also, in covering the cup in the Gospels, in the Infancy of James, time is suspended and people are looking up, they eat without eating… The same can be read in the Surangama sutra were those without a tounge can taste, those without ears can hear, etc..—the mind body. In the Surangama sutra, as with others, the congregation sits below the Buddha, thus they were looking up at him. Also noted is that James’ scenery is centered around the cup while the Buddhist circle had the sacred pot in the center.
Finally, Jesus symbolic drinking of blood from a cup seems related to the Scythians who would drink the blood of their fallen warriors out of a sacred cup usually made from a skull. In the Buddhist monastic code we learn that such cups or bowls are not permitted but nonetheless a cultural connection is considered.
Jesus’ acceptance of his crucifixion is an observance of the social-contract that we are told Socrates cited when refusing to escape his execution. Within reason the Buddhists also observed social contracts (even a beheading of Buddha (Jataka) and a crucifixion of Gotama (Mrcchakatika), and a more authoritative form of social contracts would creep into Buddhism through the Brahmin advisor of the Indian king Chandragupta who was the grandfather of the Buddhist king Asoka. But also noted is that both Buddha and Jesus, at times, feel completely free to override any social contract. The previous is well known in Buddhism as “expedient means”, and if the reader will deny Jesus’ crucifixion as an expedient to ‘transfer merit’, another Buddhist original, then I remind them how in one instance Jesus states ambiguously “render unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is his” only to later tell Peter that sons of a king (son of the Buddha) are exempt from taxes.

Returning to the pun on Tathagata, let us jump to Matthew 23:10:
“And not you be called great leaders (Kathegetai), as a great leader (Kathegetes), of you there is one, The Christ (Ho Christos)”
Here Jesus is reserving a title for ‘The Christ’ a phrasing which Dr. Lindtner has shown is equal to ‘Kshatriya’ which was first Kshatriyasya (The Ksatriya, or the Buddha), both the Buddha’s social class (Ksatriya) and clan name (Sakya) became names for the Buddha. When Jesus tells people there is only one Kathgetes, it would seem he is referring to the Greek philosophers who were called Kathegete. Also noted is that these philosophers have been shown to have had gained some of their doctrines from the Buddhists, Jains and Bramins. Kathegete is usually translated as ‘guide’, one of the inglorious titles of Buddha, and in sound is almost indistinguishable from Tathagata. The Greek katha can mean, ‘down from’ and ‘through out’, which equals Sanskrit gata in Tathagata, the Greek katha can also mean, ‘likewise’, ‘accordingly’, ‘and so’, ‘ thus’, which is one ot the meanings of the Sanskrit tatha in Tathagata, a main title of the Buddha’s that has multiple meanings. Both the Greek and Sanskrit aga can mean,’lead’ however the Sanskrit agata is strongly considered in early commentaries regarding the etymology of Tathagata. It is widely repeated that the Greek Kathegetes stems from katha and hegeomai (ago-m) and showing an ancient cultural affinity between east and west is KootooKtoos the Tibetan word for master which is too close to the Greek Kathegetes, in letter and meaning, to not consider as the same word. Also considered in the etymology of Tathagata is the Pali ogadha which means ‘alone, on dry ground’ coupled with the word pada we have the punning imagery of the Buddha floating on a pad in the great ocean, a image that is often reproduced in Tibetan thankas. Also considered in the etymology of Tathagata should be the Prakrit ghata or ‘butter’ in Sanskrit ghrita (christ) which was a name of Agni, who, unlike Christ, was actually anointed (with butter) before sacrificing himself. The root of ghrita should also be considered in translating Tathagata because the Buddhists also took over the terminology of the Agni cults and made the Buddha a new Agni figure. The Pali for butter is usually ghee, which through the Goths becomes the ge- prefixed in Old German. As it appears the Pali language of the Buddhists underwent several codifications and the word Okkhita may actually be from the earlier uka and giita, or ‘anointed with butter’. In a similar way Krishna may have first been Ghrita-natha, keeping in mind that as a child it was said that he loved to steal butter.
Dr. Lindtner states that the Sanskrit ending –kas is often translated by the gospel authors in the prefix ek (out of, or pain ) , and I would like to add my belief that the Buddhist -kas is a contraction of kasa (pain, torture, scourged) used to describe the blood red or saffron robes of the Buddhists (kasaya represents decay) which I take to represent suffering (dukha, or even kasa in the case of punishment). In Pali the suffix –ka means, ‘one who makes or does’ and the early Buddhists used this ending to mean something like ‘he who does against Mara, or upstream’. A satisfactory etymology for the Greek word Monakhos (monk, or ‘one-khos’) should consider it stemming from pto-khos (a beggger, a person in distress) and is identical to the Buddhist Pali word Bauddhaka, a Buddhist. According to Jesus it is these beggars, or the Buddhists, which will inherit the earth. In considering more wordplay between pto and buddha, I remembered that in Matthew Jesus said that the appearance of the “son of man” will be like vultures, or eagles, gathered together (sunaga) around a carcus (pto-ma). It was first the Buddhist monks, or Sangha which gathered on Vultures Peak to hear the Buddha. But in viewing what the Greek text of Luke states, and given that the authors were learned in Sanskrit, I realized another allegorical interpretation to Jesus’ words. According to Luke, when questioned about his return, Jesus’ last words were “where there is a corpse (soma) so will the eagles(Garuda) gather”. Garuda being the bird that carried off soma in Vedic mythology (from the guards, nagas), was also incorporated into Buddhism. Luke’s word for eagle was ‘aetos’, which I believe Dr. Lindtner shows to be ‘dhama’, can also be the Pali attha, ‘the goal’(in regards to heaven (veda), or Buddhahood). How else can we reconcile Matthew word for corpse and luke’s word “soma”?


