Jesus, a guru?

[Doreen]

(again) that a number of things about the gospel descriptions of Jesus remind me of the guru traditions in India. Not in any particular order....

1) the production of food to feed thousands ex nihilo - or actually using a few samples to magically produce tremendous amounts. There are many stories, even of contemporary gurus, in India of gurus producing large amount of food ex nihilo.

2) 'You will only come to the father through me.' This is attributed to Jesus and has been taken that only if you believe in Christ and are Christian can you reach God and get into heaven. But focusing on the guru is necessarily a secatarian practice. He was speaking to his devotess, I mean apostles, and in that context - speaking to people he has specifically chosen as close students - it reminds me very much of the practice in mystical Hinduism of focusing on the guru. That through the guru one can come to Shiva or whomever the relevent God or goddess is. In that context this statement does not mean that others cannot reach god via other masters and gurus.

3) The mote in your brother's eye/beam in yours AND he who is without sin cast the first stone scenarios. This reminds me very strongly of

Tat Tvam Asi

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

or better put seems to come from the same core insight.

That what we see outside us is connected to what is inside us, even identical.

I don't think there is something in the OT that Jesus can be seen as building on here. And Jesus in general seems to me a movement from a more external focus, behavior focus in the OT to a more internal focus. Something that fits with amongst other things Hinduism.

4) Magdelene's washing of Jesus' feet. (there seems to be a couple of Marys, neither his mom, who may have been the one who washed his feet) Of course this was a common custom in many parts of the world, hosts doing this for visitors, but the fact that it makes it into the bible stories gives it a significance that reminded me of disciples washing the gurus feet in India. Jesus himself, near the end washes the feet of his disciples also.

I'll add other things as and if they come to me. If you google Jesus india you will find others who think that Jesus travelled to India during the years the Bible elides where he gains in wisdom. None seem to me to offer anything remotely like proof. However Jesus seems more intelligible to me as someone influenced by Eastern ideas - one website claims it was Buddhism - and that he saw himself as a kind of guru.

Or he sprang complete like Athena somehow out of the head of a Jewish tradition that he seems quite different from.

 

[Photizo]

2) 'You will only come to the father through me.' This is attributed to Jesus and has been taken that only if you believe in Christ and are Christian can you reach God and get into heaven. But focusing on the guru is necessarily a secatarian practice. He was speaking to his devotess, I mean apostles, and in that context - speaking to people he has specifically chosen as close students - it reminds me very much of the practice in mystical Hinduism of focusing on the guru. That through the guru one can come to Shiva or whomever the relevent God or goddess is. In that context this statement does not mean that others cannot reach god via other masters and gurus.

So what? That's not the context of His statement. There are many other passages reiterating the same thing i.e. Salvation is found in Christ alone. In the Book of Acts for instance, Peter declares to a group of assembled Jewish leaders that "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Imagine all you want...meanwhile, the seconds of your allotted time on earth are ticking by. Rather than immerse yourself in Scripture and attempt to understand them in their context, you opt for chasing after the wind--all the while the reality/truth of His statement stares you in the face! You just don't like it, is all. You are attempting to manipulate what He has plainly said into something that is more palatable to YOU. By refusing to face the truth of His simple statement, the only alternative is to fall into deception. He Who said (in the same portion you are referencing) I AM THE TRUTH, and in another place, "let your Yes be Yes, and your No, be No, can be counted on to be telling you the plain, simple Truth with respect to the exclusivity of His identity as YOUR Savior and Redeemer.

 

[Doreen]

So what? That's not the context of His statement.

What is not the context of his statement? He wasn't talking to the Apostles?

There are many other passages reiterating the same thing i.e. Salvation is found in Christ alone. In the Book of Acts for instance, Peter declares to a group of assembled Jewish leaders that "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

You mean Peter who denied he knew Jesus, that Peter? This is what someone much later says that Peter, the guy who denied Jesus said?

