Dr. Christian Lindtner, among others, has hammered the last nails in the coffin of Jesus Christ. He claims that recent epoch-making discoveries of old Sanskrit manuscripts in Central Asia and Kashmir provide decisive proof that the four Greek Gospels have been translated directly from the Sanskrit. A careful comparison, word by word, sentence by sentence shows that the Christian Gospels are pirate copies of the Buddhist Gospels. God's word, therefore, is originally Buddha's word. Comparison reveals that there is no person, no event, no locality mentioned in the four Christian Gospels not already present in the Buddhist Gospels that certainly are far earlier in time than their Christian copies." Click here for Dr. Lindtner's website.

Table of Contents

Preliminary Remarks
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
A Challenge to the Anti-Gematria Harpies
The Crooks on the Crosses--Buddhist sources of Luke 23:39-43
Mary, Martha and Âmra--Buddhist sources of Luke 10:38-42
Cundas--The Buddhist Judas--and an old song
More than 500 witnesses--All false--Buddhist sources of 1 Corinthians 15: 1- 11
The Temptation of Jesus--Buddhist sources of Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1-13
Two Drops of Water with Blood--Buddhist source of Mark 15:21 etc.
Capernaum was Kapilavastu--Kingdom of Gods
Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and John - Main Buddhist sources of Luke 1-3
Who Wrote the New Testament Gospels?
The Shroud of Tathâgatas
The Rising of the Saints from the Tombs -
Buddhist Lotus source of Matthew 27:51-53
The five thousand of Matthew 14:21 par.
Rosaries and Catacombs - and the Pope's Tiara
The Mysterious Comforter (paraklêtos) of John
The Middle Path of Matthew 5:3-10

Preliminary Remarks
The Buddhist scriptures which form the sources of the New Testament are referred to by these initials:
MSV - Mûlasarvâstivâdavinaya
MPS - Mahâparinirvânasûtram
SDP - Saddharmapundarîka-sûtram, also known as the Lotus SûtraCPS - Catusparisatsûtra

Major parts of the Mûlasarvâstivâdavinaya (MSV) were first edited, on the basis of the Gilgit Manuscript (SBV), by the Italian Sanskritist Raniero Gnoli in 1977-78. For references, see the review of Christian Lindtner in Acta Orientalia 43 (1983), pp. 124-126. There is still no translation into a modern language.
Other important parts of the MSV, namely Catusparisatsûtra (CPS), and Mahâparinirvânasûtra (MPS), were edited, along with parallel texts in other ancient Buddhist languages, by the late Ernst Waldschmidt, Berlin 1952-1962, and 1950-1951, respectively. For further references, I recommend the standard work of E. Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, Louvain 1988.

[The Gilgit manuscripts are among the oldest manuscripts in the world, and the oldest manuscript collection surviving in Pakistan and India, having major significance in the areas of Buddhist studies and the evolution of Asian and Sanskrit literature. The manuscripts are believed to have been written in the 5th to 6th Century CE, though more manuscripts were discovered in the succeeding centuries, which were also classified as Gilgit manuscripts.

This corpus of manuscripts was discovered in 1931 in Gilgit, containing four sutras from the Buddhist canon, including the famous Lotus Sutra. The manuscripts were written on birch bark in the old Sanskrit language in the Sharada script. The Gilgit manuscripts cover a wide range of themes such as iconometry, folk tales, philosophy, medicine and several related areas of life and general knowledge. Wikipedia.]

Other important parts of the MSV, namely Catusparisatsûtra (CPS), and Mahâparinirvânasûtra (MPS), were edited, along with parallel texts in other ancient Buddhist languages, by the late Ernst Waldschmidt, Berlin 1952-1962, and 1950-1951, respectively. For further references, I recommend the standard work of E. Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, Louvain 1988.

Q is the main Buddhist source of the four gospels of the New Testament. It is also a major source for most of the other books of the NT, above all The Acts and Revelations.
Q = MSV+SDP:

[Q source (sometimes referred to as Q document, or simply Q) , comes from the German Quelle, which means "source". It is a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. Q is defined as the "common" material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. This ancient text supposedly contained the logia or quotations from Jesus. However, the existence of a highly treasured dominical document, being omitted from all the early Church catalogs and going unmentioned by all the fathers of the early Church, remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.] (Wikipedia)

Q not only refers to MSV, but also to the Saddharmapundarîka-sûtram (SDP), also known as the Lotus Sûtra. English translations by H. Kern and W.E. Soothill are readily available. The emphasis on mere faith in the Buddha as sufficient for salvation, and the idea that tricks, puns, symbolic language, codes, parables etc., should be used by Buddhist missionaries to convert all living beings to the secret of the Buddha, derives directly from the SDP. The Sanskrit text is also available, most recently as edited by the Indian scholar P.L. Vaidya, Darbhanga 1960.

A few other Sanskrit texts have also been copied by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These authors also copied passages from the OT, as known, often without giving the source. That they copied Q in the same way, should therefore not really come as a surprise to us. The Greek text of the Gospels is often obscure, ambiguous or otherwise odd. This partly has to do with the fact that the editors had to leave out or add words in order to get the numerical patterns right, but it also reflects Sanskritisms. In a sense, the “Hebrew dialect” (Papias) of the Greek language of Matthew etc. could be called “Greekskrit”. Some examples are provided in the 2001 paper by Christian Lindtner: “ Some Sanskritisms in the New Testament Gospels”.

The earliest translations of Buddhist texts on Dharma into Greek date back to the time of king Asoka. Bilingual coins of king Menander etc. are, as known, very common. People must have known Greek as well as Indic dialects related to Sanskrit.
As J. Duncan M. Derrett observes in his important book, The Bible and the Buddhists, Sardini 2000, p. 95, there is an old Bactrian inscription that reproduces the standard homage to the Buddhist Trinity.

The Sanskrit is: namo Buddhâya, namo Dharmâya, namo Samghâya
The imitation, originally in Greek letters:
namô o bodo, namô o douarmo, namô o saggo.

Jesus imitates the Buddhist Trinity in his own way in his “last wish”, Matthew 28:19 ["Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."] But, with an ambiguity that is only too typical, he imitates not only the namo to the Buddha, to the Dharma and to the Samgha. He also has puns on the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit of the SDP.
The secret of the Holy Spirit is also the secret of the SDP. You have to dip all people into the name (namo) of the Tri-ratnas, the Trinitas. But the Greek word for name also imitates the sanskrit word for homage. A typical ambiguity!

As pointed out in my 9/11 Klavrestrom paper, Revelations 13:18 : [Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.]
a-rith-mos gar an-thrô-pou es-tin
provides a perfect and typical imitation ofsad-dhar-ma-pun-da-rî-ka-sût-ram.
If you have a bit of sophia, as required, you cannot fail to see that the Greek imitates the sense, the sound and the numerical value of the Sanskrit, for the numerical value of pundarîka is, of course, 666. So the Man is the Pundarîka.

Who, then, can deny that SDP is a part of Q?

EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATING THAT Q = MSV+SDP

1. Matthew 1:1 runs:

biblos geneseôs, ´Iêsou Khristou, huiou Daueid, huiou ´Abraam.Book of descent, of Jesus Christ, of son David, of son Abraham.

The Sanskrit original of the initial eight words of Matthew, runs, in simplified Romanization:
kulasya vamsas ksatriyasya deva-putrasya brâhmanasya.

Commentary:

One person cannot possibly be the son of two different fathers belonging to two widely different periods of time. The son of David, the son of Abraham not only has two fathers. He is also the Son of Man, of Mary, of Joseph etc.

The original source solves the intentional paradoxes.

The source is the introduction to the MSV.

Ma-hâ-Maud-gal-yâ-ya-nam, becoming the Math-thai-on le-go-me-non, Matthew 9:9, introduces the MSV by relating the legend of the vamsas = biblos of the kula, genitive, kulasya = geneseôs of the Sâkyas in Kapila-vastu, alias Ka-phar-naoum. The MSV (SBV) begins by providing a long list of kings. This is combined with the list of the seven last Buddhas, each of whom is associated with 6 individuals, giving us 7x6 = 42. This text (Mahâvadânasûtram) also belongs to MSV. The seven Buddhas belong to three different periods.

This lists of names are combined and imitated by Matthew, and assmilated to OT names. The names constituting the biblos geneseôs = kulasya vamsas, are assigned to three periods each of which has “fourteen generations”.

So, Matthew introduces his book by imitating the pattern and the numbers of his sources.

The hero of the MSV is the ksatriyas called Sâkyamunis. There are numerous puns on Sâkyamunis later on in Matthew. The numerical value of Sâkyamunis is 932 = the numerical value of to haima mou.
The genitive form of ksatriyas, son of a king, is ksa-tri-yas-ya. These four syllables in Greek become ´Iê-sou Khris-tou. As will be seen, when comparing the Greek and the Sanskrit, all the syllables and consonants of the original Sanskrit have been preserved. This means, in this case, that the - sou of ´Iêsou represents the genitive ending of ksatriyasya, namely -sya. Moreover, the `I represents the y.
There are, to be sure, several Sanskrit originals behind Jesus. More about this later on. Normally Sanskrit ksatriyas becomes ho Khristos in the Greek. The article ho is there in order to imitate the three syllables of the original. So, as a rule, Sanskrit ksa-tri-yas is translated as ho khris-tos. Such a ksatriyas is also anointed. Thus the Greek represents not only the sound but also the sense of the Sanskrit perfectly. The sense is, of course, at the same time assimilated to that of the Messiah.

The ksatriyas is, in Q, the son, Sanskrit putras, of the king, called deva. He is, therefore, a deva-putras, a son of the king. Sanskrit devas also means god. He is, therefore also the son of god. This is nicely assimilated to the king David. So the deva-, god and king, is nicely assimilated to the king David.

Note also, that the Greek has no word for “of”. It says “son David”. The reason is clear. It has to have four syllables only, as does the Sanskrit.

Finally, he is the son (of) Abraham. The Sanskrit original is Brahmâ. The ksatriyas descends from the world of Brahmâ. He is, as such, one of the numerous sons of Brahmâ. Thus it is easy to see that the son of Abraham - a chronological absurdity - was originally the son of Brahmâ.

But Matthew is always ambiguous. He has many cards up his sleeves.
The ksatriyas often describes himself as a brâhmanas, the descendant of Brahmâ. Thus, the final two words in Matthew 1:1 also render Sanskrit brâhmanas.

Later on Matthew will offer other nice versions of brâhmanas, the happiest of which is phro-ni-mos, which represents the form and the sense of the original just perfectly.
So, to sum up: The Sanskrit original of the initial eight words of Matthew, runs, in simplified Romanization:
kulasya vamsas ksatriyasya deva-putrasya brâhmanasya.

The total number of syllables, is of course, the same in both sources.
The reader who consults the first few pages of the MSV (being here SBV I) will easily be able to make further identifications.

Let me only add, that the ksatriyas was supposed to be the next king of Kapilavastu. He was the son of a king. But things turned out otherwise.

So, we have the son of a king who never became a normal king. He did, however, become a king of Dharma.

Just like o khristos.
This is, in brief, the secret of Christ.
The same person, under the same circumstances, tells the same story of the same story: The ksatriyas in the disguise of o khristos.

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
In her essay, The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, the American scholar Acharya S /D.M.Murdock argues, forcefully and boldly, in favor of the thesis that Jesus was not at all a historical person, but rather--as so many other sons of God in those days of old--a personification of the Sun.

In support of this point of view--one that she is not the first to advocate, but for which she deserves credit in graciously attending the advocacy--she adduces Christian as well as non-Christian sources, primary as well as secondary. Unremittingly, she reminds her readers of the fact that nearly everything that is said or written about the Jesus called Christ, had already at an earlier date been reported about the Buddha--or the Buddhas (too many to count), about Krishna, about Horus, about Prometheus, and, indeed, about numerous other now less known mythical figures.

That this is actually the case, no scholar familiar with Hellenistic religion and syncretism will be able to deny. Should he venture to deny, as some still do, then his colleagues can only deplore his ignorance of the relevant sources. Should anyone, moreover, wish to claim that Jesus--as opposed to so many other sons of God--is a historical person, then that defender of the old faith has a very heavy burden of proof resting upon his shoulders.

Our theologians, as a rule, simply postulate that there is no reason to doubt that Jesus was or is a historical person. There may be doubt, they admit, about the nature of that person, about the credibility of the evangelists in certain details etc., but about his existence, no, no, there can be no doubt.

Such a stand is apologetic and anything but scientific. An appeal to mere faith is an appeal to sheer ignorance.

Under such circumstances, our professional historians of religion would be expected to raise a storm of protest. They do, as a rule, fail to protest, and their failure is nothing short of a disgrace. Educated historians ought to enlighten and warn the public that there is neither solid external or internal evidence in support of the claim that Jesus was in any way a historical person.

Did Jesus really exist?--the question is not a new one. The great German theologian, Adolf Harnack once (back in 1909, before he became von Harnack) called it "the embarrassing question", i.e. embarrassing for those who raised it (viz. Kalthoff, Jensen, Drews). We must now say that von Harnack got it wrong. The question is now embarrassing--and even more so now than then--for those who fail to account for the lack of external and internal evidence, and for the parallels that are now much more numerous and close than they were in 1909. (Adolf Harnack, "Hat Jesus gelebt?" in: Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, Zweiter Band, Giessen 1911, pp. 167-175.). Above all, new Buddhist sources, in Sanskrit, have provided numerous literal parallels, i.e. direct loans.

The reason for clinging to the myth of Jesus as a historical person is, I assume, double: First of all, it is not easy to rid oneself of old and inveterate misconceptions. Such struggle not only requires freedom of mind but also personal courage--both are rare at a time where a higher Classical education and civilization with emphasis on human character have been banned from our universities and now are but remnants of brighter days.

Then there is the fear of loss of livelihood. If the story of Jesus is merely a solar myth--then our priesthood will have lost all its credibility. Who can make a living by talking about the Sun?

The edifice of Christianity--in any form it may be--rests on a ground of nonsense neatly summarized in the Apostles' Creed--that the mother of Jesus, who went to hell, was a virgin etc. etc.

If the thesis that Jesus is a mere solar myth is correct--and who is there to rebuke its validity on solid scholarly grounds?--then this must have serious consequences not just for conscientious Christian individuals, but also for a society that considers itself to be Christian in this or that respect.

The Danish church--not unlike other Lutheran or reformed churches--considers itself to be fairly "open and broad," I am told. But is it "open and broad" enough to give room for the view that Jesus never existed, and for infidels taking that stand?

In Denmark (and elsewhere) we recognize and allow other religions, provided they do not violate certain rules or standards of decency and decorum--reflecting a Classical, and not at all a Christian tradition, I may add. The concept of decency or decorum may not be altogether clear to a modern mind, but no matter how we agree about definitions, it would be hard to leave out honesty and truthfulness from that definition. How can we have decency without honesty?

If, thus, honesty and truthfulness be recognized as natural and essential parts of decency and decorum, it follows, surely, that our professional professors of theology, along with our bishops and our priests find themselves facing a difficult dilemma: Either they must, openly and boldly, step forward to defend their honor and refute the thesis that Jesus be merely a solar myth, or they must, should they choose to remain silent, fear the disgraceful charge that their lack of honesty--not to speak of "Lutheran boldness"--makes them violate the standards of decorum and decency.

In other words: If our professional theologians do not respond and come up with strong arguments against the thesis of Jesus as a solar myth, then they will, day by day, transform the church and Christian society that for centuries have provided them with even more than their daily bread into institutions the nature of which is increasingly infested by dishonesty and lack of decency--until the day of the final and total collapse of the ancient myth.

Christian Lindtner, PhD
November 22nd, CE 2009.

A CHALLENGE TO ANTI-GEMATRIA HARPIES

In a communication given to Biblical scholars at Louvain in 1970, the Dutch theologian J. Smit Sibinga, discussing the literary technique of Matthew, observed that the author of the First Gospel, consciously and consistently "arranged his text in such a way, that the size of the individual sections is fixed by a determined number of syllables. The individual parts of a sentence, the sentences themselves, sections of a smaller and larger size, they are, all of them, characterized in a purely quantitative way by their number of syllables" (Menken, p. 21).