The Buddha’s robe was both folded into four (Mahaparinibana) and ripped into four (Dragon King sutra) just as Jesus’ robe was ripped into four, but with the Buddhist version we have meaning as the four-fold represents the “four abodes” meditation. Furthermore the Tibetan Buddhists, to dived relics, cut the robe of the Lama when he has passed. A Kasaya, a Buddist robe, the wearer is a kasayin and the root word can also mean, ‘anointing oil’, or ‘smear’, or ‘filled with anguish or passion’ or ‘a thorn’, or ‘a plant with thorns’, Dr. Lindtner shows how the Greek cross (STAVRoN) is virtually egual to the kasaya robes called VASTRaNi, a word which formed our words vesture and vest, a Roman word for eastern attire, also used as meaning “to clothe” a verb just as the Pali Vattha and the Gothic Wasjan (a compounding of Vastra and Kasayan). A pre-Christian Buddhist monk named Sundarika was known for “washing away evil deeds”, in the Vattupama sutta (simile, or parable (upama) of the clothe (Vath)) the Buddha tells him that a cloth is not dyed until it is first washed and bleached, the same with religion, and in this the reader should understand why Jesus was known as a whitewasher, but also revealing in this Pali sutta is that the Buddha stops the purification ritual of Sundarika and gets him to manifest this practice in his mind, similar to Jesus’ style and reminds me of John’s words ,”I baptize with water, but he (Jesus)..”, John adds that he is unfit to tie Jesus’ shoe; the Greek word for shoe was upodematos and an obvious reference to the Buddhist upa-damma, Buddhist upa usually translating as offspring here means subordinate to the Buddha, the law, which is how John uses his word for shoe. The Chinese monk Dau Xuan mentions that the Buddha carried his robe, which was said to be the weight of the world, on his head for six years. Jesus has a similar weight with his cross and is associated with three robes, the white, golden, and red robe, the same with Buddha. There is reason to believe that the thorns worn by Jesus were just a cryptic representation of the suffering of Buddha. But because Dau Xuan’s story can only be traced to 500 A.D., presumably from an earlier unknown Indian source, if we cannot trace this ‘suffering carried on Buddha’s head’ back further, no firm connection to the thorns on Jesus’ head can be established.

