|
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED: F.A.Q. 28
|
|
The true Christ QUESTION: What is the Yogic view of Christ? ANSWER: In order to find a satisfactory answer to
this complex question we must first establish what is meant by
"Christ". There are a number of possibilities of which we may indicate
the following four. The word "Christ" may mean (a) the historical
Jesus Christ as he was in reality, (b) the Christ as described in the
Gospels, (c) the beliefs people hold about him or (d) the Christ people
referred to before the appearance of the biblical figure known by that name. If the question implies meaning (a), it can only
be answered by those who lived in those times and personally knew him. If (b),
a distinction must be drawn between what people believe Gospel says and what
it actually does say. If (c), there are too
many different and contradictory beliefs about him, therefore we can only
consider a few. If (d), it is hoped that an answer
will emerge as we proceed with our discussion. Was Jesus Christ the Son of God? One of the central teachings to the Christian faith is that
Jesus was the one and only son of God. To begin with, the notion of a unique son of God is
contradicted by biblical references to "sons of God". For example,
"the sons of God saw the daughters of man and took them as wives"
(Genesis 6:2). This is because, in common with Hinduism and the Pagan
traditions of Asia and Europe, Ancient Judaism believed in a Supreme God who
was the Creator or Father of minor Deities (Gods, Angels or Sons of God). It follows from this that the possibility of Jesus being the
only son of God must be excluded from the very start. What remains to be seen
is whether he was a son of God at all.
The latter portion of the Bible, the so-called "New
Testament", does describe Jesus as "the son of God". However,
such statements do not stem from his direct disciples but from the saints
Mark, Matthew, Luke and John who composed the four Gospels of the New
Testament on the basis of oral tradition or hearsay. It is not known by what means the authors of the Gospels or
their sources were able to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was
the son of God. A safer way to establish the truth of the matter, therefore,
is to see what Jesus himself had to say on this subject. The following points emerge upon the objective investigation
of the Gospel text. Jesus refers to himself as "son of God" just once.
In certain circumstances, there would be some justification in regarding this
as "proof". As we shall presently demonstrate, however, this is not
the case in this instance. The affirmation "I am" is not a direct statement but
comes in the form of an answer to the question "Are you the Christ, the
son of the Blessed?"; it is spoken under interrogation by the high
priest; it is made outside the reach of the people in the street; it is
qualified by the following sentence: "and you shall see the Son of man
sitting on the right hand of power" etc.; finally, it is found in only
one of the four Gospels (Gospel of Mark); Had this been central to Jesus's
teachings we may reasonably expect him to have declared it more often, more
openly and more vigorously. Far from this being the case, he repeatedly denies it in the other
Gospels. How can the Church explain away the fact that of all four Gospels
describing the same scene, in three Jesus denies being the Son of God but in
one he confirms it, and even that outside the hearing range of his followers? In any court of law, if one witness were contradicted by three
others, he wouldn't stand much of a chance of being believed. In the final
analysis, therefore, it appears doubtful that the title "son of
God" was ever actually claimed by Jesus himself. What appears to have been the case is that this title was
accorded to Jesus by others while he himself at the most tolerated this
belief and even rejected it on various occasions as three of the Gospels
demonstrate. Another important point which is often conveniently overlooked
by some is the question as to the exact meaning of the term "son of
God" as understood by Jesus himself. It is clear that Jesus never taught that he was the son of God
in the sense attributed to the term by the Church authorities. So, when he
heard his followers call him by that name, what exactly did it mean to him
personally? This becomes crystal clear from verse 34, chapter 10, of the
Gospel after St. John. On being confronted on this issue, Jesus says:
"It is written in your Law, You are Gods and all of you are children
of the most High". What becomes evident is that Jesus did not regard the title
"son of God" as belonging to him exclusively but to all human
beings! Indeed, it is written in the older portion of the Bible, the
so-called "Old Testament" or "Jewish Law", "I have
said you are Gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Psalms
82:6). And, as Jesus comments, "Scripture cannot be broken". Had he considered himself as the "one and only son of
God" as many Christians claim, he would have found a more personal
interpretation or explanation to this term instead of one of general
application. Moreover, in the very same Gospels, Jesus refers to himself as
"Son of man" not just once but about eighty times! Yet this teaching is systematically ignored by
believers and Church alike and persistently replaced with the unsubstantiated
son-of-God theory. On the evidence of this we may safely conclude that Jesus was
not the son of God except in the general sense that we all, as the creation
of God, are God's children. So why has the Church insisted on styling Jesus “son of God”?