And how did the scholars present in Louvain react to this observation? According to a personal communication from one who was present, (Prof. Birger Gerhardsson, Lund University), "they giggled", and according to my own experience, scholars as well as non-scholars still tend to giggle, when they hear that Matthew--and the same goes for the other authors of the NT, I may add from my own research--always counted the number of syllables--and words of a sentence or a part of a sentence.

But only the insipid laugh when confronted with facts that are new to them. Serious scholars try to understand facts, no matter how odd they may appear at first glance.

In his important doctoral dissertation from 1985, Numerical literary techniques in John, M.J.J. Menken, a student of Smit Sibinga, carried on this sort of New Testament research (based on the Greek, of course).

One of his most important observations was (p. 272):

"The sum total of syllables or words for a passage is equal to the numerical value of an important name or title occurring in that passage."

Examples of this rule:

1. John 1:19 - 2:11 has a size of 1550 syllables, which number is the numerical value of ho khristos ("the Christ")--the main person in that passage.

2. John 17:1b - 26 contains 486 words, which number is the numerical value of the vocative pater (father!), which is found six times in the text.

3. John 1:1-18 consists of exactly 496 syllables, which is the numerical value of monogenês, ("only begotten"), an important qualification of Jesus. It occurs in John 1:14 & 18, and 3:16 & 18; and 1 John 4:9).

To take just one more example, first pointed out by Smit Sibinga ( cited by Menken, p. 23):
Peter´s speech in Acts 2:14b - 36 is made up of two equal halves: 444 syllables in 2:14b-24, and again 444 syllables in 2:25-36. Their sum, 888, is the numerical value of the name Iêsous (= 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888; C.L.)--a number which was famous in this quality in the second century, witness Irenaeus´ Adversus haereses 1,15,2.

Moreover, if we look upon Acts 2:1-47, a numerical analysis shows that this chapter as a whole consists of exctly 1776, or 2 x 888 syllables.

These are just a few striking examples, and subsequent research by Smit Sibinga and myself has shown that their number can easily be increased, and that the rule, therefore, is correct: The authors of the New Testament texts counted numbers of syllables and words.

Quite unexpectedly, the rule that the authors of the Gospels counted syllables and words, has, through my own research, received support from another corner of the world: Certain Buddhist canonical Sanskrit texts--sûtra-s--have, as a numerical analysis reveals--also been composed by authors who counted syllables and words, yes, in some cases even letters.

Since these very sûtra-s can be shown to have influenced the New Testament in other ways (parables etc.), it is clear that we here have yet another independent indication of Buddhist influence in the NT.

WHY these authors did so is another question that future research is obliged to account for. THAT they counted words and syllables is, to repeat, a fact that cannot be denied and that must be respected--even by those who now merely giggle.

Fools may laugh at hard cold facts--scholars wonder, and try to explain

Christian Lindtner

November 27th, CE 2009.

References:
Chr. Lindtner; Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, Suederbrarup (Leuhe-Verlag) 2005.
M. J.J.Menken; Numerical literary techniques in John, Leiden (E.J.Brill) 1985.
J. Smit Sibinga; Literair handwerk in Handelingen, Leiden (E.J.Brill) 1970.

THE CROOKS ON THE CROSSES--Buddhist sources of Luke 23:39-43

As the three men are hanging there, crucified, they find time for a brief chat. A chat about the future--what will it bring? One of the criminals asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus comes in his kingdom, and Jesus--who can hardly be expected to know the man at all--replies: "I tell you this: today you will be in Paradise with me"--in the Greek: amên legô soi, sêmeron met´ emou esê en tô paradeisô--Lat.: Amen dico tibi, hodie mecum eris in paradiso. It is only Luke 23:39-43, who reports the curious incident, and we have no idea what his source may have been.Who told him?

Or perhaps we do. We shall see.

There is some disagreement as to the proper translation of the ten Greek words. Some would place the comma after sêmeron, giving us thus the translation:"Today I tell you this: you will be in Paradise with me." According to this understanding--that of a Witness of Jehovah--the criminal will be with Jesus at some future date, not already today. There is a Buddhist source for this episode, and since it has been overlooked by scholars, it will not be superfluous to call attention to that source--not just because it enables us to decide where the comma in the Greek has to be placed. The source for the promise of Jesus to one of the malefactors is--as so often--the Mahâparinirvânasûtram (MPS), a part of the MSV. The Lord, Bhagavân, is spending his last hours between two sâla-trees (yamaka-sâla, MPS 32:6,7,9), surrounded by two disciples, first Ânanda and, a little later, Subhadra, an old ascetic (MPS 40: 1-62). Subhadra is the last person to be converted and ordained. Once he has been ordained, he expresses the wish that he may pass away before the Lord, for he cannot bear the thought of surviving the Lord. The Lord grants him this wish.

But there is a problem!

Normally, in Buddhism, good deeds lead to rebirth in heaven, whereas evil actions lead to rebirth in the hells. Normally, it takes quite some time to accumulate good or bad karma. But here we are introduced to some exceptions to that golden rule of karma. Without being aware of these exceptions to the rule, we cannot understand the background of the words of Jesus quoted by Luke 23:43: "Today you will be in Paradise with me". There are two cases, we read in MPS 40, in which a pious Buddhist goes directly to paradise (svarga). If he dies during pilgrimage to one of the four holy places (pradesas): where the Lord was born, where He was enlightened, where He delivered his first sermon, or where He finally passed into Nirvâna. Moreover, a pious Buddhist will go directly to heaven (svarga), if he dies in the very presence of the Buddha.

It is for this reason that Subhadra goes directly--on the same day--to paradise or heaven. He is a pious Buddhist who dies in the presence of the Buddha who is about to "die", or pass away into Nirvâna here between the two trees and the two monks. It is for exactly the same reason that the pious malefactor (kakourgos, Luke 23:39) on the cross, according to the promise of Jesus, can expect to go with Jesus to paradise on the same day.(That Jesus does not keep the promise is another story--see below!) When one compares the Sanskrit words with the corresponding Greek words, one cannot fail to observe how closely Luke follows the original Buddhist source: The Sanskrit has âman-trayate, he says (the subject of the verb being the Lord, Bhagavân), which becomes amên legô soi, amen I say to you.(Only Jesus uses this phrase!) The Sanskrit PRaDeSaS, (holy) spot, becomes PaRaDeiSoS (nominative form), a synonym of the Sanskrit svargas (nom.), heaven.

In the Sanskrit of the MPS there are two trees and two persons, with the Lord in the middle . In Luke this image is transformed into the image of two persons ON two trees, or crosses (stakes). The Lord is still surrounded by two "trees" with "criminals" hanging on them.

In Luke, one crook rebukes the other. Likewise, in the Buddhist original, Ânanda rebukes Subhadra for disturbing the Lord who, undserstandably, is old and tired. The two "crooks" next to Jesus, needless to add, were the two Buddhist monks, Ânanda and Subhadra.

In both sources, the primary and the secondary, the topic of discussion is the same: The possibility of going directly to heaven with the Lord. A pious believer can do so, if he dies in the presence of the Lord. Even the verb "remember me" used by the false Subhara is in the Sanskrit, where it is said that the four places of pilgrimage are to be remembered (anusmaranîyâ, MPS 41:5) by a pious Buddhist. When we for a moment confine ourselves to Buddhist sources, we can observe that even here it is not unusual to take up an old theme and introduce certain variants. Thus, as I have pointed out elsewhere, in the MSV we have the episode of Gautama being impaled on a place of sculls. Here there are two eggs or sculls, one on each side of the stake. While hanging on the stake this Gautama is engaged in a conversation with his former teacher. They, too, talk about the future. This episode has also left some wonderful traces in Luke. I shall come back to these later.

The Sanskrit noun for stake is shûlam, which becomes Greek xulon, as in Acts 5:30. Here, the Greek epi xulou is often translated as "to a cross", but, as the Sanskrit shows, it should be "on a stake". Luke often uses MPS--a part of the MSV--as his source. So did his learned colleagues, Matthew, Mark and John--not to speak of Paul. In some cases Luke has an episode not found in Matthew or Mark. This shows that Luke used MPS/MSV independently. In a few cases the same goes for Mark. The longest direct loan that I am aware of consists of 46 syllables. This is Luke 10:38.(See my Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, p. 111 for the Sanskrit source.) To conclude the episode of the two--or three--crooks on the crosses, it may be observed that Luke goes on to tell his incredible tale of how, at twelve o´clock, the sun stopped shining and darkness covered the whole country until three o´clock... The source is, again, Buddhist, viz MPS.

The identification of the Buddhist source of the episode of the crooks on the crosses not only proves--if proof were needed--that what Luke reports has nothing to do with actual history somewhere in Jerusalem. The episode is mythical, as is the original. Perhaps more important, the identification shows that Luke had a great sense of humor--typical Buddhist, in fact--that may, however, not be duly appreciated by all Christians, more pious than the alleged founder of their religion. Luke must have had great fun turning the two Buddhist monks into two crooks to be impaled, and later on, in sending Jesus to hell--not to Paradise!--for a couple of days. For he was resurrected "from the dead"--the Buddhist term for "from hell".

In other words: If the criminal actually did go to Paradise, as Jesus promised--Jesus would not be there with him! Or, alternatively, if we construe the "today" with the verb "I say to you", then it could be that the two would meet at some future date--not today--in Paradise--and that would be some spot (pradesas) in India! The episode only makes good sense once one knows the source. But then it also makes wonderful sense--Aristophanes could not do better!

Christian Lindtner
December 6th. CE 2009

[1] Mary, Martha and Âmra--Buddhist sources of Luke 10:38-42

[ ³⁸Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

³⁹And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

⁴⁰But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

⁴¹And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

⁴²But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.]

All the many women called Maria (or Mariam) in the New Testament can be traced back to either Mâyâ, the mother of Sâkyamuni, or to Âmra-pâlî, the famous courtesan, ganikâ. The main Buddhist source is, as usual, MSV, including MPS.

Any reader familiar with the MPS will be able to trace the Lord´s visit to Martha and Mary--reported by Luke 10:38-42 only--back to MPS 10 -12. In 10, Âmrapâlî, the famous courtesan of the village Vaisâlî, comes to pay her respect to Tathâgata who is surrounded by the usual group of monks. She, too, is surrounded by a group of--attractive prostitutes. The monks are unable to control their minds, and therefore ask the Lord to teach them how to "pray", so that they can avoid falling into temptation.

This accounts for the fact that Jesus, in Luke 11:4, teaches his "monks" how to pray so as to avoid falling into temptation. Even today, pious Christians thus pray, unknowingly, that they be not tempted by the beautiful Indian courtesan and her prostitutes.-

[ ⁴And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.]

Let us now take a closer look at Luke 10:38-42! As always, there is gematria, or textual geometry, involved: Verse 38 consists of 23 words, or 46 syllables, the ratio being thus nicely 1:2. Verse 39 consists of 18 words.Verses 40-42 add up to 57 words. The unit as a whole thus consists of 98 words, or 100 words, if tê-de in v. 38, and hê-tis in v. 42 be counted as two words. It will be seen that Martha utters 18 words, corresponding to the number of words in v. 39. Jesus utters 23 words, corresponding to the number of words in v. 38. Finally, the narrator is responsible for 57 words, corresponding to the number of words in verses 40-42. Verse 38 consists, as said, of 46 syllables. These 46 syllables, forming a unit, correspond to exactly 46 syllables, likewise forming a unit in the original Sanskrit, which is MPS 10:3 = 11:1 = 15:4 ( ed. Waldschmidt, Berlin 1953, p. 172; my Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, p. 111).

By comparing the Greek with the Sanskrit, we can make these interesting observations:

1. Luke speaks of "a certain village". The name of that village, we now know, is Vaisâlî.--Vaisâlî is, of course, not mentioned in the New Testament or elsewhere in early Christian documents.

Nevertheless, Vaisâlî is known to Christians as a holy place in France,namely Vézelay, still associated with the legend of Mary Magdalene, see http://www.vezelay.cef.fr/

2. The woman called Mariam sits down at the feet of Jesus, and listens to his word, logos. This is exactly what Âmrapâlî (or--pâlir) does. She sits down at the feet of Bhagavân, and listens as he talks, as usual, about Dharma.

3. When Jesus says that Maria chose "the good part", Greek: tên agathên (merida), the authors made a typical pun on Tathâgatam (accusative form). She was the first to choose to invite Tathâgata for a meal and listen to him. When Luke then says that it cannot be taken from her, this refers to the incident in MPS 11:23-24, where the Licchavis of Vaisâlî invite Bhagavân to enjoy a meal with them. He declines their offer, for he has already accepted the invitation of Âmrapâlî, and that cannot be taken from her. At the same time it refers to cetrtain dharmas that "cannot be taken away".

4. But who is this Martha? In verse 38, Luke describes her as "a certain woman", gunê de tis, which is a free translation of Sanskrit gani-kâ, courtesan. The Sanskrit--kâ has been treated (as common in Rabbinical hermeneutics) as if it were an independent pronoun, which is not so in the original Sanskrit. Still, the "translation" is not bad: a certain prostitute becomes a certain woman.

MPS 12:1 is introduced by: atha Âmra-pâlîs..." Then Âmra....". The two words are contracted to athâmra...This gives us the consonants th-m-r, and from those three consonants the name of a new woman is born, the sister of Âmra, aka Maria--namely MaRTha.

In verse 39, Martha is said to have a sister CALLED Mariam. That is true--it is only something she is called. To conclude: Maria (or Mariam) and Martha are both derived from Âmra, the famous Indian ganikâ. Before she finally sits down at his feet and listens to his sermon on Dharma, Âmra is busy preparing and serving food. This is still Martha at work. MPS, in other words, presents Âmra in two different roles. This, in the NT, becomes two different women, but still in the same roles, in the same place, under the same circumstances etc. The food being served by her to the Lord is described as sucinâ pranîtena, fine (and) exquisite, MPS 12:4 (and often elsewhere). This stock phrase--seven syllables in the instumental case--is also know to the Buddhists who wrote the Gospels:

If we turn to the Anointing at Bethany, Matthew 26:7, a woman brings an alabaster jar filled with "expensive perfume", Greek: murou barutimou. In Mark 14:3, it is descibed as pistikês polutelous, "genuine" (and) "expensive". In John 12:3 it is said to be pistikês polutimou, where polutimou = polutelous. We are thus quite obviously dealing with three different translations of one and the same Sanskriot phrase--an asyndeton--sucinâ pranîtena. The "and" (Sanskrit ca, Greek kai) is left out. This proves the common Buddhist source.

According to John 12: 1, the episode took place at Bethany where Lazaros lived, and it is Maria who takes the perfume described above. So the Buddhist food has become Christian perfume. Lazaros is said to be the brother of Maria and Martha, just as Maria was said to be the sister of Martha.

All this took place, as said, in Vaisâlî, the home of the Licchavis.

There can, therefore, hardly be any doubt that Lazaros has derived his identity from Laicchavis.

There are several other observations to be made--puns on Âmra etc.--but I think these examples show very well, how Luke, Matthew, Mark and John used their Buddhists sources. They fabricated new persons and events by recycling words and phrases from the Buddhist sûtras in Sanskrit. They also counted words and syllables, as did the Buddhists before them.

Theologians often claim that the genre of the New Testament gospels is "unique". This is true--but only if the Buddhist sûtra genre is left out of consideration. Luke 10:38 provides a small and excellent example of how New Testament may imitate the sûtra genre.

It is not just Jesus who proves to be a Buddha in disguise--the same goes for all those women called Mary. They are Mâyâ and Âmra in disguise. The idea that the Buddha disguises himself in different ways is an old one with the Buddhists--see MPS 23:4.

There is a common Buddhist saying that all things are just names.

That must also be kept in mind when we deal with names of persons and places in the NT.

Christian Lindtner
December 7th, CE 2009

CUNDAS--THE BUDDHIST JUDAS--AND AN OLD SONG

The main Buddhist sources for the legend of the Passover and the Traitor, are, as usual, to be found in the MSV. Thus, in MPS 26 (last part of MSV) we read about how the Lord and the monks had their last (Sanskrit pascimam) meal in the home of a certain Cundas, the son of a smith, Sanskrit karmâras. The Christian version, a copy, is mainly found in Matthew 26:17-25; Mark 14:12-21; Luke 22:7-13, and John 26:20-25.