There are several Buddhist Jatakas which mention a great wheel of agony placed on the head of the main character. In the context of the story the wheel seems to represent the ‘twelve likns of interdependent causation’ but the placement on the head is relevant to the present inquiry. A Chinese Buddhist fable [6] tells of a group of treasure seekers who have the option of giving up their search for minor treasures; the greediest of the bunch finds his way into a wasteland and finding the spot of a great treasure he also finds a man motionless with a great wheel above his head. The man imprisoned entices the greedy searcher of treasure to switch places.

Another similar fate is met with by Maitrakanyaka in the Valahassa Jataka; he abused his mother before finding another man who also abused his mother imprisoned by a wheel on top of his head. Because of his guilt Maitrakanyaka vows to switch places with this man so that no other beings will have to suffer the torment of the wheel. Both of the previous stories are not found in writing until after the thorns of Jesus. Supporting a Buddhist origin is similar tales of imprisonment under a wheel of suffering attached to medieval Athurian legends and that the hero in the Valahassa Jataka was also a great sinner also takes us back to the earliest of Buddhism, however probably best known in texts like the Lotus sutra, were Deavdatta (later Judas, linguistically Judas = Budas) is good and in the Vimalakirti sutra were only the true saviors are guilty of the five deadly sins or raging with passion, which several gospel authors echo with Jesus saying, “Some of those who have been the farthest from God will also be the closest”. To add to this the Vimalakirti sutra states, about those guilty of the five deadly sins. “without going out into the great ocean, it is impossible to find precious, priceless pearls. Likewise, without going into the ocean of passions, it is impossible to obtain the mind of omniscience” In light of Dr. Lindtner’s finds I read Jesus’ parable about finding a “fine pearl” (kalous magaritas) referring to kalaza or the pot of ghrita (butter) on top of Buddhist churches which is also the pearl placed on the top of many Buddhist relics. To support this I quote Hiuen Tsang, “On calm nights one could see the brilliant light from the pearl on top of the Buddha’s tooth relic”. This pearl is presumably representative of the mani-pearl or the wish fulfilling gem of the Buddhists said to be represented by either a pearl or jewel on the diadem or crown of Buddhist deities. Matthew, who I do not doubt was familiar with Sanskrit, chose the pearl, or margaritas (singular margariten), because of the numerous meanings in Buddhist Sanskrit, playing off of the phrasing of marg-amrita, mara-ghrita, maracitta, marajita, etcc.

Before I mention a few of the many notable Buddhist/Christian parallels, first I will address why modern scholars have errouniously dismissed theses parallels as not proving a connection between the two faiths. In several of his books, the well respected historian Edward Washburn Hopkins covers a few Buddhist/Christian parrallels. He finnaly concludes that the evidence suggesting borrowing is insufficient. His style is like that of Mr. Max Muller who also covered Buddhist/Christian parallels, both of these men who apear to have an impartial approach show their favoritism to the reader by reffering to Jesus as ‘our lord’. Mr. Hopkins, as well as others, and for the most part Muller, offers no parallels of his own, that is to say they only considered parallels found by others. He dismisses the parallel between Simon Peter/Jesus and Sariputra/Buddha where they walk on water because the Buddhist version, the main theme to a fable (Jataka), appears, to the best of our ability to ascertain, in writing after the corresponding Gospel versions. To the reader this may seem reasonable enough, however when we investigate his method of investigation further it is hard to believe Mr. Hopkins was not guilty of willful error, or gross neglect. While it is true that the Buddhist version, which best parallels the Gospel version, appears in writing later, it is not fair to expect the whole of early Buddhism to have survived only in textual form, and it is a literal fact that the Buddhist texts committed to writing before the foundation of Christianity is the largest grouping of texts ever known. Most of the surviving manuscripts can be read as a bio of one man, Siddhartha Gotama, which also stands out as an unmatched literay acheivment. But we ask too much if we demand to see the whole of Buddhism commited to writing, like all culture, its origin can be seen in its writings, expressions, art, and symbols. But even without the whole of Buddhist texts that have yet to be translated, we can find other early Buddhist legends about a Buddhist walking on water, for instance in a Chinese text ( Fa Kiu P’I Yu King), which was translated from Sanskrit into Chinese well before the foundation of Christianity, instead of Sariputra walking on water, the Buddha conjures up a person who walks on water and it is the people of the town who are unbleieving, similar to those who rejected Jesus.