Imagine all you want...meanwhile, the seconds of your allotted time on earth are ticking by. Rather than immerse yourself in Scripture and attempt to understand them in their context, you opt for chasing after the wind--all the while the reality/truth of His statement stares you in the face! You just don't like it, is all. You are attempting to manipulate what He has plainly said into something that is more palatable to YOU.

So here we have a perfect moment for you, who are judging me, to look to the beam in your own eye. How much have you interpreted Jesus to fit your own needs?

By refusing to face the truth of His simple statement,

Or perhaps you are refusing to face it. Because believing in Jesus is a hell of a lot easier than actually challenging yourself in the ways Jesus suggests.

the only alternative is to fall into deception. He Who said (in the same portion you are referencing) I AM THE TRUTH, and in another place, "let your Yes be Yes, and your No, be No, can be counted on to be telling you the plain, simple Truth with respect to the exclusivity of His identity as YOUR Savior and Redeemer.

So because he says I am the truth he is saying he is MY savior and MY redeemer? Nice leap. He was speaking to specific people at a specific time and place in the context of their discipleship. Think of how many people have been killed because of that one sentence.

 

[spidergoat]

There are some books that try to illustrate this similarity.

The Gospel According To Jesus:
A New Translation and Guide to His Essential Teachings for Believers and Unbelievers
by Stephen Mitchell

Also Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Talks on the Sayings of Jesus

 

[Doreen]

There are some books that try to illustrate this similarity.

The Gospel According To Jesus:
A New Translation and Guide to His Essential Teachings for Believers and Unbelievers
by Stephen Mitchell

Also Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Talks on the Sayings of Jesus

thanks for those references....
here are some links to people and books related to the topic

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Ahmadiyya/notovich.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lived-India-Before-Crucifixion/dp/0143028294

Interestingly in early Chrisitianity there was controversy over reincarnation, both in general and related to Jesus himself.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen3.html
http://cryskernan.tripod.com/christian_reincarnation.htm

one does not have to be religious or Christian (or Buddhist or Hindu) to wonder about the issue of influence from the East.

 

[Hapsburg]

From what I've read elsewhere, the influence of "Eastern" thought in that period, in that place, would have been incredibly limited. It simply doesn't fit; it's more likely that Jesus and other Jewish preachers happened upon ideas in the course of parallel evolution of thought and philosophy; there is little evidence for a specific influence by Indian thinkers.
Not to mention the various points where Jesus' teachings directly contradict Eastern philosophies.

I personally don't get all the attempts to "prove" that Jesus was a pretty cool guy by connecting him with Eastern thought and philosophers. The man was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher, who was quite certifiably nuts.

 

[spidergoat]

If the Christians can redefine him, so can we.

 

[Doreen]

From what I've read elsewhere, the influence of "Eastern" thought in that period, in that place, would have been incredibly limited. It simply doesn't fit; it's more likely that Jesus and other Jewish preachers happened upon ideas in the course of parallel evolution of thought and philosophy; there is little evidence for a specific influence by Indian thinkers.
Not to mention the various points where Jesus' teachings directly contradict Eastern philosophies.

I personally don't get all the attempts to "prove" that Jesus was a pretty cool guy by connecting him with Eastern thought and philosophers. The man was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher, who was quite certifiably nuts.

Most of the people who think there is a connection to Eastern ideas think he went to India. The bible skips a large portion of his early life, long enough for him to have travelled there.

He sounds rather different than the Jewish leaders in the OT. As I mentioned in the OP he shifts quite a bit of focus onto internal experience, as opposed to focus only on behavior.

As far as any contradictions 1) I am interested in hearing about these. 2) I never meant that he became a Hindu or a Buddhist, but rather that his ideas seem a leap from the tradition he considered himself in. It seems plausible that he was influenced by ideas from outside Judaism directly by first hand experience. Including ideas about the role of the teacher and the shift towards an internal focus.

As far as him being a cool guy because of this, this is simply projection. I do not think he is cooler or less cool if he travelled to the east and/or was influenced by non-Judaic religious ideas and teachers. I just think it might explain his differences from the tradition he was in.