[MARK ¹²And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

¹³And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.

¹⁴And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

¹⁵And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.

¹⁶And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

¹⁷And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

¹⁸And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

¹⁹And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

²⁰And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

²¹The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.]

We are on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread--a curious expression, rendering in, fact, Sanskrit pûrvâhne, or pubbanhasamayam (Pâli), MPS 26:14, i.e. early in the morning. The Greek asumôn reflects the Sanskrit samayam. The Sanskrit word for "last" is pas-ci-mam, which becomes Greek to pas-kha, the passover. In both sources there is the last meal taken with all the monks/disciples, but only in New Testament is the last meal combined with the last words. I shall come back to this.

In Matthew, the disciples are instructed to prepare the last meal in the house of "a certain man", Greek: ton deina--not very helpful! The Greek ton deina, as will be obvious in a moment, is a pun on Cun-dam-tha accusative form of Cundas. Mark and Luke are a bit more helpful, for they describe the unknown host as bearing a pitcher of water. Poor disciples, for what if there were several unknown men in that town bearing pitchers of water? The person in question is the Buddhist Cundas, said to be the son, putras, of a smith, karmâras, MPS 26:14. The Buddha and the monks had their last meal together at Cundas´ place.

The son of a karmâras becomes man carrying a pitcher, keramion, of water. Sanskrit karmâras (accusative: karmâram) becomes Greek keramion. As they are sitting there together, one evil monk steals a golden bowl (other versions say it was of copper) and hides it in his sleeve. Only Cundas and the Lord notice this case of theft, whereby the evil monk obviously betrays the Buddhist "path".

In the Christian version, the man who puts his hand in the bowl is defined as the traitor, and his name is Joudas. John adds that he, Joudas, is the son of Simôn Iskariotês. The sense of that name is obscure, but here probably intended as a translation of the Sanskrit karmâra-putras. In Matthew 26:26 and the parallels, Jesus says: "Take (this, and) eat (it), for this is my body" The Sanskrit original is to be found a little later in the same Buddhist source, viz. MPS 42:10. Here, Tathâgata is surrounded by the monks, and he says to them: "Behold, monks, my body." "See, monks, my body!" These are explicitly described as his last words to the monks, MPS 42:11.

The point of his words, I assume from the context, is to make the monks aware of his physical decreptitude that will soon end in his passing away. Not only does the Greek retain the two imperative forms of the verb, addressed to the same group of disciples/monks, but the tou-to gar es-ti--"for this is" --also renders the five syllables ta-thâ-ga-tas-ya quite nicely. The disciples of Jesus are, in other words, invited to take and eat the body of Tathâgata--i.e. to become Buddhists. This becomes more easy to understand, when one recalls that the Tathâgata is an embodiment of the Buddhist Dharma. The bread, Greek artos, that Jesus took, reflects the Sanskrit dharmas.

Since the bread is the dharma, it follows that the bread-body is originally the dharma-kâya, familiar to all Buddhists. And this is what numerous Christians have been doing and still are doing--on many a Sunday. The purpose and sense of taking part in the Eucharist then, is to have a share in the body of the Tathâgata, the dharma-body. What else is the Lord´s Supper?

After these incidents, Matthew 26:30 reports that they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives. What hymn, exactly, did they sing? Matthew does not say. (Personal views of modern theologians are irrelevant.) The hymn they sang, or rather the hymn that the Lord sang, can be identified as Sutta-Nipâta, verses 83-90. These verses describe four kinds of monks, ending with the one who betrays the Path of Buddhism, i.e. by being a thief.

These verses are not just incorporated in the MPS, but, as said, are also available in the old text Sutta-Nipâta, in Pâli and other versions. I am not aware of any Buddhist scholar prepared to question that Sutta-Nipâta belongs to the earliest strata of Buddhist literature. They are, in other words, pre-Christian.These verses are, therefore, the hymn to which Matthew alludes, 26:30.

Now someone may argue: Yes, it cannot be denied that Matthew and the other evangelists have words, phrases, motives etc. in common with MSV/MPS. But could it not be that the Buddhists copied from the NT? Answer: In that case the Buddhists would also have copied verses found in the old pre-Christian Sutta-Nipâta from some Christian source. But there is no such Christian source.

But could the Sutta-Nipâta not have belonged to some old, now lost Christian source, from which the Buddhists then copied? Answer: Perhaps, hypothetically, but in that case that early Christian source would have had to be in some Indian language (Pâli? Sanskrit?), and the contents would have been Buddhist, for it speaks of four kinds of Buddhist monks. That early Christian hymn would, in other words, have to be Buddhist.

Christian Lindtner

December 14th, CE 2009

JESUS--THE FAMOUS SANSKRIT SCHOLAR

If one claims that Jesus was a historical person able to talk and to write, and that he also was the author of the celebrated parable of the ten virgins--known to us only from Matthew 25:1-13--then one is also compelled to admit that Jesus was indeed a Sanskrit scholar--the most famous of all Sanskrit scholars , surely. How so?

[ ¹Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

²And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

³They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
⁴But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

⁵While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

⁶And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

⁷Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

⁸And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

⁹But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

¹⁰And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

¹¹Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
¹²But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

¹³Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.]

As I have shown in my book and in several essays, the MSV, which includes the MPS, is one of the main sources of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is hardly a chapter in the MPS that has not left traces in the New Testament gospels.

The direct source of Matthew 25:1-13 is to be found in MPS, Chapter 4. This chapter is available not only in Sanskrit, but also in Pâli, as well as in several old Chinese versions from now lost Sanskrit originals. (There are also Tibetan and Mongolian versions, to be sure.) When one compares these various versions, there are interesting variants, but the basic story is the same:

Tathâgata (Buddha) delivers a sermon on pramâdas and apramâdas. Sanskrit PRaMâDaS means negligence, carelessness. Sanskrit aPRaMâDaS means the opposite, i.e. carefulness, heedful attention, vigilance. There are five disadvantages associated with PRaMâDaS, e.g. after passing away an immoral person goes to Hell. Likewise, there are five advantages associated with aPRaMâDaS, e.g. after passing away, a good person goes to Heaven (svarga). Stupid people engage in PRaMâDaS, whereas wise people are very concerned about aPRaMâDaS. The sermon is delivered to brahmans and householders from the town of Pâtali.

The purpose of the parable of the ten virgins, Matthew 25:1-13, is clearly to make the point that one must be ready and prepared for the coming of the Lord, in other words, for heaven (mentioned in the first verse). Vigilance is in the focus. This was also the purpose of the Buddhist sermon on vigilance. The Sanskrit word for the world of heaven is svarga-loka (verse MPS 4:17). There are five wise virgins, and there are five foolish virgins. All ten virgins have lamps, but five of the ten forget about the oil. They are like a man, we may say, wanting to go for a ride in his car, but forgetting all about oil and gas.

Comparing the Buddhist and the Christian textual units, we cannot fail to see that they are related. But how, quite precisely? How did the "translations" take place?

In the usual fashion: In the Greek version the focus is on the ten virgins and on the ten lamps. The Greek for virgin is PaRTheNoS, and the Greek for lamps, in the accusative plural is LaMPaDaS. The Sanskrit original had five kinds of aPRaMâDaS, and five kinds of PRaMâDaS, as mentioned above. It is thus clear that the Greek P-R-T(h)-N-S and L-M-P-D-S are but two fifferent versions of the five Sanskrit consonants found in aPRaMâDaS as well as PRaMâDaS, i.e. P-R-M-D-S.

I need not remind the reader that in the ancient Jewish scripts the vowels were left out, and that in Sanskrit r and l often interchange (e.g. lâjâ, king, for râjâ etc.). The consonants d and t are both dentals, and m and n are nasals. What an odd way of translating!--the modern reader may exclaim. But if the modern reader finds it hard to believe that anyone would translate in this way, this just betrays his ignorance of ancient rabbinical hermeneutics. For it goes without saying that those who translated these Buddhist texts were also familiar with the Old Testament and thus also with rabbinical hermeneutics (without a knowledge of which OT and New Testament are completely unintelligible).

If two words have the same set of consonants they also have the same numerical value, for each consonant has a numerical value of its own. For example 3+4+5 is the same as 5+4+3. Thus a "bag" and a "bug" are in a sense the same--for the number based on the consonants are the same. (One can easily imagine the fun : bar and beer, bear and rib etc. etc.)

To repeat: The five kinds of disadvantage associated with carelessness becomes five stupid virgins with five lamps without oil. The five kinds of advantage associated with vigilance become the five wise virgins with five lamps with oil. It is a common Buddhist dogma that carefulness, vigilance, is conducive to rebirth in heaven. (This is not typical Christian, where the emphasis is on grace.) The Buddhist source explicitly says that carelessness is the cause of an immoral person going to hell after his passing away. This reference to hell is left out in Matthew. When one compares many other words in Matthew 25:1-13 with the Sanskrit (and Pâli), one will be able to identify many other Greek words in the Sanskrit--the cry, the wise, the foolish etc.

The conclusion is that the Buddhist text gives the "full picture". Much is left out in the Christian copy--with the result that the reader is puzzled. To leave the reader puzzled--and the commentators busy--is a deliberate trick on the part of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. People are and have always been attracted by mysterious sayings, puzzles and riddles. This is also a common Buddhist trick--to attract people by entertaining and fooling them. It is, at the same time, a typical rabbinical trick (see e.g. Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, New York 1959, pp. 93-98).

But there is more

The Dutch theologian Smit Sibinga--who was completely unaware of the Sanskrit source (as he kindly informed me in a personal communication)--has made a numerical analysis of Matthew 25:1-13, and pointed out that "Matthew" carefully counted the number of syllables and arranged the verses in such a way that there is a clear center with "circles" of the same number of syllables around that center.
This fine observation proves, in itself, that "Matthew" counted syllables. That he counted syllables also means that he paid attention to each syllable--i.e. to the spelling of each word. The man who is responsible for Matthew 25:1-13 knew Sanskrit as well as Greek.

The general view of scholars is, by now, that the Greek text of Matthew was not translated from some "Aramaic original"--giving the words of Jesus in "his own tongue".
The Greek text of Matthew--at least for this parable--must have been translated directly from some Sanskrit original coming very close to the MPS (ed. Ernst Waldschmidt, Berlin 1951). The consonants would have been lost had the transtion not been direct.

(There is also an old Pâli version of MPS. It has often been translated into modern languages. An English version by Trevor Ling is available in Everyman´s Library as "The Buddha´s Philosophy of Man", London 1981. The Pâli text of the 2 x 5 etc. is found in the Mahâvagga of the Vinayapitaka. For all the references, see Ernst Waldschmidt, Die Überlieferung vom Lebensende des Buddha, Göttingen 1944, p.52.).

To conclude: If it is claimed that Jesus is the author of the parable of the ten virgins, it also follows that this Jesus knew Sanskrit--and Greek, of course--and that he counted syllables and words, i.e. that he was a mathematician of some sort.

To avoid this dangerous conclusion, one may argue that "Matthew" has not represented Jesus correctly. This may, again, either mean that Jesus never expressed this parable at all--which makes Matthew totally unreliable. Or it may mean that Jesus was indeed, responsible for this parable--but in another form. But even so, not only is this pure speculation, but it is impossible to conceive of the ten virgins, the ten lamps, the importance of vigilance for rebirth in heaven etc. isolated from the Buddhist context, which is coherent and logical. So: either Jesus is responsible for a good and "faithful" version of the Sanskrit--as in Matthew 25:1-13. Or else he is responsible for a bad and totally confused version.

In any case, Jesus must have a been a Sanskrit scholar, and since Jesus still is such a famous man , we can say: Jesus was a famous Sanskrit scholar. About the relative chronology there can, to be sure, be no doubt. The Pâli version of the parable is found in the Vinaya, which belongs to the earliest strata of Buddhist literature. Moreover, the dogma of vigilance leading to heaven only makes sense in the context of a theory of karma, retribution--which is not exactly typical for Christianity! Who would claim that the Buddhist doctrine of karma and rebirth is derived from Jesus called Khristos?

The only way to avoid this conclusion is to accept that Jesus is not a historical person at all. And that is a conclusion we often come to. And it is a safe one, too. But the Sanskrit scholar behind the parable remains.

Christian Lindtner
Dec. 21st, CE 2009

MORE THAN 500 WITNESSES--ALL FALSE--Buddhist sources of 1 Corinthians 15: 1- 11

[ ¹Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

²By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

³For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
⁴And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

⁵And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

⁶After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

⁷After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

⁸And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

⁹For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

¹⁰But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

¹¹Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.]

Absolutely fundamental to any sort of Christianity is the belief in the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. If the dead are not raised and if Christ has not been raised, then the Christian faith is a delusion and Christians are lost in their sins. Such is the view of Paul. Such is the faith of Christians. But as historians we must ask: What is the evidence or proof of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead?

The common opinion of Christian theologians and believers is that "the oldest and most reliable" evidence or proof of the resurrection of Christ is provided by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. There may be a few other witnesses, mainly women, but they cannot be considered very reliable. But how can we be sure that Paul is reliable, and that 1 Cor. 15:1-11 provides the oldest and best evidence?

The mere fact that a given witness makes a claim does not make him reliable. One must ask for his sources. He may be wrong, he may be a liar. Now Paul does in fact refer to certain sources, for he says that he has his information from certain scriptures. Unfortunately, these scriptures cannot be identified. All theologians agree that there are no scriptures in Greek or Hebrew that can be identified as the sources of Paul´s claims concerning resurrection. At this point, therefore, we cannot decide the value or validity of the testimony provided by Paul. Is he, as a witness, reliable or is he not reliable? If we want to be honest, we cannot decide. The case must be left sub judice.

Now, fortunately, help is on its way--not to Paul, but to historians. In this case, as in so many other cases. the source of Paul can be traced back to the MPS, which is available in Sanskrit and in Pâli. Anyone familiar with the MPS can easily see that Paul has combined two chapters from that text, namely chapters 9 and 48 (in the edition of Waldschmidt, Berlin 1951, pp. 162-171 & 420-425).

Here are the main points:

MPS 9: In the village of Nâdikâ a large number of brothers and sisters have passed away. What will become of them? It is explicitly said that "more than 500 brothers have passed away". This sentence is available in the Sanskrit (9:15) and in the Pâli (Waldschmidt, p. 166). The Pâli has been translated into English, e.g. by Trevor Ling: "More than five hundred devout men of Nadika who have died" (The Buddha´s Philosophy of Man, London 1981, p. 159) This accounts for the " more than five hundred brothers...of whom some have died", in 1 Corinthians 15:6, a statement that has always caused the greatest embarrassment to theologians. The more than 500 brothers are never mentioned in any other ancient Christian sources--with one exception, a Coptic source that says that the more than 500 were Indian priests (see R. Garbe, Indien und das Christentum, Süderbrarup 2004, p. 292). There is, as we have just seen, some truth in this. There was an Indian source for the 500. The Buddhist text then explains that some of those who have passed away will never return again, whereas others will return "once", Sanskrit sakrd. This accounts for the Greek ephapax, "at once" in 1 Corinthians 15:6. Greek ephapax simply translates the Sanskrit synonym sakrd--once, at once. Immediately before he mentions the "more than five hundred brothers, Paul mentions Kêphas and "all twelve" (some translators add "apostles", but the Greek does not mention apostles at all). The twelve were not "apostles" at all--they were Buddhists: Again, Paul follows the MPS, which, as said, has been transmitted to us in several versions. One of these, now only in Chinese, explicitly speaks of exactly 12 brothers who have been reborn among the gods (this is the Dîrghâgama, translated by Waldschmidt, Ûberlieferung... Göttingen 1944, p. 71).

Other versions give different numbers here (one Chinese version gives the number 10), and it is quite remarkable that the Latin Vulgata speaks of eleven, not twelve, 1 Corinthians 15:6.