The belief that a Buddhist could walk on water is admitted by all to be a pre-Christian belief. Not to mention the earliest accounts of special monks being born on water, as if floating on a pad or even a padma (lotus) which was said of the Buddha’s son Rahula and Upagupta. In Sanskrit Upagupta may be read, ‘Secret-Son(of Dharma or Gotama), later this “secret son” is found in the gospels; Upagupta is usually translated as ‘son of Gupta (allegedly his father)’. Also, the walking on water calls to mind the both the Buddhist image of a lotus on top of the water (or swamp, referring to the world) and the Vedic imagry borrowed by the Buddhists of butter rising ontop of the ocean.

In the Sanghabhedavastu of the Mulasarvastivada, which Dr. Lindtner has pointed to as a source to the gospels, the Buddha’s wife states,”If this is the son of the Buddha (Rahula), may he float,..,let him float from one side of the river to the other {from life to death}” and also noted is that several modern Buddhist traditions place molds of saints so that they float on water, or have floating temples (Sima-malaka). Also, a common metaphor in early Buddhist literature, and in the words attributed to the Buddha, is the reflection of the sun as it appears floating on the water.

In the Pali accounts the monk may posess Iddha, among other powers he can walk on water and walk through walls, the latter also appearing in the New Testament (angel frees apostles from prison (paralleld word for word in Chinese Buddhist texts [7]) & Jesus appearing (through the wall) to the disciples,Luke 24:30-) . Also, the Buddhist, with Iddha, could “ascend to heaven”, which is also in the gospels. Dr. Edward Hopkins rightly states that the Buddhist Jatakas often incorperated other fables, even at a later date, but it is obvious he is only repeating the work of others and has not considered all of the Jatakas, had he, he would have noticed the Sama-Jataka, one of many Buddhist gospel prototypes (ex. Mahakapi), whose date is set in stone as it is depicted in the pre-Christian art of Sanchi. Also, he did not compare the intent of the Buddhist and Christian versions of the disciples walking on water. In the Jataka version Sari-putra wants to hear the Buddha preach, so he attempts to cross the river by walking on it (the “crossing the river with faith in Buddha” is again, unquestionably pre-Christian). The waves [8] begin to pick up and Saripitra sinks, just as Simon Peter sinks when the wind(waves) builds, but as usual the Gospel version fails to account for why Jesus could not calm the wind as it is said he could, but this was first said about Rahula, next Upagupta, all who considered themselves sons of a great father. The Buddhist explanation for why Jesus does not calm the wind for Peter is that he is testing Peter just as the Buddhists texts mention similar tests [9], and another parallel exists in Jesus grabbing Peter and that of Asoka helping Upagupta on dry ground with one foot on a boat. The short account in the gospel leaves us guessing if Jesus had to heave Peter back in the boat, as it states that Jesus’ chief disciple Peter began to sink and Jesus had to support him; are we to gather that Jesus was ridding up and down with, or, pedaling the waves (on top of the water) as there is no struggle with him as there was with Simon Peter, or Sari-putra, he would have to pervade the water (instead of on the water) to grab Peter. Which reminds us of Jesus sleeping on a boat while waves were violently overtaking the ship, the vision of a socalled godman tossing about in his sleep leaves wondering if, as he says, and as the Buddha said earlier, that he is “awake among those who sleep”. The Gospel versions leave much to be explained, such as why Jesus told his disciples to “go on” without him and why they believed him to be a ghost (also found in Buddhist texts). Also it is difficult to make out Jesus’ destination but we are told that his ship landed in Gennesaret which to me could be read Jina-sarathi (genius guide) and another account has him in Gadara, or Gadara-na which equals the Buddhist Gand(h)ara, where he drives demons to pigs which could be allegory referring to Marici, who is pulled by seven pigs (the seven Vedic stars? Seven suns of Rev. and the seven torches (agni) used to baptize Jesus?) and the Buddhist pig which symbolizes ignorance. But the Buddhist version has the chief disciple, by faith in the Buddha, regaining his footing on the water to reach the bank. The gospel version intends to show the reader that the followers of Jesus depended on his physical being, hence Peter had to be supported by Jesus (we can suspect that Christianity is, as Paul stated, dependant on an historical Jesus who, by the will of his heavenly father, was nailed to a pole). In the Buddhist version [10], Sariputra is searching for the Buddha’s law and not his physical body, had he been searching for (i.e. dependant on) the Buddha’s form he would have been reproached (seen in other suttas). Also noticed by Dr. Lindtner, is the similar names of both Simon Peter and Sari-putra, or Simon Peter ‘son of Iona’, and Sari-putra ‘son of Jina’. Again, Edward Hopkins, Max Muller, and others have neglected to fully explore the previous parallels and the same can be said with the other Buddhist/Christian parallels.