The answer is very simple. The Church has adopted this strategy in order to
fraudulently inflate its own authority over believers and to better be able
to compete with other religions. Many religions at that time were based on a Saviour God who was the Son or Incarnation of the Supreme
God. This demonstrates that the Church authorities were prepared to
distort historical and Spiritual truth to promote their own agenda and impose
their power over the unsuspecting masses. Was Jesus a pacifist? The belief that Jesus was a pacifist is founded upon the
so-called Sermon on the Mount, a public speech in which he told his followers
to "love their enemy", "turn the other cheek" and
"not resist evil". The main problem with this is that if carried to its logical
conclusion, such advice would result in a World ruled by evil men who would
impose their tyranny on peace-loving people. This clearly is repugnant to all
human sense of Justice. It is difficult to reconcile such a teaching with the
title "Sun of Justice" which the Church accords to Jesus. Moreover, how are we to reconcile Jesus's perceived pacifism with his other
teachings such as: "Think not that I have come to bring peace on Earth;
it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). "I have not come to bring peace but division. For
henceforth the father shall be divided against the son and the son against
the father; the mother against the daughter and the daughter against the mother"
(Luke 12:51-53). "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, he cannot be my
disciple" (Luke 14:26). "He that is not with me is against
me", "Bring my enemies here and slay them before me" (Luke
19:27). "He that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy
one" (Luke 22:36). The Bible also narrates how Jesus overthrows the tables of
traders who were selling merchandise in the temple and throws them out, how
he drives demons out of possessed people, he resists
the temptations of the devil, etc. In other words, he clearly engages in
activities which stand in stark contrast to his own doctrine of non-violence
or "not resisting evil". So long as the Church authorities are unable or unwilling to
come up with a credible explanation for these contradictions, we are
naturally entitled to draw our own conclusions. What these are we shall
presently explain. In the Bible, Jesus tells his followers that they will hear of
wars and rumours of wars but they should not be
troubled as these things must happen. The wars he was talking about were
without doubt the incidents known as the Jewish revolt against Roman rule
(66-70 CE). This resulted in the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem and
the deportation of the Jewish population to other parts of the Roman Empire. Such was the end of the Jewish state which was practically
wiped out and only partly restored in the 1940s. Today, its existence is once
again in danger. The question that naturally arises is, how was
Jesus connected with these events. An important clue is provided by
the name "Jesus of Nazareth". This appears to be an invention.
Jesus was from Betlehem and not Nazareth. The
original Greek text has "Jesus the Nazarene (Nazoraion)"
which may refer not to the locality of Nazareth but to the Nozrim (Nozrim ha-Brit), a
group of Jewish fundamentalists who, like the Zealots and similar organisations, were opposed to Roman rule. If Jesus belonged to such a group, which is not improbable
given that he supposedly belonged to the royal line of King David, this would explain many of the Biblical passages
which remain otherwise obscure. It also explains why Christians in the Middle
East are known as "Nazarenes" or "Nozrim"
even today. In any case, the internal evidence of the Bible suffices to
refute the claim that Jesus was a pacifist or even a peace-fanatic. The objection that may arise here is, if the Bible was a
subversive document why does it appear to have a religious, rather than
political, agenda? The answer to this is that there were literally thousands of
religious movements in those days - just as now. It would have been both easy
and convenient for a resistance movement against Rome to be disguised as an
inoffensive religious one. Nor was there much disguising necessary: the
Nazarenes (Nozrim) were not only nationalists,
they were in fact a religious sect the aim of which was to establish a world
Jewish theocracy. If their writings appear to be religious it is because the
Nazarenes (Nozrim) were religious. While the followers of Jesus may have actually believed that
their leader was the "son of God", openly calling him by such names
would have deflected Roman attention from his true political and military
role. Even the substitution of "Jesus of Nazareth" for "Jesus
the Nazarene" may have been part of the same stratagem. The fact is that no Jewish leader, religious or otherwise,
could have remained uninvolved in the all-pervading revolutionary ferment
that affected the Jewish society of the time. In addition to this, there may have been divergent views
regarding the royal lineage of the Kings of Israel which again would have
resulted in political conflicts which Jesus as "inheritor to the throne
of David", as the Bible calls him, could not have ignored or escaped.