Paul also mentions Kêphas and Iakôbos, and here one must pay attention to the spelling: There are three consonants in both cases: k-b(ph)-s. Both names translate the Sanskrit name of Kâsyapa(s) - k-p-s. Chapter 48 of the same MPS provides us with the second source of Paul. Here we meet Kâsyapas who, along with five hundred monks, finally arrive and become witnesses to the cremation of the physical body of the Lord. His "jewel body" goes up to the world of Brahmm, i.e. in flames. The Sanskrit verb for "went up", agaman, MPS 49:23, corresponds to the Greek for "raised".

To summarize: Paul refers to scriptures that are not available in Greek or Hebrew. But they are available in Sanskrit and Pâli. These scriptures are, therefore, Buddhist scriptures.

It is quite true, as Paul says, that more than five hundred brothers, along with Kâsyapas, were witnesses to the "resurrection", i.e. cremation of the Lord. The Lord was a ksatriyas, a nobleman, and Sanskrit ksatriyas becomes Greek ho Khristos, in the usual way. Hence, Paul is careful not to speak of Jesus, but of Khristos. When Paul combines two different chapters, and two different episodes in the Buddhist original, he does so not entirely at random but according to certain rules. According to rabbinical hermeneutics, it is allowed to combine two otherwise different scriptural passages provided they have a significant number in common. This rule, in Hebrew, is called Neged, "corresponding significant number". An example is provided by OT, when Numbers 13:25 mentions 40 days, and Numbers 14:34 mentions 40 years. The two otherwise unrelated passages have a corresponding significant number, viz. 40. In exactly the same way , Paul combines two passages in the same Buddhist text, the MPS, where one chapter mentions more than 500 brothers, and another mentions 500 monks.

All this means, of course, that the "proof" or "evidence" provided in support of the faith in the historical resurrection of Christ, and the dead in general, is purely fictitious. Paul refers to scriptures, i.e. Buddhist scriptures, that describe some events that took place--or did not take place--far away in Magadha a long time ago. (Magadha, it will be recalled, was mentioned by Matthew 15:39 only.) He, Paul, then combined events from that Buddhist text into a new unit. He then transferred this piece of literary fiction to another place, to another time, to another person. How can, for example, events said to have taken place in India centuries ago, prove the historicity of events said to have taken place in, say, New York quite recently! Paul cannot have been unaware of what he was doing. Paul cannot have been unaware that he was a falsifier of history. Paul cannot have been unaware that he was himself a false witness.Once we recognize this to be so, we also understand why Paul compares himself to a "miscarriage", an ektrôma, as it were, in 1 Corinthians 15:8. Paul justifies himself by stating that he is what he is--that is: a false witness--thanks to the grace of God.

What is that supposed to mean? What does "grace of God" mean in this context? It can only mean that deliberate deceit is a good thing provided it can bring about some desirable result. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Jesus existed or had been raised from the dead, but if people could feel happy when fooled into believing so--fine and good. The same fundamental attitude is reflected well in Romans 3:7, which in plain words simply says that untruth is fully acceptable provided it serves the greater glory of God. Such a Jesuitic attitude is also typical Buddhist. In the Lotus Sûtra, Buddhist missionaries are advised to employ tricks, lies etc. for the greater glory of the Buddhas.

[ Romans 3:⁷For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?]

If people like to be deceived--let them be deceived! And in our modern world we speak of propaganda, or, to use a euphemism, mass communication. Thus, Paul, when it come to the evidence for resurrection of Christ and of the dead, proves to be a prominent false witness. That he himself, however, may have believed in the resurrection of the dead, need not be doubted.

This belief is typical Buddhist. Due to their bad karma, people may go down to the dead in the hells. After some time, they may come back to this world. The "dead" in the hells are not really dead. They can come back to normal life and suffering. They have thus been raised from the world of the dead. The Buddhist background of Paul is thus clear. When he presents himself as a Christian, however, and fails to acknowledge his Buddhist sources explicitly, he then can be descibed as, well, an ektrôma (to use his own term).

Christian Lindtner
Dec. 29th, CE 2009

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS--Buddhist sources of Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1-13

Jesus was led to the desert by the wind--did he fly?--where he was tempted by the Devil--a strange character--who first asked him to turn stones to bread--an odd exercise--and then took him to the holy city, setting him on the top of the temple--out there in the desert? Finally, the Devil took Jesus to a very high mountain, showing him all the kingdoms of the world--what a view from out there in the middle of nowhere! Here, he made him an offer: "All this I will give you--IF you will kneel down and worship me!" But, no, Jesus rejects the offer, the Devil leaves, and angels come and help Jesus.

One must, of course be very naive in order to take these fables for true history, yet theologians still do so, asking for the exact location of the desert, the high mountain, the pinnacle of the temple etc. As usual, Matthew and his colleagues combine OT and Buddhist sources into a new whole. The OT sources have already been identified long ago, and I will not repeat them here.

The Buddhist sources are mostly found in the MSV, I, pp. 94-96:

Before the Bodhisattva goes to the hermitage--Sanskrit â-sra-mam, hermitage, (p. 96) becomes Greek e-rê-mon, desert--he entered the (holy) city of Râja-grham, where the king, Bimbisâra(s), is standing up there on the top of the palace. The Sanskrit compound upari-prâsâda-tala-gatas is rendered very nicely by Greek epi to pterugion tou hierou (Matthew 4:5; Luke 4:9): The upari becomes epi; the top of the palace becomes the top of the temple. The verb gatas, gone to, represents Greek histêsin, placed.

The king approaches the Bodhisattva and offers him beautiful women etc., in these words: dadâmi te varân bhogân, "I will give you very good things", IF you will tell me your name and background. The Bodhisattva tells the king about his family etc., but is not at all interested in the kind offer.

The Devil offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world--a manifest absurdity, for who in the world has the power to do so? But the Indian king of Râjagrham in Magadha (Magadha turns up in Matthew 15:39), Bimbisâra(s) (v.l: Bimbasâra(s)), offers Bodhisattva a share in his kingdom--which makes sense.

The reasons given by Jesus for rejecting the kind--and absurd--offer remain obscure. In the case of the Bodhisattva, the reason for his rejecting the perfectly rational offer, is clear: He, the Bodhisattva, is interested in becoming an enlightened Buddha, not a worldly king. That decision was made long ago, before he met the king. The Devil who "tempted" Jesus, we conclude, was, in this case, the king of Magadha--the four syllables of Bim-bi-sâ-ras thus becoming Di-a-bo-los.

The Greek offer of the Devil is (Matthew 4:9):
tauta soi panta dôsô - these to you all I will give.

These four words translate the four Sanskrit words (MSV, I, p. 95) :
dadâmi te varân bhogân.

The Sanskrit dadâmi becomes Greek dôsô, I will give. The Sanskrit te becomes Greek soi, to you. The Sanskrit accusative is varân bhogân, best enjoyments, good things, become Greek accusative: tauta panta, these all. The Greek has seven syllables, the Sanskrit eight, as required by Sanskrit prosody.

The notion that Jesus was carried by the wind--suggesting that he was able to fly--is abhorrent to most theologians, who, therefore, normally translate the Greek by "Jesus was led by the Spirit", or the like, thus obscuring the original hupo tou pneumatos--by the wind. But in Buddhist scriptures, Buddhas can fly, no problem --and so could our imaginary friend, Jesus.

Christian Lindtner
January 18, CE 2010

TWO DROPS OF WATER WITH BLOOD--Buddhist source of Mark 15:21 etc.

Here are three New Testament passages that, at first sight, have nothing at all in common:

According, first, to Mark 15:21 only, the otherwise unknown Simon of Cyrene, who was forced to carry the cross of Jesus, was the father of two sons, Alexander and Rufus.

[Mark 15: ²¹And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.]

According, second, to Luke 22:44, which is left out in several modern editions of the New Testament (but attested by many early fathers of the Church), Jesus, in his great anguish, prayed even more fervently; his sweat was like drops of blood, falling to the ground.

[Luke 22: ⁴⁴And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.]

According, third, to John 19:34, when Jesus was hanging on the cross, one soldier plunged his spear into his side, and at once blood and water poured out.

[John 19: ³⁴But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.]

As said, apparently these three accounts have nothing in common.

So why combine them here?

If one is familiar with the legend of the crucifixion of Gatama in the MSV (p. 24-25), it is not difficult to recognize that we are here dealing with three different versions of one and the same Buddhist source.

A simple observation with highly important consequences:

Gautama is hanging on the pole. He has been impaled for murdering a prostitute, Bhadrâ, even though--as it turns out later--he was innocent. The real murderer escaped in the crowd.

As he is hanging there in great anguish, his teacher, upâdhyâya, a certain Krsna-dvaipâyanas, turns up. They talk together for a while. Gautama is about to pass away, but he has left no offspring. What can be done?

Then it starts to rain. The water is mixed with the blood from the innocent man (Gautama alias Jesus). Two drops of water mixed with blood fall to the ground. Two eggs develop from the blood (which is in accordance with traditional Indian embryology). The egg-shells break. The Sanskrit noun for egg-shells is kapalâni--which also means skulls. (Hence Golgotha is called the place of the Skulls).

Gautama passes away when the sun is more = most fervent (bhâsuratarâ) --hence the fervent in Luke 22:44. Krsna-dvaipâyana becomes the father, i.e. the foster father of the two sons that developed from the two eggs.

The Sanskrit for the two drops of water (semen) and blood is: dvau sukra-bindû sa-rudhire (p. 25, line 6), i.e.: two water-drops with-blood.

In Mark the two drops of water with blood become Alexandrou kai Rouphou--(the father) of Alexander and Rufus--two boys otherwise not known from early Christian sources. Sanskrit sa-rudhire becomes kai Rouphou; the sa- means kai, and; and rudhira means red, like Rufus. Alexandrou (genitive) is from sukra-bindû, with the genitive in the Greek is as close to the dual Sanskrit ending--û as one can come.

It thus does make sense when Mark says that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus, for Krsnadvapâyana was indeed the foster father of the two boys that developed from the two drops of water (semen) with blood.

Sanskrit -dvaipâyana means "from an island". Krsna-dvaipâyana is thus the "Black-islander".

This man, then, in Mark, becomes Kurênaios ap´ agrou - Krsna from the field.

In Luke 22:44--which has always embarrassed interpreters--the sweat of Jesus, like drops of blood falling to the ground, is an accurate translation of the Sanskrit: sukra-bindû sa-rudhire. The Sanskrit verb is the same as the Greek. Moreover, the adjective, in comparative form is the rare ektenesteron, Luke 22:44. It is an exact rendering of the Sanskrit comparative bhâsuratarâ - even more intense, more fervent. It fits better with the rays of the sun than with the mode of prayer. The MSV makes best sense.

Finally, in John 19:34, blood and water pour out from the side of the man on the cross. This is due to the spear--an echo of the pole on which Gautama was impaled in the original Buddhist source.

It is thus, to conclude, clear that one and the same Sanskrit compound was translated and employed in three different manners by three different evangelists.

The evangelists knew the same story and they were, all of them, very much interested in the Sanskrit compound: dvau sukra-bindû sa-rudhire - the two drops of semen (or water) that, mixed with blood, fell to the ground.

The Sanskrit original is not entirely free from obscene connotations. But this is typical of classical Sanskrit literature.

In Mark, Luke and John there are no obscene connotations. This does not necessarily mean that they were motivated by prudishness.

In their version of the Buddhist legend there was no room for the hero to have children.

The unknown authors were very competent in Greek as well as Sanskrit. The three evangelists worked together, comparing their "translations".

It will be easy for the reader to identify the innocent man on the "cross", the man who got away etc. The events took place near Potalas--becoming Pilatos (Peilatos) etc. etc.

Without a good knowledge of Sanskrit--how can one understand New Testament Greek?

NB: This essay could not be published in any theological journal--where there is no room for original Sanskrit sources.

Christian Lindtner
February 11, CE 2010

Capernaum was Kapilavastu--Kingdom of Gods

Capernaum (Kapernaoum, Kapharnaoum) and the synagogue in that town plays exactly the same role in the legend of Jesus as Kapilavastu and the assembly hall in that town plays in the legend of the Buddha, i.e. Sâkyamuni, the Tathâgata.

Capernaum is never mentioned in the Old Testament, and scholars do not agree about its exact location on the map. It is said to have been Jesus´ own city, idia polis, Matthew 9:1, and it is also described as having been located "upon the sea-side", tên parathalassian, Matthew 4:13.

[Matthew (9: ¹And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.]

[Matthew 4: ¹³And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:]

The derivation of Kaper- or Kaphar- -naoum is uncertain. It seems to mean the town or place of Kaper, or Kaphar. But who was he?

In the MSV, p.5--as always our main source along with the Lotus--we read that the Lord Buddha was staying in the Nyâgrodârâme in Kapilavastu. The inhabitants of Kapilavastu--the Sâkyas--are staying in the assembly hall (samsthâgâre) of Kapilavastu. From there they go to the Buddha in the Nyâgrodhârâme (locative case). He teaches them about their past etc.

At some point he goes to Kapilavastu, his home town (his father was king of Kapilavastu). People lack faith, but he converts them by way of miracles.

In the MSV, p. 88, we read that Kapilavastu, the place, or town, vastu (= naoum) of the sage Kapila (= Kaper or Kaphar) was located on the bank of the Ganges river, on the slope of the Himalayas (anu-himavat-pârsve).

Thus the location on the banks of the Ganges on the slope of the Himalayas becomes that of Caernaum upon or along the sea-side.

(It may be added that Sanskrit compounds indicating locations with a preposition as first member are always carefully translated into Greek.)

No wonder scholars have problems locating Capernaum. They have--as so often--been looking at the wrong map!

The Buddha teaching in the assembly hall becomes Jesus teaching in the synagogue. The Greek "in the synagogue", (en) sunagôgê, is a perfect rendering of Sanskrit samsthâgâre, in the assembly hall.

When it is said that Jesus moved from Nazara (Matthew 4:13) to Kapharnaoum, this was the Buddha who came from Nyâgrodha to Kapilavastu.. Here, Nazara (unusual spelling!) reflects the Sanskrit Nyagrodha.

From Matthew 13:53-58 we learn that Jesus came to his own country (more exactly: his paternal country, area) etc., and that he did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief (a-pistia).

[Matthew 13: ⁵³And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.

⁵⁴And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
⁵⁵Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
⁵⁶And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
⁵⁷And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

⁵⁸And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.]

This reflects the celebrated episode in the MSV, p.188, where Buddha (Sâkyamuni) came back to Kapilavstu--his father´s town--where he at first was met with disbelief (Sanskrit a-prasâda). But then he converted them by some miracles (that are also in the NT--the miracles of water and fire)..

Matthew 13:58 is normally translated as a statement such as : " And he did not there work many miracles because of their unbelief."

Now that the Buddhist source has been identified, we can be sure that the phrase can also be translated as a rhetorical question: " And did he not work many miracles there because of their unbelief?"

He surely did!

The centurion in Capernaum mentioned in Matthew 8:5-13 is easily identified as the father of Sâkyamuni in Kapilavastu.

[Matthew 8:5-13

⁵And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
⁶And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
⁷And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
⁸The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
⁹For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
¹⁰When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
¹¹And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
¹²But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
¹³And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.]

In the same pericope, we are informed that some of us shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

This is clearly based on MSV, p. 196, where the Lord teaches in the assembly hall of the gods--the kingdom of heaven. The gods are present: Brahmâ, Sakra and Kuberas and others.

So the Indian god Brahmâ becomes Abrahma, the Indian god Sakra becomes Isaac (Isaak) , and the Indian god Kuberas becomes Jacob, Greek Iakôbos.

The kingdom of god--Sanskrit devas = Greek theos-- was to be found in Kapilavastu.

The Greek term kingdom is perfect--it was the kingdom of Kapilavstu--the father of the Buddha. His father is addressed "deva"--God! Hence Kapilavastu is the kingdom of that God!

The anonymous Buddhist missionaries behind these New Testament passages, we may safely conclude, followed the "Jesuitic" rule prescribed for propaganda in the Lotus: Work secretly, by way of theft (rahasi caurenâpi).

One cannot say that they were not successful!