Another obstacle to seeing these parallels is not recognizing figurative speech and contracted phrases; for instance scholars are often confused about Megesthenes mention of several dark skinned tribes in India who he mentions as having “black semen”. Most likely Megesthenes is probably mentioning that there whitish semen produced black, or dark skinned babies. In the gospel of Thomas, Jesus throws many colored rags into a vat, and he pulls them out white saying, “so, also has the son of man come”. It seems clear that Jesus did not mean to state his intentions to make everybody white (today synonymous with Caucasian), rather white, being a representation for purity, and so we find the white robe in the religions of Islam, Christianity and Buddhism (Odata Vasana) were it is also the color of the awaited Buddha Maitreya. In the Gospel of Thomas version Jesus illustrates how he intends to purify all types of beings. After the Pali verse on the Buddha making his appearance like that of others in order to purify them, and several other relevant Pali passages, the best known Buddhist version takes place in the Sanghabedavatu legend; the night before the Buddha severed his ties with the world, he dreams [11] that he is a giant with different color (varna) birds landing on his body, they all turn the same color; there does not appear to be an emphasis placed on the Bodhisattva (Buddha) purifying these birds, but this may go without saying because the Buddha purifying beings is repeated in many other pre-Christian Buddhist formulas. Another widely repeated legend, appearing in texts before the Christian era, is that the Buddha took dirty robes from a dead slave girl and before his coronation (into buddhahood) turned them white (pandudukula) with divine water. The previous theme of Jesus making all the rags the same appears in many Mahayana texts; in the Lotus sutra, the Buddha tells his chief disciple that he has already converted all living beings, “causing them all to enter the Buddha way”, the copied Jesus version is found in the Apocalypse of Peter when Jesus tells Peter to keep it a secret that those in hell will eventually be freed; Jesus states, “if you tell them they will continue to sin” which is without question found first in the Lotus sutra and in absolutely no other faiths [12]. Also in this sutra we read of a Bodhisattva who is regularly attacked for telling people they will all enter the Buddha-way which is similar to how Jesus was attacked for claiming that the “father” in him was in all—‘He makes the sun shine on the just and wicked’ my paraphrase of Jesus’ words are paralleled in the Lotus sutra, and it is found so many times in the Avatamasaka sutra, line for line, the Buddhist versions would outweigh the whole text of Matthew.

The previous Bodhisattva from the Lotus sutra is not called a “son of the Buddha”, again this would go without saying, he is chipper and up-beat in delivering his message, and so he was an evangelizer, he delivered a good (eu) message (angelos) (Sanskrit Su-angiras). The Lotus sutra is without doubt a source to the main themes in Christianity and that it has obvious priority over the Gospels is shown by it being an attempted reformation and clarification on earlier forms of Buddhism, which among other things, refused to answer, directly, if the Buddha figure is eternal.

As I have mentioned there are many examples of pre-Christian Buddhist martyrs, most notably is the many tales of the Buddha giving his body for food, or submitting to the king an order of execution.