This would have further increased the risks to Jesus's
person and provided additional motives for his activities to be disguised as
a purely religious movement. On the authority of the Bible itself, St Paul, one of the
founding fathers of the Church, was identified as a "ringleader of the
sect of the Nazarenes/Nozrim", by Anani'as, the high priest of the Temple - a man who would
have been in a position to know these things. (Acts 24:5). Historical
evidence clearly shows that the Christian Church has been involved in
politics from the very beginning. It is not without reason that Christians
came to be persecuted by the authorities in Ancient Rome. One of the standard methods of operation of the Church was as
follows. Highly intelligent, educated missionaries who were trained in the
art of political and religious debate, would gain the attention and favour of a king or tribal chief through gifts and
promises of economic and military advantage. They would then persuade him to
convert to Christianity and he in turn would order his subjects to do the
same. Finally, the king was encouraged by his missionary advisers to start a
war against neighbouring tribes and convert them to
the new faith as a matter of religious duty. This is how Rome under Emperor Constantine was converted by
the early Church, the Romans converted the Franks, the Franks converted the
Saxons, the Saxons converted the Scandinavians, the Spanish converted the
South Americans, the Portuguese converted the Hindus, etc. True believers have no doubt existed. Indeed, the vast
majority of believers were simple and sincere people whose only fault was to
allow themselves to be manipulated and used by the
Church (especially the Vatican) for its own political and financial purposes.
But this doesn't make Christianity or its methods right. Nor does it alter
the fact that throughout history, the Christian Church has operated as a
highly efficient and ruthless political, military and financial machine. In the light of these facts the attribution of
political motives to the authors of the official Bible cannot be regarded as
entirely without foundation. Let us briefly see how these
insights may be verified against the Biblical text. We have indicated earlier
that in Biblical passages Jesus sometimes advocates love and peace and other
times violence. Had Jesus been just a peace-loving Spiritual teacher, his
contradictory statements wouldn’t make any sense. As a political leader,
however, it is a different matter. It is a well-known fact that politicians
tailor their speeches to suit varying audiences. For example, the late
Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, would preach
peace when addressing Israelis but call for the destruction of Israel when
talking to Arabs. Similarly, Jesus would have preached peace between his
followers but violence between these and their opponents. This has certainly
been the strategy adopted by St Paul and all Church leaders down to the
present day. Thus in his analysis of the formation of Church teachings,
Manfred Davidmann states that "What St Paul
preached was the political ideology of an oppressive establishment which
wanted to be able to oppress so as to exploit without hindrance" (Origin
of Christianity and Judaism, 1994). Elaine Pagels, Professor of religion
at Princeton University, similarly says: “By investigating the texts from Nag
Hammadi, together with sources known for well over
a thousand years from orthodox tradition, we can see how politics and
religion coincide in the development of Christianity” (The Gnostic Gospels,
1979). Indeed, this insight into the political dimensions of
Christianity is of particular relevance to all Spiritual Seekers as it
clearly demonstrates that in order for true Spirituality to successfully
defend itself against Christian aggression, the