Christian Lindtner
February 15, CE 2010

SIMEON AND ANNA, ZACHARIAS AND JOHN - Main Buddhist sources of Luke 1-3

It is a great pity that theologians still can publish commentaries on Luke without any reference at all to the Buddhist sources of the initial chapters of that gospel.

Buddhist sources for the Presentation of Jesus in the temple, Luke 2:22-40, have been available and known for a very long time. They were discussed e.g. by Richard Garbe in 1914, and three of my learned friends have again drawn attention to them in more recent books: Kersten, Thundy, Derrett.

There would hardly be any need to draw attention to this issue again had it not been that the MSV contains important new materials that have escaped the notice of all previous scholars.

It will be recalled, that according to Luke, a man called Simeon (Sumeôn) , in the temple in Jerusalem, took up the child, to paidion, in his arms , and predicted that he - after his own passing away - would be a saviour and a light to his people etc.

Also mentioned here is a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanouêl.

The boy "increased in wisdom". The Buddhist sources are found in MSV, I, pp. 46-57:

Asita, a rishi ("seer") and his sister-son (bhâgineya) Nâlada live on a mountain. Here they see the light of the Muni, for when a Bodhisattva is born, the world becomes illuminated by such a light.

(This also explains the star seen by the wise men from the East, Matthew 2: a bodhisattva has been born.)

Later on they go to Kapilavastu, where Asita takes the Bodhisattva in his hands (not arms), and predicts that the light of the world will become a saviour etc., provided he leaves his home at an age of thirty in order to become a monk.

This is important - see below!

We read that the Bodhisattva is endowed with wisdom prajnâ (p. 52).

The father of the Bodhisattva is one of the four kings of the Sâkyas - he is a Sâkya-râjas (nominative), Sâkya-king.

With this in mind it is easy to see how the Buddhist source was "judaized", i.e. combined with extracts from the Old Testament:

Asita and Nâlada are disguised as Jews: Simeon (Sumeôn) and Anna, daughter of Phanouêl.

When Simeon took the child - to pai-di-on - in his arms, it was originally Asita who took the bo-dhi-sat-tva in his hands.

Both of them then express themselves in verses, not in prose.

The rendering of Sanskrit bodhi-sattva(s) is nice: The bodhi becomes paidi, and the Greek to with the final on means "being", which is also the meaning of the Sanskrit sattva.

(This "translation" shows the prajnâ of the translators, see below for the meaning of prajnâ!)

The Sanskrit original, of course, knows nothing at all about a Jewish saviour and light of the world etc.

According to the Buddhist source (p. 54), the Bodhisattva would leave his home at an age of 29 years: ekânnatrimsatko vayasâ grhân nirgamisyati.

That is very significant, for in Luke 3:23 we read that Jesus himself was beginning at about thirty. The word for "was/is beginning", arkhomenos, has caused problems. Some translators have left it out, or translated by "was", or by "he began teaching". But the Greek has nothing about teaching - or anything of that sort.

[Luke 3: ²³And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,]

It has already been observed by theologians that this indication of his age being about thirty is incompatible with the indications given in Luke 1:5 and 2:2, q.v. - The paradox of time is solved once we see that the paradox is a result of combining entirely different sources. Also, it is clear that what Jesus "was beginning" is not to teach, but to leave his home - to become a monk. The Greek, then, means" starting out (from his home)". But Luke was not at all interested in Jesus becoming a Buddhist monk. So he just left his reader asking himself, what Jesus was starting out for.

[Luke 1:⁵THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.]

[Luke 2: ²(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)]

Luke 2:52 ends by writing that the boy increased in wisdom, proekopte sophia.

[ ⁵²And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.]

That is also a very odd statement.

In Matthew 13:54 and Mark 6: 2 the pertinent question is cunningly raised: Where did he get this sophia from?

The answer, we now know, is that he got his sophia from the prajnâ of the Bodhisattva.

This wisdom is a very special kind of wisdom, it is a prajnâ that expresses itself in the analysis of words and syllables, we learn MSV, I. p. 52 (artha-pada-vyanjanam prajnayâ pratividhyati: by wisdom he understands meaning-word-syllable).

Now, what about John - the so-called Baptist, according to Luke 1?

Once again the MSV provides us with the answer:

When the Bodhisattva became a Buddha, the nasty rumour spread that he had died. His father, the Sâkya-râja, of course became very sad. But the rumour turned out to be false, and there was naturally a great relief and joy , Sanskrit ânanda(s).

At this very moment, a son was born to another Sâkya-râja. What will be his name, people asked? Of course, his name would be Ânanda - Joy!

In Luke, Zacharias has a son. People suggest that he, too, be called Zacharias. But Zacharias and his wife, Elisabeth, insist that he be called Iôannês, "John."

In other words: He could have been called Zacharias, but is calle Iôannês.

The Buddhist source is obvious:

Ânandas (nominative) becomes Iôannês. The name Zacharias still would make sense, for Ânandas could - like his cousin, the Buddha (Sâkya-munis) - have become a Sâkya-râja(s) himself.

One must know that Ânanda means joy, to appreciate the pun on "joy" in Luke 1:14. (Greek khara translates Sanskrit ânandas, joy.)

[Luke 1:¹⁴And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.]

But Ânanda did not become a king. He was chosen to become the personal servant of the Buddha - his upasthâyaka(s).

This technical term, upa-sthâyakas in Greek becomes apo-stolos. Much has, of course, been written about the use and meaning of the Greek apostolos. But it has not been noticed before that this noun in some cases is a direct, and very good, translation of the Sanskrit upa-sthâyakas.

What do we learn from all this?

A few buzz words, the general context, and our knowledge of the MSV as a source of the New Testament permit us to conclude that Luke has combined Buddhist and OT sources for writing the intial chapters of his gospel.

The purpose of the two initial chapters is quite obvious: Two of the greatest men in history have been born: Jesus and John the Baptist , who would prepare the way for Jesus.

Luke changed the original names. The Buddhist prince and his servant obtained a new identity: King Jesus and John the Baptist. The Buddhist seers also changed their identity, and so did the original location: Asita and Nâlada in the palace of Kapilavastu became Simêon and Anna in the temple in Jerusalem.

Luke cannot be used as source of what actually took place, but these chapters serve as an excellent specimen of what the phrase "judaized Buddhism" actually means.

Christian Lindtner
February 27, CE 2010

WHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT GOSPELS?

There are still theologians who claim that all that we read in the New Testament is "the word of God". Other theologians, more critical and sceptical , admit that perhaps not all that we read can be ascribed to God himself. Some things - especially silly things - may be due to the evangelists. But who were the evangelists? Or more precisely: Who is responsible for the Greek text of the Gospel according to Matthew, the Gospel according to Mark, etc.?

I here assume that the reader is familiar with modern discussions such as Burton L. Mack, Who wrote the New Testament?, San Francisco 1995; or Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, Oxford 1987 (and later). None of these erudite theologians have come to any conclusion about the identity of Matthew or Mark - to whom I shall here confine my attention.

The reason they have failed to identify Matthew and Mark is extremely simple - they have been looking in the wrong place. If you want to pick apples or flowers, you do not go out in a boat and pick them on the ocean. Likewise, if you want to identify Matthew and Mark, you want to look for them in the Mûlasarvâstvâdavinaya (MSV) - one of the main sources for the New Testament Gospels in general.

The MSV (p. 5) starts out thus: The Sâkyas of Kapilavastu are staying in the assembly hall of Kapilavastu. They would like to hear more about their own origins, and invite the Lord to do so. The Lord, however, does not want to praise himself, and asks his disciple, the Great Maudgalyâyanas to tell the story of their origins. This Maudgalyâyanas is sitting in the assembly. He enters a state of trance, then raises up from that state, and follows the exhortation of the Lord. He then tells the story much like the one that we have now found in the Gospel of Matthew (p. 6).

What he narrates is a sûtram - as if from su-, meaning "good", and uktam", meaning "said, spoken, statement". So, a sûtram can mean a good statement, a good message - a gospel. The Greek eu-aggelion is a synonym, it means: good eu-, and aggelion, message"

Theologians often claim that the euaggelion genre is unique, that there is nothing really comparable in Greek or Hebrew. Sure, but there is something like it in Sanskrit and Pâli. The Greek simply imitates the Sanskrit. As said, Maudgalyâyanas then narrates, and what he narrates can easily be traced in the New Testament Gospels.

I have already pointed out in my book Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, how Matthew 9:9 is a direct translation of the Sanskrit found in MSV, p. 6. Matthew 9:9 runs: "Jesus left that place, and as he walked along he saw a tax collector, named Matthew, sitting in his office. He said to him, "Follow me, " and Matthew got up and followed him".

This is precisely what goes on in the Buddhist source: The venerable Maudgalyâyanas is sitting in the assembly. The Lord, Bhagavân speaks to him and asks him to narrate the story of the origin of the Sâkyas. Maudgalyâyanas gets up from trance (samâdhi) , and follows the exhortation.

The "man named Matthew" is therefore no other than "the venerable Great Maudgalyâyanas". The story narrated by this Matthew is, essentially, the story narrated by this Maudgalyâyanas. When the colophons of the Greek manuscripts describe the text as the "Gospel according to Matthew", what they mean to say is that this text is based on a collection of sûtras - good saings - found in the MSV. The term ev-aggelion, therefore has the same sense as "scripture" graphê, the synonym used by Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 3 & 4.

We do not have to read many pages of the original Gospel according to Matthew - i.e. the MSV - before we meet a man, a very young man, who later became transformed into the evangelist Mark - or Markos (the Greek form). According to an old well-known Christian legend, poor Mark had a crooked finger - he was colobodaktulos, i.e. his finger, or fingers, were short, or maimed. In their usual irresponsible fashion, theologians have speculated what that is supposed to mean. Did he cut off or shorten his fingers to avoid military service? Or does it perhaps mean that his fingers were too short to finish the Gospel transmitted under his name?

The explanation is found on p. 57 of MSV. According to the legend, when the Buddha was still but a young prince, Sanskrit kumâras, he was extremely strong. Thus, there was a golden bowl, and it was so heavy that not even horses could pull it. But KuMâRaS only needed to bend his finger , or fingers, forming them into a hook. With his fingers serving as a hook he was then able to snatch the heavy golden bowl and pull it away. The Sanskrit term for "with his fingers as a hook" is kutilângulikayâ, and it is extremely rare, perhaps only found here. It is formed according to the rules of Sanskrit grammar, and there are in the Buddhist scriptures several other terms formed in the very same way (instrumental case). The compound is a "real" Sanskrit compound.

Likewise, the Greco-Latin term kolobo-daktulos. It, too, is extremely rare, found perhaps only here (and in later passages depending on this passage; for a discussion see e.g. Holger Mosbech, Nytestamentlig Isagogik, Copenhagen 1946, p. 178). The Latin form is colobo-dactylus. The Christian usage clearly depends directly on the Buddhist usage. The Greco-Latin form was fabricated by a person knowing Sanskrit. From KuMâRaS we get MaRKoS. Thus Mark - at least here - was originally no other than Kumâras - the Buddha while still a young prince. This person cannot possibly be held responsible for having written the Greek gospel. We also hear that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. The origin of this legend is from the same passage in the MSV, still p. 57. It is said that the golden bowl was pulled by kumâras with his crooked finger(s). The Sanskrit for the bowl is here pâtrî. This becomes Latin Petri (p-t-r). And when the Latin says that he was interpres , that again is a pun on the Sanskrit pâtrî.

To conclude: Mark was the Buddha as a young prince, and Matthew was one of the disciples of the Buddha - the one who rose and followed the exhortation to tell this and many other legends. The general conclusion is, as always : The Christian gospels are pirate copies of the Buddhist gospels.

I started out by asking the question: Who is responsible for the Greek texts presented to us as the Gospels according to Matthew and Mark? We can be sure that the Greek texts were not written by Maudgalyâyanas or by Kumâras.(The same goes for the Sanskrit - it was not written by Maudgalyâyanas, but about Maudgalyâyanas and about Kumâras.) And since the names of Matthew and Mark are directly derived from the Sanskrit, we can also conclude that these two gospels were not composed or written by these people.

There is also, as often, an element of hidden humour in all this: Sanskrit kutila means "crooked", but also "fishy" Thus the translation kolobo-daktulos suggest that there is something "crooked" or "fishy" about the figure of Mark. There can be no doubt that the "evagelists" enjoyed themselves when they fabricated the "holy scripture"! They enjoyed themselves when they deceived their readers. One is reminded of Julian´s remark that the Christians were motivated by kakourgia - villainy.

According to an early Christian tradition, a certain Pantaenus went to India, where he found a copy of the Gospel according to Matthew (see the discussion in Metzger, op. cit., p. 129 f.). It is reported to have been in Hebrew letters. It was said to have been brought there and left there - in India - by a certain Bar-tholomew. What are we to make of that?

The first piece of information is, as we have seen, quite true: The Gospel of Matthew has its home in India. But what about the second part - the legend of Bartholomew having brought it there?

The answer is simple - provided you know the Buddhist sources. Just like the disciples of Jesus often have more than one name, thus the disciples of Buddha also have more than one name. Maudgalyâyanas also has other names, and one of these is indeed one that can be translated as "son", bar, of thalama.

The early Christian tradition about Pantaenus going to India, where he found the Gospel of Matthew said to have been brought there by Bartholomew, now becomes clear. Matthew and Bartholomew are the same person - the Buddhist Maudgalyâyanas. So what Pantaenus found was the Gospel of Maudgalyâyanas - i.e. the MSV, or parts of it. That should not come as a surprise by now.

When the Buddhist gospels were eventually translated into other Oriental languages, it was the MSV version that was regarded as "canonical". This was the Gospel according to Maudgalyâyanas. And this was what Pantaenus found in India.

Christian Lindtner
April 27, CE 2010

THE SHROUD OF TATHÂGATAS

Good for Pope Benedict XVI - the phony successor of the Buddhist (Sâri-) PuTRaS, alias PeTRoS - that he did not (on May 2, 2010) outright endorse the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, a manifest fake, as known by now. Instead, the Holy Father said something about the Shroud being a "a photographic documentation of the darkest mystery of faith" - i.e., in plain words, a simple hoax.

The legend, of course, goes back to the Gospels, Matthew 27:57-61 par.

[ 57When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
58He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
59And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
61And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.]

Our Roman impostor would be delighted to know - perhaps - that parts of the Christian legend can be traced to a Buddhist source, viz. Mahâparinirvânasûtra (ed. Waldschmidt) 46-49, from which I will here draw attention to a few points only:

1.The body of Bhagavân (Tathâgata) can only be removed once the gods have given their permission.
Hence "the rich man from Arimathea", whose name was Joseph, first has to have the permission of Pilate.
This rich man - Greek anthrôpos plousios - can be identified as the brâhmanas Dhûmrasa-gotras, MPS 51:1-3. Sanskrit brâhmanas becomes Greek anthrôpos,.
Mark and Luke prefer the translation bouleutês., which gives the sense of brâhmanas quite well. -
The Greek apo represents the Sanskrit -gotra ("from the family of"), and Gr. Arimathaias retains all the consonants of Sanskrit Dhumrasa-

2. The body of Bhagavân is wrapped in vihataih karpâsair (instrumental plur., passim), i.e. cotton bandages that are "not beaten".
Hence the body of Jesus is wrapped in sindoni (instrumental case of sindôn), meaning "Indian linen.

[Matthew 27:59 καὶ λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ [ἐν] σινδόνι καθαρᾷ, ]

σινδόνι = sindoni = sindon, cloth of fine linen or silk, used especially for shrouds.

Matthew adds that the Indian linen is "clean" - obviously intended to correspond to the Sanskrit adjective avihatair.

John 19:40 has the variant - also instrumental plural, as in Sanskrit: othoniois, from othonion (a loan word from Semitic), meaning linen bandages..
The motive of John is obvious: he fears the Indian association of sindôn, the Indian linen.

3. The body of Bhagavân is cremated, but the body of Jesus is not cremated - for how, if so , could it appear intact a few days later?

The body of Bhagavân is placed in a coffin with a lid.
The body of Jesus is placed in a grave with a stone serving as "lid".
Hence, the Buddhist source cannot be followed when it comes to cremation. Creamtion would render physical resurrection rather complicated.