One of the only differences between Buddha and Jesus is that the Buddha called himself a “father to all” and claimed to be completed, or perfected, while Jesus, who calls himself a “son of the father”, claimed that he was not perfected, until after what we are to believe was his, albeit temporary, death in which he would be identical with his father. Several Mahayana texts claim that there is not a single point in space which the Buddha has not laid down his life for the law. Again this is pirated into the Gospel of Phillip and, as usual, seems out of place in the gospel were we get short blurts of many different Buddhists themes that are in place and well explained in the Buddhist texts. Again, as with the other gospels, there are many Buddhist originals in the Gospel of Phillip, for instance, the gospel of Phillip states;

“Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him. He appeared to them all. He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this, his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount, he was not small. He became great, but he made the disciples great, that they might be able to see him in his greatness.”

This section could have been lifted from several Buddhist sources, such as the following Pali source:


“There are various kinds of assemblies, O Ananda; assemblies of nobles, of Brahmans,
of householders, of bhikkhus and of other beings. When I used to enter an assembly,
I always became, before I seated myself, in color like unto the color of my audience (the rags in Gospel of Thomas)
and in voice like unto their voice. I spoke unto them in their language and then with religious discourse, I instructed, quickened, and gladdened them. But when I spoke, they knew me not and would say, ‘Who may this be who thus speaks, a man or a god?’ Then having instructed, quickened, and gladdened them with religious discourse, I would vanish away. But they knew me not, even when I vanished away”

Another distinction between Jesus and Buddha is there appearance, according to Christians Isaiah tells of Jesus’ inglorious appearance, his body deformed, but makers of Jesus movies may be justified in overlooking this quality as Isaiah mentions that Immanuel will not be, or was not, perfect (“before the boy is old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right”), a line that is totally ignored by the gospel authors. But the Gospels are built on Jesus being rejected for his ungodly appearance while Buddha is constantly adored as Adonis. But in early Buddhist literature we may also find one of the 33 vedic gods or Sakra, or Brahma appearing as a beggar, haggardly, blind, sick, near death etc.., the beggar as the master in disguise is still a common storyline in Tibetan and Chinese tales. To this the Vimalakirti sutra adds that these persons appearing as cursed are actually testing for compassion (karuna). Also noted is that the pre-Christian monk Upagupta was said to look injured and disheveled.

Besides revealing many new Buddhist/Christian parallels in which we can see both a verbal similarity and syllabic equivalences between the texts held by both faiths, Dr. Lindtner points out many number equivalences behind key terms in both faiths.
Here are a few;
Kayam-Tathagata = 888
Jesus = 888
Maitreya=666
Pundarika=666*
(Ptolemy=666, the Ptolemy Philadelphius who attempted to fuse Judaism and Greek religion with Buddhism.)
Sakyamuni = 932
Jesus’ to haima mou, ‘of my blood’ = 932 
*Pundarika from Pali PuN= purgatory, or pure + dharaka= holder (the bhanaka, or missionary)
Buddhist numbers are also reproduced in the Gospels, the number three being the obvious [13], the number seven less so. The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are in multiples of seven. The author of the Revelation of Saint John uses the number seven repeatedly; for instance referring to the number of seals on a holy book. The Perfection of Wisdom sutra also uses the seven numerous times, for instance in explaining that the text is sealed with seven golden seals. But, as with all things Mahayana, the use of the number seven appears in the earliest of Buddhism, and, as usual, looking for meaning from the Judaic and Christian sources is futile. The seven has a special place in Buddhism, the seven weeks of revelation after enlightenment, Buddha’s seven steps after birth (Infancy of Mary), his seven jewels, the earth shakes for him seven times, said to be “seven Buddhas”, seven gates and ramparts at the place of Suddasana, seven acts that produce fruit in the here and now, seven headed dragon (a naga, the Roman lotan), the heretic may get his head split into seven by lightening, before Maitreya descends the land will be dark for seven days, [14] etc…
Also, the author of the Revelation of Saint John, knowingly or not, quotes a good deal of Mahayana prophecy and propaganda. John’s hero/villain can probably best be seen in the Chinese traditions of Maitreya His hero has a tattoo, forbidden in Judaic law, by encouraged with the Mahayanists. Some Mahayana texts even stress the merit one will gain by writing parts of that text on their body, and the Buddhist word for praise could also mean ‘a tattoo’ (vandana).
Dr. Lindtner shows how the gematria of Jesus, 888, is equal to the Buddhist ‘kayam-Tathagata’ (Buddha’s body), which he shows to be the inspiration for Kaine- Diatheke, “New Testament”. The number eight was also special to the Buddhists, in the Sanghabhedavastu sutra, which Dr. Lindtner has named as a text known to the gospel authors, there are eight signs of love, eight great dreams, the Burmese and Chinese Buddhists have eight saints who stand at eight different points around the earth, eight auspicious symbols, etc…