battle must be fought and won not only in the cultural and religious field
but also in the political arena. Was Jesus enlightened? An enlightened being is a Soul who has exceeded the boundaries
of limited existence and shares in the Light of God's Infinite Knowledge and
Wisdom. Striving to "live in the Light of God" or to become
a "child of the Light" is indeed a teaching that is found in the
Bible. As the supreme example of Spiritual realisation,
one would naturally expect Jesus to share in the Light, Knowledge and Wisdom
of God to the fullest possible extent. A number of biblical passages, however, suggest that this was
not the case. For example, the Bible narrates that upon being baptised, that is, submerged in the river by John the
Baptist, the gates of heaven were opened to Jesus and he saw the Spirit of
God descending upon himself. This is a curious statement. How did the writer know what
Jesus saw? Moreover, if we think about it, an enlightened being, a "son
of God" in particular, would already be submerged in the Spirit of God
and would not see it descend upon himself as a result of any physical action! Similarly, the last words of Jesus as he was dying on the
cross were: "My God, why have you abandoned me?" It is difficult to
see how an enlightened being who, moreover, is
supposed to be one with God, can possibly feel abandoned at such an important
point in his life. By contrast, enlightened Yogis always report an experience of
blissful unity with God when about to leave this World. This logically rules
out the possibility of true enlightenment in Jesus. One difficulty that
results from this is, if a man like Jesus was not enlightened, but on the
contrary, felt abandoned by God, what chance does an ordinary Christian have? Was Jesus the Christ? The Bible says: "Be you perfect as your Father (God) Who
is in heaven is perfect". The attainment of Perfection comes through
Spiritual Practice. Thus belief in the "saving power of Jesus" was not
the only central teaching to early Christianity. A parallel teaching was that
of Spiritual Practice as a means of eradicating imperfections. The saving power of Spiritual Practice consists in its
ability to remove all the defects and faults that prevent man from realising his Divine potential. Among these defects, the
following seven are the most commonly described in Christian writings as
"mortal sins": pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony and sloth. Their elimination from one's heart and replacement with the
seven virtues, humility, generosity, love, kindness, self-control, temperance
and zeal, lead to Spiritual Purity and Perfection which enable man to free
himself from the servitude to the material World into which he has fallen.
Says the Bible: "Unless a man be born again
(that is, born of and in Spirit) he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (John
3:3). This reveals a hidden aspect of Christianity which is much
closer to Yoga than the official faith-in-Jesus doctrine. Yogic texts abound
in various lists of "defects" (dosha),
"afflictions" (klesha), "distractions" (vikshepa) or "hindrances" (nivarana). Thus in its presentation of Yogic teachings and practices, the
Shiva Purana gives a list of ten impediments: (1)
idleness, (2) illness, (3) carelessness, (4) doubt, (5) fickle-mindedness,
(6) delusion or false beliefs, (7) lack of faith, (8) suffering (resulting
from Spiritual, self-inflicted and divine causes), (9) dejection and (10)
sensual overindulgence, which obstruct the human Soul's path to Spiritual Perfection
and Salvation (Vayaviya Samhita
II, 38:1-8). Such impediments which are almost identical to those described
in the Yoga Sutra (a pre-Christian text of the 2nd century BC) are to be
removed through the practice of Yoga. "All the Yogin's
obstacles and hindrances gradually perish if he perseveres in the excellent
practice of Yoga", says the Shiva Purana.