The reader who takes the trouble to compare the Greek and the Sanskrit, word by word (while keeping the general context in mind) , will find more instances of the same sort, all of it to the effect that the Gospel has been copied from Buddhist " gospel", the sûtram (as if from su-uktam, well said).

I need not here repeat what has often been said, namely that Matthew and his Buddhist friends often use the MPS as one of their major Buddhist sources for the incredible myths of the NT. The MPS is a part of the MSV, where we also have one of the sources of the Crucifixion etc. etc.

There is a careful comparative study of the MPS published by Ernst Waldschmidt as "Die Überlieferung vom Lebensende des Buddha,I-II", Berlin 1944-1948.- Waldschmidt, however, never refers to the New Testament.

Did Benedict XVI ever study the work of Ernst Waldschimdt? It is known that he supported the publication of a German translation of the Lotus-sûtra, another important source of the Gospels. If so, he must have wondered, for Benedict is a learned man. It would make sense to speak of "the darkest mystery of faith" when we compare MPS with NT.

Christian Lindtner
May 8th, CE 2010

The Rising of the Saints from the Tombs -

Buddhist Lotus source of Matthew 27:51-53

When Jesus gave up his spirit, many odd phenomena occurred. One of these, obviously intended as a sort of evidence for the absurd Christian doctrine of physical resurrection, is mentioned by Matthew 27: 51-53: "...and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many."

The identity of the bodies of these saints who came out of their graves and went into the holy city, has always been somewhat of an embarrassment to even the most naive among modern theologians. One learned Danish theologian - Mogens Müller - suggests that the reference is to the prophets and righteous men of the OT. Another theologian, Donald A. Hagner, admits "that the rising of the saints from the tombs in this passage is a piece of theology set forth as history."

One cannot but smile at the opposition or conflict between theology and history that Hagner here inadvertently expresses. For what he says is simply that Matthew is not speaking the truth. However, the rising of the saints from the tombs is not merely a case

of theology, or myth, but a manifest case of plagiary. We have already seen that "the best and the earliest" evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus, and for Christians in general, has been copied by "Paul" from Buddhist sources- the "more than 500 brethren" etc. (1 Cor. 15)

And when it comes to the saints rising from the tombs, we again have a Buddhist source, namely the celebrated Lotus Sûtra - the Saddharmapundarîkasûtram, still available in Sanskrit as well as Chinese, Tibetan etc. Chapter xiv (in the Sanskrit edition, and English translation of H. Kern; chapter xv in te Chinese version of Kumârajîva; translated by W.E.Soothill) is entitled: "Issuing of the Bodhisattvas from the Gaps of the Earth".

Here are the main points:

The multitude of Bodhisattvas say to the Lord that they would like to read, write, worship and devote themselves to the Lotus. But the Lord replies that this is not necessary, for he already has an enormous number of Bodhisattvas able to do that.

"No sooner had the Lord uttered these words than the Saha-world burst open on every side, and from within the clefts arose many hundred thousand myriads of kotis of Bodhisattvas with gold-coloured bodies...who had been staying in the element of ether underneath this great earth close to this Saha-world. These then on hearing the word of the Lord came up from below the earth...They cannot be numbered, counted, calculated, compared, known by occult science, the Bodhisattvas Mahâsattvas who emerged from the gaps of the earth to appear in the Saha-world. And after they had successively emerged they went up to the Stûpa of precious substances which stood in the sky, where the Lord Prabhûtaratna, the extinct Tathâgata, was seated along with the Lord Sâkyamuni on the throne. Thereafter they saluted the feet of both Tathâgatas, etc., as well as the images of Tathâgatas produced by the Lord Sâkyamuni from his own body..."

From the Chinese version of Kumârajîva:

" When the Buddha has thus spoken, the earth...trembles and quakes and from its midst there issue together innumerable thousands, myriads, kotis of Bodhisattva-Mahâsattvas...These Bodhisattvas, hearing the voice of Sâkyamuni Buddha preaching, spring forth from below... When these Bodhisattvas have emerged from the earth, each goes up to the wonderful Stûpa of the Precious Even (jewels) in the sky, where are the
Tathâgata Abundant-Treasures and Sâkyamuni Buddha."

Conclusion: The saints that issue from the earth are not exactly the prophets etc. of the OT, but the Bodhisattvas of the Lotus. The cry of Jesus up there on the cross, was the cry of the Lord up there in the Stûpa in the sky.

The holy city, to which they went, was the Stûpa up there in the sky. By comparing the original text of the Lotus, the reader will find many more parallels, all of them to the effect, that "Matthew" (who has his name from a famous Buddhist monk) and his consorts copied the Lotus when they fabricated the legend of Jesus, combining, of course, with bits and pieces taken from the OT etc.

In Chapter x of the Lotus, on the Buddhist preacher, the Lord endorses that after his Nirvâna, the Lotus be communicated "in secret or by stealth" (rahasi caurenâpi; Sanskrit ed. Kern, p., 227). This is, as we have now seen, indeed what happened, when "Matthew" plagiarized the legend of the Lotus about the Bodhisattvas that issued from the earth upon the Lord´s cry from the Stûpa in the sky. In the old wooden church of Granhult in Småland (Sweden), there is a naive painting showing the physical resurrection of the Bodhisattvas.

Christian readers will, in the interest of historical truth, be happy to know that all the alleged witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, are , in fact Buddhist witnesses. Should they not be happy about that, there is some consolation to be had from yet another fact, namely that all the Buddhist witnesses are, themselves, also not fact but myth, or fabrications of vivid Buddhist imagination.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
May 19th, CE 2010

The five thousand of Matthew 14:21 par.

Our source criticism has already demonstrated that the more than five hundred brothers of 1 Corinthians 15:6 were invented by combining two different Buddhist sources: one that spoke of five hundred Buddhist monks present at the cremation of the body of Tathâgata, and one that spoke of the more than five hundred laymen that had recently passed away.

But what, then, about the 5000 men, beside women and children, mentioned by Matthew 14:21? And what about the five loaves and that which remained over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full?

To find the answer, we must identify the source, and the source is to be found in the second chapter of the Lotus - the Saddharmapundarîkasûtram (SDP). I here refer to the translation of H. Kern.

The assembly of the Lord consists, on the one hand, of twelve hundred Arhats headed by Âjnâta-Kaundinya (head of the group of the first five disciples) (Kern, p. 34) and, on the other hand, of five thousand proud monks, nuns, and lay devotees of both sexes (p. 38; repeated on p. 44). The five thousand men and women leave the assembly, and the twelve hundred, headed by the five, are thus left behind in the assembly. With this image in mind, it is easy to see how Matthew, Mark and Luke handled their Buddhist source, i.e., in this case, the SDP.

In Matthew 14:15 the disciples wanted to send the multitudes away. In the SDP the five thousand proud monks and nuns actually did leave the assembly. Once they had left the assembly, , that which remained over of the broken pieces, were "twelve baskets full" The twelve hundred Buddhist disciples have thus been transformed into twelve baskets full.

The five Buddhist disciples (Âjnâta-Kaundinya and the other four) are transformed into five loaves. According to Mark 6:43-44, the men that ate the loaves were five thousand. The Lord sends them away (Mark 6:45).

Luke 6:15 has the curious remark, that they wish to make Jesus a king, but that he withdrew. The backgroud for this is again the same chapter of the Lotus (Kern, p. 58), where the Lord says: "I declare that I am the king of the law (dharmarâja); I am urging others to enlightenment, but I am here without disciples."

The Lotus repeatedly sanctions the employment of symbolic or code language (Kern, p. 59): "They have spoken in many mysteries; hence it is difficult to understand (them). Therefore try to understand the mystery (sandhâ; sandhâya etc.) of the Buddhas, the holy masters of the world;forsake all doubt and uncertainty: you shall become Buddhas; rejoice!" Only insiders, i.e. the closest disciples know the code.

The modern reader of the feeding of the five thousand is, of course, left deeply mystified.

That he is left mystified is according to the book, i.e. in accordance with the message of the SDP. To solve the mystery, one must identify the source.

The two fish that are eaten but still survive has another obvious Buddhist source to which I shall come back later. (Pieces of flesh of two fish are eaten, but the fish survive, and the next day the two fish provide yet another meal etc. etc.) Mark 6:39-40 is significant for the distributive compounds "sumposia-sumposia" and the "prasiai-prasiai", only to be found here. They are often translated by "into groups" and "in rows".
It is a great pity that our New Testament grammars have failed to identify them as Sanskritisms: samghât samgham...pûgât pûgam ( from the MPS, passim, cf. my paper "Some Sanskritisms in the New Testament Gospels", in The Adyar Library Bulletin 65 (2001)). It shows that Mark now and then used the Buddhist source independently.

The rule that allows the combination of corresponding significant numbers - e.g. 40 days with 40 years - is, as known, sanctioned by traditional rabbinical hermeneutics (see e.g. Hermann L. Strack, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrash, München 1921, p. 107, with ref.).

Dr. Christian Lindtner
June 7th, CE 2010

Rosaries and Catacombs - and the Pope's Tiara

One of the most obvious cases of Buddhist influence on early Christian cult is provided by the Rosary - Latin: rosarium. Typically, the Buddhist rosary consists of 108 beads. Burmese monks are known to have used rosaries consisting of 72 beads, i.e. 2/3 of 108. Sikhs also use strings with 108 beads for prayer, and so did the ancient followers of Vishnu., who, perhaps, influenced the Buddhists. Among some Muslims the number is normally 99. The original Catholic Rosary also consisted of 108 beads (ten decades for Ave Maria, and eight units for Pater Noster)

But why is the rosary called a rosary - a rosarium? Where do the roses come in?

The correct explanation, it seems, was first given by the German Indologist, A.F. Weber (1825-1901). To understand the Latin term one must first identify the original Sanskrit:

The Sanskrit is japa-mâlâ, i.e. a string or garland, mâlâ, for prayer, japa-. This compound noun is well-attested in Sanskrit. If a small change is made, we arrive at japâ-mâlâ (with the long a = â), which is an entirely different story. Sanskrit japâ- means a "rose", which has nothing at all to do with japa, which, as said, means "prayer" or , more precisely, "mumbling". It is therefore obvious that the Latin rosarium is a translation of the Sanskrit japâ-mâlâ - not of the "correct" japa-mâlâ. This does not mean that those who coined the Latin rosarium simply misunderstood the Sanskrit japa-mâlâ. Perhaps they simply found the Sanskrit japâ-mâlâ more "poetical", more charming.

In any case, the original meaning of the rosarium is only clear when the Sanskrit japa-/japâ-mâlâ be kept in mind. It is easy to see that the translation would not work in the opposite direction: from Latin rosarium there is a straight way back to japâ-mâlâ, but not to japa-mâlâ. Weber, it seems, took japâ to be a misunderstanding of japa. But, as said, that is probably not the case. We are rather, as so often in the field of comparative gospel studies, dealing with deliberate distortions, or "funny translations". I have already, passim, pointed out numerous such cases of "deliberate misunderstandings".

Coming back to the number of beads, it is known that the figure 108 is important for the Buddhists in many ways. For instance, the fundamental Sanskrit version of the Middle Path (madhyamâ pratipad) consists of exactly 4 x 27, or 108 words etc. etc. The number 108 is, moreover, often found in the number of words or syllables of a given textual unit in the Greek New Testament. The number 108 thus links up early Christianity with Indian Buddhism in more than one way. It is a Buddhist "fingerprint".

More examples of early Christian cult being influenced by Buddhism will be found in the learned book of Richard Garbe: Indien und das Christentum. Eine Untersuchung der religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhänge, Tübingen 1914 (reprinted, with a new Foreword, by Lühe-Verlag, Süderbrarup 2004), pp. 117- 127. Let me add to Garbe´s observations by pointing to the noun "catacomb", the meaning of which is as clear as the etymology is unclear. The Latin cata-cumba is sometimes explained as formed by dissimilation from Latin cata tumbas, which , again, is supposed to be from the Greek kata, "down", and tumbas, acc.plur. of Late Latin tumba, "grave. tomb". I suggest that we rather have to look for Sanskrit caitya-kumbhas. The Sanskrit caitya- means a "tomb", and kumbhas is common Buddhist usage for a pot or urn (e.g. in the MPS).

The Catacombs, the underground cemeteries in or around Rome used by the early Christians, thus derived their name from Sanskrit caitya-kumbhâs (nom. plural), "tomb-urns". This hypothesis does, of course, not exclude that the Sanskrit, later on, was assimilated to a Greek-Latin compound - kata-tumbas, or catacumba(s). At that point, as natural, the Sanskrit original had been forgotten. The Latin-Greek compound sounds, to my ear, like yet another "funny translation".

A funny translation, for sure, is involved when we finally look at the tiara, the Pope´s triple crown. The Greek is tiara, and the Oriental origin is generally assumed - the ancient Persian headdress. I imagine that Garbe was right (op. cit., p. 117) when he pointed out that the etymology has to be found in Sanskrit (and Pâli) cîvaram, the Buddhist mendicant´s dress. But let us not cause offense to the Holy Father by following this historical trace further! Or is there really any good cause for offense on papal part? After all, the first Pope, PeTRoS, was no other that PuTRaS, the first disciple, known to all Buddhists as Sâri-¨putras. He, too, wore his cîvaram - but, true, not on the top of his head!

Dr. Christian Lindtner

September 27th, CE 2010.

The Mysterious Comforter (paraklêtos) of John

Once the MPS (part of the Mûlasarvâstivâdavinaya, MSV) and the Lotus (SDP) have been identified as the two main Buddhist sources of the four New Testament gospels, it is not difficult to identify the original behind the "mysterious" Comforter", or para-klêtos, mentioned by John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7; and 1 John 2:1.

From these New Testament passages we learn that Jesus promises his disciples that his father, God, will give them another paraklêtos; that he, Jesus, will send to them from the Father, God, and that the paraklêtos will come only after the departure of Jesus.

In 1 John 2:1 this mysterious paraklêtos is identified with Jesus Christ, being with the Father. The other gospels do not mention the paraklêtos. This is all we have. The Latin is either paraclitus, which is not helpful, or advocatus, misleading, as will be seen. The Buddhist source is obvious - it is MPS 41.2 (ed. Waldschmidt, Berlin 1951, p. 386). The Lord Buddha comforts the monks by saying that once he has passed away there will be another teacher, or refuge (nihsaranam).

This teacher or refuge is the Prâti-moksas, that the Lord has pointed out to the monks twice a month. The Prâtimoksas is the name of the set of rules or precepts Buddhist monks have to follow. Buddhist scholars, for various reasons (style, language etc.) , agree that the Prâtimoksas belongs to the early strata of Buddhist literature. The etymology of the noun Prâti-moksas (Pâli pâtimokkha) is unclear. The usual Tibetan translation is so sor thar pa, suggesting "individual release".

The meaning of the term is, however, clear from the context: Normally, the Lord is the teacher who gives the rules etc. for monks (and, later, nuns) to abide by. Once the person, the Lord as a teacher is no longer there, the set of rules will serve as replacement, as substitute.

John 14:15 confirms that the para-klêtos has to do with "rules", entolas (acc. plur.). Now, the New Testament gospels are not addressed to Buddhist monks, but to common people, Jews etc., in general - lucky people, poor in spirit, who will win the kongdom of god, or heaven (i.e. the Christian nirvânam). Thus it would be quite wrong to expect a Greek version of the entire Prâtimoksas. The term para-klêtos thus necessarily becomes vague, or general, compared to the strict set of regulations and precepts that are so characteristic of the Buddhist Prâtimoksas in its numerous recensions.

In the Sermon on the Mount there are several echoes of the Prâtimoksas, to which I shall come back elsewhere. English translations include "Helper", "Comforter", etc., but thanks to the Buddhist original we see that "Replacement", "Substitute" comes closer to the meaning intended in both sources. This, again, may be helpful for understanding the original meaning of the term Prâti-moksas. Sanskrit prati not only has a distributive sense ("individual", as the Tibetan so sor has it), but can also mean "instead of". Along with a noun for a "nose", for instance, it comes to mean "an artificial nose" - a new nose (artificial) instead of the old (natural) one. Sanskrit moksas surely means "liberation, release". In a compound with prati becoming prâti, it acquires the sense of a release instead of the normal one - the one provided by the Lord as a teacher of precepts.