 

[Hapsburg]

Most of the people who think there is a connection to Eastern ideas think he went to India. The bible skips a large portion of his early life, long enough for him to have travelled there.

Because a poor Jewish peasant in Roman-controlled Judea would surely be able to travel through the territory of Rome's greatest enemy and go to India on a whim, right?
You can't just draw conclusions like that based on "Well, there's this big part where it doesn't say much. Let's just insert whatever we want haha". It doesn't work like that.

I just think it might explain his differences from the tradition he was in.

That's your first mistake: much of the stuff he talks about isn't that far from contemporary Jewish philosophers and tradition. Especially when it came to apocalyptic preachers-- and you could find them for a dime a dozen in that time.

 

[Doreen]

Because a poor Jewish peasant in Roman-controlled Judea would surely be able to travel through the territory of Rome's greatest enemy and go to India on a whim, right?

What a charitable reading of my posts here. 1) You have added the idea of a whim. 2) I never said it happened. I am exploring a possibility. One which seems to make you angry. Why is that? I say seems because I am not sure. Something seems to be making you respond not quite to my posts and the above use of 'whim' seems added to make my assertions look sillier. IOW it seems like something, not related to me, is affecting the way you are responding to me. I hope that changes.

A poor Jewish peasant who was seen at an early age to possess a great deal of scriptural knowledge and insight. To be a prodigy of sorts.

You can't just draw conclusions like that based on "Well, there's this big part where it doesn't say much. Let's just insert whatever we want haha". It doesn't work like that.

I don't 'want' it. I consider it a possibility. I am not Christian, Buddhist or Hindu.

And did you actually read what I wrote...

I just think it might explain.....

which you call drawing conclusions.

If I assert that Jesus went to India, period, then your post makes sense.

That's your first mistake: much of the stuff he talks about isn't that far from contemporary Jewish philosophers and tradition. Especially when it came to apocalyptic preachers-- and you could find them for a dime a dozen in that time.

Can you give me examples of his contemporaries who had a similar internal focus.

 

[spidergoat]

Pagels also thinks there was no connection to Eastern Philosophy, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have touched on some same themes on his own.

 

[Doreen]

Pagels also thinks there was no connection to Eastern Philosophy, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have touched on some same themes on his own.

Do you have a link to Pagels on this subject? I'd like to see the thinking.

 

[spidergoat]

Pagels is aware of the parallels between Gnostic thought and Eastern spiritual traditions. Yogananda said in another talk to followers, "When Jesus told his disciples to have faith, he didn't mean blind belief." In another talk, he stated, "I do not speak from book learning but from perceptions of God." He constantly urged everyone to meditate and to seek God within the silence. When Gnostics expressed similar ideas, they were reviled by the bishops as advocating an invisible world rather than the world of the senses that we see around us. The bishops could not control an invisible world or speak for a God who must be discovered within each person. Their natural reaction was to reject such ideas.​

http://www.theseekerbooks.com/articles/gnostic.htm

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jesus, a guru?

Yes, as he did teach.

But what is the point, or purpose of the opening post aside from observation?


jan.

 

[parmalee]

Most of the people who think there is a connection to Eastern ideas think he went to India. The bible skips a large portion of his early life, long enough for him to have travelled there.

if i recall correctly, holger kersten (jesus lived in india), argues that jesus went to india post-crucifixion--in fact, i visited his grave site in kashmir --though others may suggest otherwise.

He sounds rather different than the Jewish leaders in the OT. As I mentioned in the OP he shifts quite a bit of focus onto internal experience, as opposed to focus only on behavior.