Indeed, Spiritual Practice in Yoga is known as "Saadhana"
or Making Perfect - from "saadh", to
accomplish, complete, correct, make perfect. It is only by constantly straightening, correcting, perfecting
or improving himself that man can hope to elevate himself to a higher level
of consciousness and a higher plane of existence. Yoga teaches that it is man's own responsibility to purify and
cleanse himself of imperfections and defects. He
cannot wait for God to do his Spiritual work in the same way as he doesn't
wait for God to wash him, dress him or put food into his mouth. "As the arrow-makers make the arrows straight, so the
wise ones perfect themselves", runs one of the Buddha's sayings (Dhammapada 4:80). This demonstrates that some important elements of early
Christianity are a form of Yoga, which is not surprising considering that
Indian Gurus are known to have been active in the Middle East both before and
after the time of Jesus (as reported by ancient historians). In consequence, there appear to be three layers to the
biblical text. The first one is concerned with a person of the name Jesus (or
Isa) who may or may not have been a historical
figure. If we leave all the legends and myths aside, the evidence is simply
insufficient to decide either way. The second and older layer is that of a pre-Christian,
classical mystery play many of which were fashionable in the religious and
Spiritual circles of the time. Many of the biblical passages are simply too
fanciful and theatrical to be regarded as accurate accounts of real facts. The third layer consists of teachings that are very close or
identical to those of Yoga. For example, God is said to be Light. The human
Soul is the Light of God and therefore one with Him. This identity is realised through Spiritual Practice or Perfection. Such
teachings become even more evident in the unofficial Gospels found at Nag Hammadi, such as the Gospel of Philip, where the official
Christian belief in resurrection after death is rejected in favour of resurrection (or Spiritual Awakening) while
living – which is analogous to the Yogic tradition of “Liberation while still
alive” or Jivan-Mukti. What appears to have happened is that a political movement
which may be identified with the Nazarenes (Nozrim)
and other anti-Roman revolutionary groups, grafted the story of Jesus, their
leader, upon an existing mystery play in order to promote their cause under
the cover of a popular religious movement. The mystery play itself (a kind of religious drama involving
miracles which was also popular in Ancient India) must at some point have
absorbed Yogic teachings which had reached the Graeco-Roman
World through Hindu and Buddhist missionaries. For example, the Christian myth of Jesus as a divine child has
exact parallels in the long-established tradition of Hindu deities (Ganapati, Skandha, Rama, Krishna, etc.) the life stories of whom are related
by means of dramatic performances involving ritual costumes, masks, dancing
and symbolic gestures whereby Spiritual teachings are conveyed to the
faithful in a vivid and striking manner. The Western concept of a divine child as the founder of a new
faith is therefore neither unique nor exclusively Western. Indeed, it may be
of Eastern origin. It is a typical expression of the cultural arrogance of
Western man to imagine that everything originated in the West. In addition to this, there were hundreds of
"Christian" Gospels in circulation apart from the official four.
Fifty-two such unofficial texts were discovered at Nag Hammadi
alone. The majority of these were typically more concerned with Spiritual
Knowledge and Practice than the life story of Jesus as such. Where the Jesus
story is present, it is simply used as a framework within which originally
independent and unconnected Spiritual teachings are formulated. Others even
go as far as to reject the notion of Jesus as the Saviour.
Of particular significance in this context are the writings of
the Johannites or Mandaeans,
an ancient Middle-Eastern faith which reveres John the Baptist as the true prophet and which appears to have
had links with the religions of Ancient Sumer and
India. In former times, the Johannite
tradition enjoyed great popularity throughout the Middle East and its leader
is widely known as King Yahia, Yahia-Yuhana,
Yahia Ibn Zakariyya or Yohannan. The
Bible itself says that he was "a burning and a shining light" and
that "among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet
than John the Baptist". This is an interesting statement which raises
John the Baptist above Abraham, Moses and all other prophets of the biblical
tradition, including perhaps Jesus himself. At any rate, Prophet John's tradition of initiating his
disciples through baptism, is clearly linked to the great traditions of Oannes, the Ancient Sumerian Water God, and the Indian
God Shiva who is known as Bearer of the Water of Life (Gangadhara),