The Prâtimoksas thus comes to carry the sense of a body of precepts serving as a teacher of liberation when the real teacher has passed into final nirvânam. Sanskrit Prâti-moksas, just as Greek para-klêtos, thus means "the personification of the precepts as a teacher replacing the real one once he has passed away". In other words¨- The Preceptor (to retain the masculine noun) serving as a substitute, or Replacement, for the original one.

Actually, the basic idea is quite simple, and fundamental to the Lotus: The sûtram contains the words of the Lord. Once the Lord has passed away, we are left with his words in the sûtram. The sûtram thus embodies the Lord. The cult of the Lord is replaced by thge cult of the sûtram. The cult of the sûtram finds its culmination in the recitation of the title of the sûtram. This why there are so many puns of the title of the Lotus - as I have already pointed out in my book Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus.

I need not add that just as one can conceive Christianity without the mysterious para-klêtos, thus one cannot conceive (early) Buddhism without Prâti-moksas. In other words: New Testament must here have been influenced by Buddhism - not the other way around. So the identifiaction of the paraklêtos is also important for the problem of relative chronology.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
September 17th, CE 2010

The Middle Path of Matthew 5:3-10

It must be due to simple ignorance that scholars have overlooked the obvious fact that the eight Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3-10 are based on the eight virtues (or dharmas) that lead to Nirvâna. The Sermon on the Middle Path (MP) leading to Nirvâna was the first major sermon given to the five disciples of Tathâgata, just as the Sermon on the eight "beatitudes" leading to the kingdom of Heaven, ouranos. Heaven, was the main topic of the first sermon addressed by Jesus to his disciples surrounded by five groups of people. The setting is thus exactly the same: The Lord was speaking about eight virtues, factors or circumstances leading to the same goal. Once again, Jesus therefore is a Tathâgata in disguise, and, as usual, the authors of the gospels did their job by way of deception. Whether one likes it or not, the New Testament gospels are plagiary, or pirate copies. (This genre was not uncommon in those days, cf. e.g. Eduard Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur, Leipzig 1912/1990.)

Let us first have a brief look at Matthew 5:3-10 from a more formal point of view. It consists of two numerically equal units: 3-6 consist of 18+18 = 36 words. Here, verses 3-4 consist of 12+6 words, and verses 5-6 of 8+10 words, i.e. 2 x 18 words. In the second part, verses 7-8 consist of 6 + 10 words, whereas verses 9-10 consist of 8 + 12 words, giving us again the sum of 2 x 18 = 36. It is quite obvious that here, as always, Matthew carefully counted the words. Matthew also counted the syllables: The first part consists of exactly 90 syllables, or 5 x18 syllables. The second part, verses 7-10, consists of 98 syllables, or 5 x 18, with an extra 8 syllables, perhaps intended to correspond to the number of beatitudes. The ratio of syllables and words is 188:72, which is 2.61111...(this ratio is highly revealing, see below!) His Buddhist source (SBV, ed. Gnoli, p. 134) also counted the number of words and syllables in the same fashion: The Buddhist text on the MP in its Sanskrit version shows the same geometrical structure or pattern. It consists of a total of 108 words, neatly arranged in four units each consisting of exactly 27 words. The author of the Sanskrit MP likewise counted the number of syllables (and even letters!) , which of course goes to confirm the gematria (textual geometry) of the words. One level thus supports another. The mutuality excludes sheer coincidence. With his 2 x 36 = 72 words, Matthew thus represents two thirds of the original 108 words of the Sanskrit MP text. The figure 108 is, as known a "holy number" for Christians as well as Buddhists. It occurs in various contexts, and is ultimately based on the pentagon or pentagram, characterized by the angles that measure 108 degrees. The pentagon or pentagram represents the divine proportion, as known. Coming back to the ratio 188:72 in Matthew, we now see that the divine proportion is involved , for 72 x 1.618.. gives us 116.496, and 116.496 x 1.618 gives us 188.490... The round number 188 was the number of syllables in Matthew 5:3-10. Matthew thus conceived 5:3-10 as a unit with the divine proportion (1.618..) as his rod of measure. In the Sanskrit version of the MP, the Tathâgata addresses the five monks, or rather, to be precise, the monks belonging to a group of five. The Sanskrit word is pancakân - an obvious pun on Greek pentagon.

In the Sanskrit MP the divine proportion is also repeatedly reflected in the ratio of words and syllables.

Let us then have a brief look at the contents of the Beatitudes in relation to their Buddhist source: Paying attention to textual symmetry, Matthew starts (v.3) and ends (v. 10) with the statement that the disciples are "happy" - makarioi - BECAUSE they have or posses the Kingdom of Heaven - hê basileia tôn ouranôn. There is thus a causal relationship, not very clearly articulated, between being makarios and having the basileia tôn ouranôn. The reason is introduced twice with hoti autôn, six times by hoti autoi.
It is clear that the Kingdom of Heaven somehow replaces the Buddhist idea of Nirvâna.

In other words, when "Matthew" translated the Sanskrit word Nirvânam, he chose, first, basileia tôn ouranôn. We here have to look closer at the noun ouranôn, in the genitive plural. Interestingly, the Buddhists themselves faced problems with understanding the term Nirvâna(m), and this we must keep in mind. Sometimes it was taken as pointing to a peaceful state of mind, without any passions or worldy concepts. Sometimes it was taken as indicating a place that could not be grasped or pointed out etc. (See e.g. my book Master of Wisdom, pp. 320-322.) There was nothing to prevent the Buddhist monks from splitting Nirvânam up: nir-vânam, as if meaning meaning NO vânam. Such "funny etymologies" , nirukti, are quite common in Buddhist Sanskrit texts, and were imitated by the New Testament Gospels. This is how the Greek ouranos was chosen - ou-ranos, meaning NO ranôn (Greek -ranôn thus = Sanskrit -vânam). Many similar examples will be found in the Prajnâpâramitâ. (Compare also Sanskrit gani-kâ, coutesan becoming a certain woman, gunê tis.)

Among the Buddhists the term Nirvânam always carries a connotation of peace.
To reproduce this idea, Matthew 5:9 chose the Greek noun eirêno-poios. This is the only place in the New Testament where it occurs. He must have had a special reason for introducing it. One modern translation says: " Happy are those who work for peace among men" - but such an understanding misses the point completely. The Sanskrit behind eirênopoioi (masc. plural) must be the term nirodha-gâminî, which is an adjective to pratipad, path, more or less a synonym of mârga(s), way, path. Here, nirodha- is a synonym of nirvâna-. It means "leading to Nirvâna/nirodha. So, the idea is that the makarioi are happy in the sense that they bring about peace (of mind) for themselves. This means that they ascend to heaven. Once they are in heaven, they are known as deva-putras, sons of god, or god-sons. And only then does one understand why Matthew 5:9 introduces the term huioi theou - sons of god. The Greek huios theou is an exact rendering of Sanskrit deva-putras, son (putras) of deva, which means god (devas = Lat. deus = Greek theos). The idea that the disciples of Jesus may become "sons of god" makes little sense in the context of the NT, or even in the context of Christianity in general. It does, however, make perfect sense in the original Buddhist context, where there are numerous sons of god (as among the Greeks). When Tathâgata passed into final Nirvâna, his "precious body" somehow went up to the world of Brahmâ - and that world was inhabited by numerous deva-putras. Four of them were even present at his birth (Gnoli, p. 42). Matthew (5:6 and 10) also mentions the term dikaiosunê, which can only be a translation of the Sanskrit dharma(s). From the bilingual Indo-Greek coins we know that the Sanskrit adjective dharmikas (var. spellings) is rendered by dikaios etc. In Matthew 7:28, the sermon as a whole is described as a didakhê, which, again can only be Sanskrit desanâ. Likewise, the MP belongs to a group of teachings described as a dharma-desanâ. The dharma-desanâ of Tathâgata is thus know to all Christians in the disguise of the didakhê dikaiosunês of Jesus - the false Tathâgata.

To conclude for now: I am, of course, not claiming that the Sanskrit MP is the only source of the Eight Beatitudes of Matthew. There are, as known, also Jewish sources. There are beatitudes in the OT, and there are beatitudes from Qumran (4Q525). They can easily be looked up. In the Qumran fragments it is Wisdom, sophia, that is praised for bringing about beatitude. That, of course, is a typical Buddhist idea - prajnâ or jnâna bringing about Nirvânam. To some extent the terms are synonyms. (This suggests that Qumran also has the same Buddhist MP source!) One of the most embarrassing problems facing modern theologians is the fact that they cannot locate the mountain on which Jesus is supposed to have given his famous sermon. This has even led some to speak of a "theological mountain" - which must mean a purely imaginary mountain. How can a man - even Jesus - stand on a mountain that is not on the map! Of course, Matthew would not want to mention the name of the mountain! The true mountain, source criticism now informs us, is to be located in ancient Benares (Vârânasî - Rishivadana).

Yet another observation. If we take Matthew 5:11 into account, we arrive at nine beatitudes. The disciples will be persecuted, like prophets before them, says Jesus.

There is also a Buddhist background for this, and it is reflected here in Matthew:

Among those who listen to Tathâgata, some are positive, others negative. Those who reject the Aryans (= Buddhists) will, after their passing away, turn up in hell among the inhabitans of hell.(Very nicely, Sanskrit nârakas becomes Greek nekros.) Those having a correct view of the Aryans, will turn up among the gods (deva) in the world of Heaven - svarga-loka (Gnoli, p. 118, 158 etc.). The technical phrase âryânâm apavâdakâh, eight syllables, is rendered by Matthew 5:11 as kai eipôsin pan ponêron, also eight syllables.

For the Buddhist source of such warnings of the Lord, one also has to turn to the Lotus. If one collects the various passages on persecution in the NT, it will be seen that nearly all of them can be traced back to the Saddharmapundarîkasûtram - the Lotus or SDP.

Jesus, in other words, was speaking to Buddhist missionaries actively propagating the Dharma-desanâ among the Jews. But also, as just pointed out (Gnoli, p. 118, p. 158), to those who as âryânâm anapavâdakâh svargaloke devesûpapadyante. So, as usual, Matthew combines several Buddhist and Jewish sources.

Let me finally come back to 108 - the holy number of the Buddhists. As pointed out, Matthew 5:3-10 consists of 72 words, or two thirds of 108, the number of words in the Sanskrit MP (Gnoli, p. 134). But our story does not end here. Matthew 5: 11 consists of 16 words, and 5:12, the final verse, consists of 19 words, adding up to 35 words for these two final verses. Adding 72 and 35 we arrive at a total of 107 words - whereas we would expect a total of 108 words. It is thus not quite impossible that the textus receptus of Matthew (Nestle-Aland etc.) has to be emended accordingly. However, I think that the number 107 (rather than the expected 108) was intended by Matthew. By letting this textual unit consist of 107 words he managed to place three words right in the middle, viz. makarioi hoi eirênopoioi (verse 5:9a) - happy are those who bring about eirênê- where eirênê therefore translates the nirvânam of his Buddhist source. There is special focus on the word eirênê, since it is the first word in the second half of the textual unit of 107 words. Matthew is saying: Look at the word eirênê! So we have two different words for the goal of the Buddhist path - first heaven, then peace. This technique of drawing special attention to a fundamental idea of a given textual unit was also used by Luke.

Thus, H.J. de Jonge made the important observation that in Luke 2:41-51a, a pericope of exactly 170 words, the word "in the middle", mesô (in v. 46) is the 85th word, and the phrase "in the middle of the teachers", en mesô tôn didaskalôn, therefore forms the mathematical centre of the pericope. (See, M.J.J. Menken, Numerical literary techniques in John, Leiden 1985, p. 18 for ref.). Buddhist texts on dharma, as said, make a distinction between two ideals - that of nirvânam, and that of a pleasant rebirth in heaven, svargas.

This distinction is reflected in Matthew when he uses the two terms eirênê and ouranos. Both are obtained by the practice of dharma - Greek dikaiosunê.

For long, I was unsure about the Sanskrit original behind the Greek makarios. One could think of kalyânas, sukhin, tustas etc. There are many synonyms. But we must stick to the context in question. Matthew mentions makarioi eight (+ one) times. He places it right in the middle along with the Buddhist eirênopoioi, as pointed out above.

In the Buddhist MP text only one word appears eight times - namely samyag/samyak, the "correct" view, speech etc. Obviously, the eight Buddhist samyak-s become the eight Christian makarioi. The original consonants are retained: S-M-K. The eight happy ones of Jesus were thus originally the eight correct modes of behaviour of Tathâgata. By following this eight-fold path one arrives at Nirvâna or svarga - eirênê or ouranos. (For more on the "Christian Nirvâna", cf. Erich Dinkler, EIRENE: Der urchristliche Friedensgedanke, Heidelberg 1973. Buddhist influence is not limited to the NT.) This was the topic of the first sermon of Tathâgata aka Jesus. The sermon took place on a mountain near Benares - the "theological mountain" of Christian theologians. It was the first dharma-desanâ of the mythical Jesus. What he had to say was something he had somehow discovered or experienced at the river - Matthew 3:15. Exactly as the Bodhisat(t)va discoved his Dharma at the river.

Jesus never really makes it clear, WHERE, on the map, this odd kingdom of heaven (or of god) is to be located. But I have already pointed out elsewhere, that the kingdom of heaven must have been Kapilavastu, where Tathâgata spoke to Brahmâ, Sakra(s), Kubera(s) and the other sons of god. They appear in the disguise of Abraham, Isaak and Iakôbos in Matthew 8:11 (Gnoli, p. 196). And in the New Testament Kapila-vastu appears as Kaphar-naoum, Matthew 8:5 etc. We now also understand why the New Testament speaks not only only of Heaven, but also of the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Kingdom of God, to the same effect. Tathâgata was the son of the king of Kapilavastu. This king was addressed as "deva", "king". The Kingdom of God is therefore the kingdom of the king of Kapilavastu, the father of Sâkyamuni(s), or Tathâgata(s), the ksatriyas (= ho khristos). At the same time, Kapilavastu is surely a mythical kingdom, located on the slopes of the Himalaya mountains. It is up there in the sky, almost in heaven. So, what Jesus is saying is that his disciples will be happy when the end up in the mythical kingdom of Kapilavastu along with the other devaputra-s. In this way he is using skilful means, upâya-kausalyam, even "tricks", to convert common people to the Dharma. For the same reason, of course, he charges his disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ , Matthew 16:20. But as historians we conclude: The first part of the Sermon on the Mount is, therefore the New Testament version of the Middle Path. Buddhist Nirvâna is found in the very middle.

Dr. Christian LindtnerSeptember 2nd, CE 2010

The Anointing at Bethany - Matthew 26:6-13 par

When the authors of the New Testament gospels composed their work, they did so by combining bits and pieces meticulously compiled from different sources in different languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin and - above all - Sanskrit. In so doing they followed certain rules - the so-called middoth cherished by learned rabbis - even to this day. Here and there they had to add a few words of their own, e.g. conjunctions such as kai, "and". But even indications of time and place were copied directly from Buddhist sources. They always carefully counted the number of words and syllables, reflecting their deep interest in gematria. The Buddhists shared this interest in gematria, and the background is, of course, Greek. Already in the OT we see that the Septuaginta is based on Greek textual geômetria - from which we have gematria.

Nearly all the motives found in the New Testament gospels can be found in other ancient sources - healings, walking on water, flying in the air, resurrection from the dead etc. etc. Scholars have already long ago traced most of these to Buddhist, Egyptian, Greek and other sources etc. In spite of its age, Carl Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments, Giessen 1924 (repr. 1973) still provides a qualified discussion of most of the parallels.

Our task as philologists is clear: We want to look over the shoulders of "Matthew" and his colleagues as they were sitting there in their workshop at the table compiling and pasting together bits and pieces from various sources, as said, in various languages.