In the Lotus sutra, or Sadharma Pundarika sutra, votaries are promised incalculable merit if they are able to reproduce small parts of the sutra. The word play by the author of the Lotus sutra can be seen in the title Sadharma Pundarika, which can be read several ways; ‘The White Lotus of the Good Law’,’ The Law of the Good One(s)’, ‘The Law for Those Who Are in Despair (Sanskrit.- sad),‘Joining with the Pundarika’, or ‘Faithfully Collecting (pun) Children (dharaka)’, etc.. With this in mind we can now make sense of the accounts of Jesus Ben Pandera, recorded in 50 B.C. by the Jewish sage Shammai. Pandera is Sanskrit pundarika and most, if not all, philologists claim that the Greeks borrowed the word panther from Sanskrit pandara (white/yellow) but it should also be known that Sanskrit Pundarika can mean, ‘white tiger’ and it is no coincidence that Maitreya, the awaited Buddha, whose name equals 666 in both Hebrew gematria and Greek Isophia, was, in the far east, associated with a white tiger; I believe this is the same protector animal in northern India, the white lion rode by Avalokita Bodhisattva.

The name Shammai, a, presumably Essene, word for God, comes close to Sramana, and Samana, words for Buddha and it should also be noted that the Hebrew word Shammai is represented by a W which forms the Brahmi monogram for Gotama (Buddha). From the sage named Shammai we have an account of a certain”Ben Dama” who suffered from a snake bite. A representative of the healer Jesus Ben Pandera came to recite a mystical verse over him, but because there was an objection to this shamanistic chant it was too late and Ben Dama died. Although “Dama” was a name in Hebrew, albeit rare, Ben Dama shows to mean “son of the Dharma” because it was only the Buddhists who recited a charm to gain protection from snakes. Another similar story is told of James the older brother of Jesus, in the Infancy of Jesus and Mary Gospel. Jesus kills a snake that has bitten his brother. Another variant of the first story is found in the Palestinian Gemara Talmud where it is a certain Ben Levi who started choking, a man in the name of Jesus Ben Pandera comes to recite a spell over the choking man. The man was healed and an inquirer says, “What did you say over him?” The doctor replied, “A certain verse after a certain man”. The author starts to show his dislike of this style of healing by continuing, “It would have been better had he not recited that spell and the man would be in his grave, because it is an error which comes from that (unnamed) ruler”. The learned Talmud and Midrash scholar G.R.S. Mead states regarding this ruler, “It refers to the name of a planetary ruler, or one of the names of the angels which were guarded so jealously by the Essenes” [15]. The names were guarded by the Essenes because several generations earlier they were oppressed and ridiculed for their attempt to synchronize Buddhism with Judaism. The Buddha was known as a “Universal Monarch” and that Ptolemy the 2nd supported the Essenes and was a recipient of the Buddhism of King Asoka is not doubted by many scholars. It is from here we begin to notice a substantial Buddhist influence on Judaism and the Palestinian culture. Witness the following Buddhist symbols on the coin of the Hebrew King Alexander Jannaeus [16] (100-76 B.C.), a Buddhist, later Christian, eight-spoked wheel and the Brahma monogram for Gotama. Confirming the Talmudic rejection of Buddhism is there dislike for Jannaeus’ theology.