Lord of Waters (Jaleshvara), The Water-Formed One (Jala-Murti), etc. In the Judaeo-Christian Bible, water
plays a prominent role in the Creation of the World, while in the Hindu Rig
Veda, waters are said to know the origin of Heaven and Earth, and the Supreme
Being is referred to as "the Glory of the Floods". This common link demonstrates a shared belief in water as a
symbol of life and reveals a hidden connection between the religions of the
Middle East (including Judaism and Christianity) and the timeless
Spirituality of India where ritual bathing (majjana
or snaana) symbolic of the Soul's immersion in the
Universal Self, has been practised since
prehistoric times. Curiously, although the Church recognises
the biblical teaching of "wise men from the East" and the tradition
of "the light of the East", it has persistently ignored and denied
any links with the great religions of the East such as Hinduism, or even with
the tradition of the Mandaeans whose Prophet, after
all, baptised the founder of the Christian Church,
Jesus Christ himself. Besides baptism, numerous other Christian practices have been
borrowed from the East, such as: the use of incense, candles, bells,
religious symbols and images, prayer-beads, praying with hands joined
together, etc., etc. The Western World will continue to undermine its own Spiritual
progress unless it has the courage and integrity to shed it prejudices and
acknowledge the true origin of its religious beliefs and practices. Be that as it may, the fact that the Church chose those
Gospels which deal primarily with the story of and belief in Jesus, as its
exclusive scriptural authority, suggests some ulterior motive. This is
supported by the Church leaders' involvement in politics from the days of St
Paul down to this day. The True Christ As to whether Jesus was the Christ or not, if he was a
descendant of King David as the Bible claims, then he was naturally entitled
to be called "Christ" or "Anointed One" as this was the
title given to kings in Israel, Greece, Egypt and other parts of the Ancient
World. This, however, does not make him "the Christ" in the sense
of World Saviour. That Jesus didn't save the World
is obvious to all thinking men. He didn't even manage to save his people from
the Romans, let alone the World! Indeed, Jesus couldn't have been the Saviour
as the only true Saviour is God Himself. This is
why Jesus asks his followers to pray to God (the Father in Heaven) not to
himself. Even on the purely hypothetical supposition that Jesus had had
the power to save anyone, this couldn't have happened without the Will and
Power of God. Jesus himself admits that "I can of my own self do
nothing: because I seek not my own will but that of the Father" and
"My Father (God) is greater than I". Another important point that becomes evident upon the careful
examination of the Gospel text is that Jesus did not regard his own teachings
as perfect or complete. Thus according to John 16:12-13, he says: "I
have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. However
when the Spirit of Truth has come, he will guide you into all Truth". In the same Gospel (14:26) Jesus again says: "The
Comforter, whom the Father (God) will send unto you
shall teach you all things". This evidently implies a higher teaching
authority who will complete and perfect Jesus's own. This Higher Authority is God Himself Who is
the Highest Teacher. God, therefore, is the true Saviour.
However, He saves Mankind not by sacrificing Himself for the sins of men (as
Jesus is supposed to have done), but by revealing His Eternal Law (Sanatana Dharma) to those who are willing and able to
receive and follow it. The name "Jesus" itself which is Iesous
in Greek but Isa in Middle Eastern Languages may
actually be derived from Isa or Isha
(also Ishaana, Ishvara,
etc.), one of Lord Shiva's holy names - from "ish",
to own, possess, rule - hence Ishvara, the Lord,
Master and Ruler of the Universe. "Ishva"
in the Sanskrit language also means Master in the sense of Spiritual Teacher. This is the true meaning of the word "Saviour"
("Christ" in Greek or "Taraka"
in Sanskrit) and that Saviour is Lord Shiva
Himself, the Supreme Being and World Teacher who imparts the Teachings of
Yoga (Yoga Dharma) whereby man attains Unity with God and his fellow men and
the Kingdom of God (Shiva-Laya) is established on
Earth in obedience to Divine Command. While the Eastern tradition correctly identifies God, the
Supreme Being, as the Comforter (Santoshada),
Supreme Teacher (Parama Guru) and Saviour (Taraka), all these being titles held by Lord
Shiva, the West continues to cling on to the supremacy of Jesus while seeking
at the same time to suppress all other faiths. This therefore is the true position of Yoga: Mankind must
choose between a politically motivated "faith" which has given us
colonialism, imperialism, religious wars and genocide, and a true
Spirituality which has given the World Yoga, meditation, enlightenment and
wisdom. |