As far as any contradictions 1) I am interested in hearing about these. 2) I never meant that he became a Hindu or a Buddhist, but rather that his ideas seem a leap from the tradition he considered himself in. It seems plausible that he was influenced by ideas from outside Judaism directly by first hand experience. Including ideas about the role of the teacher and the shift towards an internal focus.

hans jonas's interpretation, in the gnostic religion and gnosis und spätantiker geist, presents a jesus whose metaphysics were more akin to nietzsche's inversion; of course, that was indeed the fashion of his day, but i personally don't see how one conclude otherwise from the valentinian and nag hammadi texts (and kazantzakis and scorcese certainly had a blast with those).

i think mainstream christianity still remains very much under the influence neo-platonism, but there've always been the iconoclasts--from the silesiuses to the eckharts to the mertons--who argue a (imho) far more compelling interpretation not unlike what you've presented above. consider eckhart's reading of mary and martha in sermon 86--well, i can't find a copy of it online, but basically he argues that martha (the active one) is the model example, rather than mary (the contemplative one); for she shows genuine spiritual maturity by remaining detached in her worldly doings. 'course, by my reading, that's more zen than indian.

edit: i just realized that directly above, my example pertains more to christianity broadly than jesus specifically, but i stand by my contention nonetheless.

 

[parmalee]

When Gnostics expressed similar ideas, they were reviled by the bishops as advocating an invisible world rather than the world of the senses that we see around us. The bishops could not control an invisible world or speak for a God who must be discovered within each person. Their natural reaction was to reject such ideas.​

indeed. it seems that in many eastern traditions, in spite of their having emanated from sedentary/statist cultures, there remains a vastly greater appreciation for the anarchic.

christianity very rapidly became highly politicized and all about social control--paul was just a freakin' businessman (there's an excellent article on this in "the atlantic monthly," i'll try and track that down). anyhows, so much for my contention that epilepsy turns people into proudhonians; or maybe paul was just "faking it."

 

[Photizo]

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”

 

[Doreen]

Jesus, a guru?

Yes, as he did teach.

Teacher = guru?

But what is the point, or purpose of the opening post aside from observation?


jan.

One point is that it could place his comments about reaching God via him in a context that does not therefore predict the ending up in hell of most of the human race. But on a more general level, I realized that the descriptions of Jesus in the gospels seemed much closer to the guru tradition, which I spent time in in India. I mention, in the OP, some of the things that reminded me. I also think it is interesting that we have a Jewish figure who, as far as I remember, is different from earlier Jewish figures - in the OT - for reasons mentioned in the OP. A much more internal focus. Another example of this is his idea of adultery being not an act, but something that can come from merely looking with desire.

He seems to me to be quite different from what came before in Judaism and in ways that remind me of Eastern traditions and his role - with his disciples and how they relate - reminds me of the guru relationship.

 

[Doreen]

if i recall correctly, holger kersten (jesus lived in india), argues that jesus went to india post-crucifixion--in fact, i visited his grave site in kashmir --though others may suggest otherwise.

yes, I found these people also.

hans jonas's interpretation, in the gnostic religion and gnosis und spätantiker geist, presents a jesus whose metaphysics were more akin to nietzsche's inversion; of course, that was indeed the fashion of his day, but i personally don't see how one conclude otherwise from the valentinian and nag hammadi texts (and kazantzakis and scorcese certainly had a blast with those).

i think mainstream christianity still remains very much under the influence neo-platonism, but there've always been the iconoclasts--from the silesiuses to the eckharts to the mertons--who argue a (imho) far more compelling interpretation not unlike what you've presented above. consider eckhart's reading of mary and martha in sermon 86--well, i can't find a copy of it online, but basically he argues that martha (the active one) is the model example, rather than mary (the contemplative one); for she shows genuine spiritual maturity by remaining detached in her worldly doings. 'course, by my reading, that's more zen than indian.

edit: i just realized that directly above, my example pertains more to christianity broadly than jesus specifically, but i stand by my contention nonetheless.

Thanks for this. Could you explain the Mary/Martha dichotemy a little more. I didn't get it.

 

[Doreen]

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”

You understand that looking at Jesus' comment about coming to the father only through him as a parable does not support your position or many of the other literalist interpretations of the Bible. Further this is beside the point. That quote is taken out of it original context, as if context had no meaning.