Why did the Gospel authors use the Buddhist texts as a pretext?
When we consider Jesus “Father” as the Buddha it becomes clear why Jesus did not mention the name of his “Father”; if he had directly mentioned the Buddha’s name it is quite certain that we would no nothing of this Jesus figure. In John 6:32 Jesus makes a distinction between the God of Moses and his ‘My Father (pater-mou)’ stating that Moses’ God had not provided “true bread” from heaven.
Since all of the incidents of Jesus’ life, are found earlier in the Buddhist texts there is good reason to question the historicity of Jesus. It is here that those who could benefit most from this consideration stop their inquiries on the basis of blasphemy, because as Paul and many Christians believe, the whole of Jesus’ message is lost without complete belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. It is here that parents and reasonable adults should recognize the fabled speech of their own parents and who could deny that those who believe in the suffering of Jesus are inspired with certain zeal in carrying out his moral code of conduct. And so it should be considered that the whole of Christianity is a device, just as it may be supposed of Buddhism, a device to ferry beings from continual death to the deathless [17]. Jesus says he has come for the wicked and Buddha was first known as “tamer, or “the law”, or “the guide” of men who need to be restrained (Purisa-damma-sarrathi)”. Jesus also says that he has come for the “elite”; the Buddha first said in the pre-Christian Nikayas that he comes directly for the Aryan, or for those with “little dust in their eyes”, who in turn, are said to, convert the wicked.
The amount of Buddhist legends and Manuscripts circulating around the said of time of Jesus is remarkable. The Mahayanists were particularly fond of hyperbole and writing as a means to aid their propaganda. It has also been seen that time and time again the Buddhist missionaries would merge their hero with the local herotype, or at the very least were tenacious in their efforts to coerce others into adapting their precepts.
Much has been written about the Christian legend of Barlaam and Saint Josaphat, which is admitted by all to be from earlier Buddhist sources. As long as the Buddha legend was imprinted on Christianity the Buddhist authors had no problem associating their hero with Jesus, even as a follower of his. This was done earlier and the gospels are not the only group of texts though to be originals which are based on earlier texts. The learned Garth Fowden states;

“The popularity of the eastern sages was, of course, nothing new. It had long been believed that Plato, Pythagoras and other wise men of the Greeks had traveled in the East and sat at the feet of its renowned teachers; and occasionally their visits were reciprocated, as by the ‘Chaldaean’ and the ‘magi’ who visited the Academy of Plato while its founder was still alive. Such contacts naturally multiplied in the wake of Alexander’s armies. Oriental intellectuals like Manetho or the Babylonian priest Berossus were moved to describe their own religious traditions in the language of their new rulers; while among the Greeks there arose a demand for the ipissima verba of the oriental sages. Hence the books of the Persians, the Chaldaeans, and, of course, Hermes Trismegistus, adjusting in various degrees the wisdom of the East to the palate of the Greek. At the heart of all these genres lies the same cultural and intellectual compromise. Greco-Roman orientalism and the occidentalism of the Eastern elites both reflected a sense of intellectual incompleteness, and a consequent readiness to adjust cultural boundaries. Greeks were attracted by the numinousness of oriental religions and the antiquity of oriental cultures. What resulted was an unevenly and idiosyncratically homogenized culture, in which it was not uncommon for the same texts to circulate indifferently under the names of both Greek and oriental sages.”

In closing this paper I would like to point out that Dr. Lindtner has provided more than sufficient proof to override conventional beliefs about the Gospels. While reviewing his work I have noticed several other historical revisions that have yet to take place. For, instance Dr. Lindtner shows how Jesus stating that it is difficult for men to enter the kingdom of God comes from an incident recorded in the Sanghbhedavastu sutra were the Buddha’s father can only view him in through the window of a great church. Again this is an embellishment on how hard it is to encounter a Buddha. In the Buddhist version we read of a window, but our historians tell us that that the earliest windows were used by the Romans. This again is nothing more than the historian repeating the beliefs of earlier historians. The skeptic may be tempted to question the dating of the Sanghabhedavastu but they should also know that the use of windows is described in other earlier suttas. For instance the Pali story of Queen Mallika who uses the bend of a window to cover the fact she was letting a dog mount her. This calls to mind Paul’s words about not seeing through a glass clearly. Although Paul’s word for glass is better translated as ‘mirror’ but since he states through (the mirror) the mirror also makes sense when seen through a Buddhist lens because the mirror was also a symbol for self reflection [18] and selflessness, two of Paul’s central themes.

Opinions of the origin of the new testament scriptures.
To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union