The Hebrew sources have been collected by Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck in their indispensable Kommentar zum Neuen Testament; and for the classical sources we have the Old and the New Wettstein - as far as it goes. Wettstein, when he published his Novum Testamentum Graecum, Amsterdam 1751/52, collected about 30000 parallels from Greek and Latin authors. Der neue Wettstein, which is being published by Udo Schnelle and Manfred Labahn in Halle continues this important work. The first volume, being a commentary on Mark, presents about 1300 texts from Hellenistic authors. The rules according to which the New Testament gospels were fabricated may be found in Hermann L: Strack´s book:
Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, New York 1959. What is stilled needed to complete the picture of the New Testament sources is a set of reference volumes collecting the Buddhist sources of the NT.

It goes without saying that it follows from source criticism that Jesus, the hero of our story, is a literary figure, like Donald Duck, not at all a historical person, like Augustus.

The episode of the Anointing at Bethany is reported by all four evangelists, with significant variants: Matthew 25:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50, and John 12:1-8.

The Lord is staying in a house in Bethany (not mentioned by Luke). A certain woman, a sinner (hamartôlos) comes to him with an alabaster jar filled with an expensive perfume (muron barutimon), which she then pours on his head etc. The motive of a woman bringing precious perfume to the Lord so that its fragrance spreads all over town, has been taken from another Buddhist text, closely related, in fact, to the MPS, the Avadânasatakam (see H.W. Schomerus, Ist die Bibel von Indien abhängig?, München 1932, p. 172). Here the woman with the sandal salve falls down at the feet of the Lord, and prays that she will be reborn as a man. The motive of the fragrance that spreads all over town has left its scent in John 12:3:" The sweet smell of the perfume filled the whole house."

But the main Buddhist source is, as so often, the Mahâparinirvânasûtram 12:4 par. (ed. Waldschmidt, Berlin 1951, p. 188). Here it is the famous courtesan (ganikâ) Âmrapâli who comes and serves a meal to the Lord and his disciples, the monks. The food, with which she serves them, is described as sucinâ pra-nîtena (instrumental case). She serves it "with her own hand".

Matthew speaks of a muron that is barutimon - a perfume (oil) that is very precious. Mark speaks of a muron (made) of nard that is pure (and) very expensive. Luke only mentions the perfume, muron. John has a muron of nard that is pistikê and polutimos. The nard, also mentioned by Pliny et al., is the name of an Indian plant used for perfume (Nardus spica Valeriana; Sanskrit naladam). The Sanskrit pra-nîtena (four syllables) is rendered by baru-timon (Matthew) , by polu-telês (Mark), and by poly-timos (John) - three variant renderings, equally valid, of one and the same original Sanskrit adjective.

It should be noted that the Sanskrit combines the two adjectives without a word for "and". The Greek of Mark and John imitates the asyndeton. The rare pistikos, only given by Mark and John, is a perfect rendering of Sanskrit sucinâ (instrumental case of suci-). In normal Greek pistikos means "reliable, trustworthy". The context suggests "pure" - which is confirmed by the Sanskrit original, which, in fact, simply means "pure".

This all goes to show that Mark and John used the same source as Matthew, but also that they used it independently. In particular, they all struggled with the Sanskrit adjective pra-nîtas (mask. nom.). They offered three different versions, Luke left it out.

There are, moreover, several puns on the name of the celebrated courtesan from Vaisâlî(later becoming Vézelay of Mary Magdalene in France!) , Âmra-pâli-ganikâ:

1. The murou in all four evangelists, has a pun on âmra.

2. The gunê hê-tis, a certain woman, in Luke contains a pun on gani-kâ (where -kâ is taken as if a pronoun, still acc. to middoth). - Luke´s en tê polei hamartôlos, in the town, is clearly an echo of -pâli and âmra-pâli(s) - with t for p in - tôlos.

3. The apôleia in Matthew and Mark is yet another pun on her name.

When John mentions Lazaros, this name is a pun on Licchavis, with whom Âmrapâli is explicitly associated. John is also the only evangelist here to identify the woman as Mariam - i.e. as Âmram (accusative form), the "Mango girl".

According to Jesus, the woman poured perfume over his body in order to prepare it for burial ahead of time. That is, of course, a ridiculous explanation for her odd behaviour, but it shows nicely what kind of paradoxes one can run into when combining several different sources as the evangelists did here, as elsewhere.

But for the oil in connection with the burial - or rather: cremation - of the Lord, they again used the same Buddhist source - the Mahâparinirvânasûtram. The same source also has the Lord explain to his disciples how they have to prepare for his cremation. Since episodes from the MPS are attested in Buddhist art dating from B.C., there can - if only for this reason - be no doubt about the priority of the sources. As I have already pointed out, the 46 syllables of Luke 10:38 were also based on the same source, Mahâparinirvânasûtram 10:3 = 11:1 and 15:4 - cf. my Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, p. 111 for some details.

John 12:6 mentions the thief and the rare glôssokomon, far too freely translated as "money bag". This refers to the evil monk who, during the last meal of the Lord, stole a loha-karotakam, a bowl of copper (or gold, or iron), as mentioned in MPS 26:16. John´s explanation of the behaviour of the thief is different. He, the traitor, wants to sell the salve so that he can steal the (ridicously) large amount of money it brings. In the Buddhist original the monk steals the bowl because he is an evil monk. In the Buddhist original the theif becomes a traitor by stealing. In John he alrady is a traitor, who also wants to steal.

It is a great pity that authors still publish books about Mary Magdalene, passing over the direct Buddhist sources as if they did not exist (cf. e.g. Margaret Starbird, Magdalene´s Lost Legacy. Symbolic Numbers and the sacred Union in Christianity, Rochester, Vermont 2003). Please note that some of the observations here made, were first published in The Adyar Library Bulletin 64 (2000), pp. 151-170. A few repetitions were unavoidable.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
August 11th, CE 2010

Solving the unsolved question of Matthew 22:41- 46

All Buddhists and Buddhologists are familiar with the curious fact that the Buddha, according to the scriptures, left certain questions unsolved, undecided or unanswered, e.g. - is the world eternal or is it not eternal? etc. The reason for his silence could, in theory, be that he considered such questions irrelevant to salvation or tedious, or that he simply did not know the answer. Such questions, dogmas or issues (vastu) are termed avyâkrita in Sanskrit, or avyâkata in Pâli. (For references please see e.g. V. Trenckner et al. (eds.); A Critical Pâli Dictionary, Vol. I, Copenhagen 1944, p. 484.)

Matthew 22:41-46 provides an important example of a question raised by the Lord, but in this case neither he himself nor his opponents come up with an answer. Moreover, modern scholars have failed to come up with a satisfactory answer to the question posed.

Here, then, we have a nice case of an ayvâkrta-vastu in the NT. It will, therefore, not be superfluous for me to offer a solution to the old unsolved question raised by Jesus according to Matthew 22:41-46.

The question is: How can Christ be son and lord of David - i.e. at the same time? A slight paraphrase will make the paradox more clear: how can Bob be the father and the son of Bill at the same time? Hard to say!

No wonder, then, that "from that day on no one dared ask him any more questions" (Matthew 22:46). No one was able to answer - apo-krithênai (pun on Sanskrit avyâkritâni, nom. plur.- !). But there is an answer, and the answer is quite simple - provided one knows where to look for it.

Jesus, also known as Christ, as Emmanouêl, the Son of David , the Lord etc. knew the answer, but did not tell: The answer is to be found at the level of gematria, or textual geometry: The number of Christ, Khristos is 1480. The number of son, huios, is 680, and the number of Lord, kurios, is 800. So, since 680 + 800 add up to 1480, he is the Christ, for Khristos is also 1480. So Christ is son and lord, for 1480 is 1480.

But there is more: Jesus, or Christ, is said to be son of David, huios Daueid = 1224. He is also said to be lord of David, kurios Daueid = 1104.

Next step: 1224 and 1104 add up to 2328. As known, Khristos translates Messias, which is 656. The Messias is thus 70 + 656 = 726. He is also to be called Emmanuel, or Emmanouêl (Matthew 1:23), and ho Emmanouêl gives us 70+644 = 714. When we add 726 and 714, we arrive at 1440.

Together with 888 for Jesus (familiar to most early Christians), we get 2328 (888+1440). In other words 2328 = Son of David (and) Lord of David = Jesus, the Emmanuel, the Messias.

Moreover, 2328 is the number of 1480 and 848, which is king, Greek basileus.

Thus the number 2328 provides the geometrical proof that: Christ is the son and the Lord of David, that Jesus or Emmanuel is the Messias, and that Christ is a king - i.e. a king of the Jews, or of Israel, of course.

We may take yet another step: It has been shown that Christ is Lord, or the Lord, ho kurios = 870. Subtracting 870 from 1480, we are left with 610, and there is nothing to prevent us from taking 610 as the teacher, Greek ho didaskalos, 70+540 = 610 (any concordance for the New Testament ref.).

Also, Jesus is the son of Joseph. In other words: Joseph is (the father) of the teacher, Greek Iôsêph ho didaskalou = 2328. Hence, an angel also calls Joseph "son of David" (Matthew 1:20). Somehow, father and son are one, united in (the) Christ.

In this passage, Christ certainly proves that he is a teacher - a teacher who teaches at two different levels: Buddhist readers are instantly reminded of the celebrated stanzas in Nâgârjuna´s Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ 24:8-10:

"The Dharma teaching of the Buddhas actually presupposes two realities: the relative (superficial) reality of the world and the reality in the ultimate (profound) sense. Those who do not understand the distinction between these two truths do not understand the truth in the profound instruction of the Buddha. The ultimate sese cannot be shown without the support of language; without understanding the ultimate sense nirvana remains unapproachable." (Quoted from my book Master of Wisdom. Writings of the Buddhist Master Nâgârjuna, Berkeley, CA, 1986,1997, p. 340.)

The importance of these simple observations - that have, to the best of my knowledge not been made before - cannot be overestimated: If the student of the New Testament fails to make a sharp distinction between the level of language and the level of numbers, he cannot understand the truth in the profound instruction of the Christ.

The distinction, in Mahâyâna, between two truths serves a specific purpose - the attainment of nirvana.

Is this also the case in the NT? Perhaps we shall find time to see what Emmanuel has to say about nirvana at some later point.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
July 21st, CE 2010

The Man in the Clouds

According to a fresh poll, no less than 41% of all Americans believe that Jesus is still alive , and that the Son of Man - who is also considered son of God, and son of Joseph, a carpenter - will return before the year 2050.

If asked, WHERE, exactly, old man Jesus abides right now, the answer would probably be: Up there in the clouds - which is what the New Testament teaches in so many words and wants us to believe. Google, please, for fanciful images of Jesus in the clouds!

Of course there is no man really to be seen by any human eye, by any telescope etc. up there in the clouds. It is all poetical fancy, as when Zeus, according to the Greek myth, formed a cloud in the image of Hera, whereupon Ixion embraced her. Thus Kentauros - the Buddhist Gandharvas - was born. Gods that appear in clouds is not an unusual motive in the ancient religions. The myth of Jesus in the clouds can be derived from the corresponding Buddhist myth (SBV, p. 41 etc.)

In Sanskrit literature there is a device called madhyama-pada-lopa - the loss (lopa) of a word (pada) in the middle (madhyama), i.e. in the middle of a given compound. It is a great pity that Christian theologians, when dealing with the highly obscure notion of the holy spirit - hagion pneuma - are unaware of this fact which is reflected in the Greek rendering of the Sanskrit.

The Buddhist myth tells us that Queen Mâyâ, the mother of the Bodhisattva, saw a white elephant descending and entering her womb . The white elephant is a common metaphor for a white cloud in Indian poetry (a fact that Buddhists unfortunately seem to have overlooked). The cloud was driven by the wind. The blow of the wind sets the cloud in motion. Matthew copied the Buddhist myth leaving out the cloud and the blow , thus creating great confusion in the minds of generations to come. As usual, the confusion is intended.

The Christian myth is a copy of the Buddhist myth: First, we have the young god up in heaven.He is a deva-putra - a son (putra) of God (deva). Next, God decides to send him down to earth, in the form of a man, to teach the masses a few lessons about Dharma, or righteousness. The vehicle used for bringing the deva-putra down from heaven to earth is a cloud - and that cloud is driven by the blow of the wind - how else? The Sanskrit runs: megho...mâruta-vega-preritas, i.e a cloud (megha) driven (preritas) by the blow, or power (vega) of the wind (mâruta).

So, Jesus , the deva-putra (alias Daueid-putra), enters the womb of his virgin mother. She is obviously a virgin, for the father of her son is merely a cloud driven by the wind of God. Hence the New Testament also identifies God with wind (John). A wind called "holy", for it is a rather special wind. The blow of the wind is left out by way of madhyama-pada-lopa, leaving us only with the mysterious cloud. Later on, Matthew 4:1, her son goes to the desert "in the wind" - i.e. transported by yet another cloud driven by the wind.

If one checks all the passages dealing with wind and clouds in the New Testament in this light, it is clear that Jesus, exactly like the Buddhist original, uses clouds driven by wind in precisely the same way that we use cars etc. driven by e.g. diesel engines etc. The book of Daniel 7:13 is another source for the same idea that likewise inspired the New Testament : "I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, one coming with the clouds of heaven as a Son of Man..." The cloud here looks like a man.

The god responsible for the movements of the cloud is, of course, as any Greek schoolboy immediately would recognize, no other than Zeus, the king of men and gods, the heavenly father, called , already by Homer, nephelê-geréta, "the cloud-gatherer".

The Son of Man, who is also the son of God,the wind, descends from heaven in the form of a cloud. He is a messenger from Zeus. The cloud that looks like a man is also a king, according to the Buddhists source, according to Daniel and according to the NT.

The myth of the king descending from heaven in the form of a cloud is, as said, a very common motiv in Hellenistic religious syncretism. The kingdom of the heavens, said to be near, simply refers to Jesus, the cloud that looks like a man that can speak, move around etc.

Sometimes were are told that the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, or that the lamb of god is a symbol of Jesus Christ. That, however, is not really the case. Once we recall that the dove as well as the lamb are white, we are obviously again dealing with white clouds. The white dove = cloud can hardly be distinguised from the wind (pneuma) that carries it, and the white lamb = cloud can, likewise, hardly be distinguished from from God, who is defined as wind, again pneuma. So the dove and the cloud are not at all symbols. Just as we can see a man in a cloud, thus we can see a dove or a lamb. All of the iamges are but clouds, and it takes a cloudy mind to take them for more than that.

In Matthew 17:5 we have another nice case of a cloud that creates confusion. He mentions a cloud that is said to be bright, phôteinê. The voice of god is heard from that cloud. The voice, we now know, is the sound of Homer´s nephelê-geréta. Peter offers to make three tabernacles - for protection from the rain, we may add, in the light of the Buddhist source.

The Buddhist source (CPS § 6; see my Hînayâna, Copenhagen 1998, p. 26) speaks af a cloud that is a-kâla. Sanskrit a-kâla can mean either bright (not black), or out of season. Matthew deliberately prefers the "wrong" correct rendering, in order to confuse his reader. The original idea is that suddenly (out of season) a cloud , full of rain, appears in the sky. Hence "Peter" offers to made a shelter, i.e. to protect Jesus and his visitors from the rain.

Why Peter offers to make huts for protection can only be understood once one is aware of the original Buddhist source. Matthew fails to mention the rain. Luke 9:33, well aware of the Buddhist source, adds that Peter was "not knowing what he said". If one only knows the NT, one does not understand Peter´s motive. Peter did not know the motive of his own action - for he did not know the Buddhist source. The Cloud messenger (Megha-dûta) is the title of a famous Sanskrit poem by Kâlidâsa. Should the reader wish to enjoy some nice Sanskrit poetry about clouds that may serve as vehicles for fanciful messages, its study is warmly recommended. Buddhists - as well as their Christian imitators - often claim that we should "love all living beings" - perhaps with the exception of the infidels. If so, one wonders why priests still fail to make clear distinctions between myth and reality, between real and imaginary - for surely, to love other human beings is not to confuse other human beings - or how?Dr. Christian LindtnerJune 28th, CE 2010

Gematria of the Lotus (Saddharmapundarîkasûtram)

In order to understand the Greek of the NT, one must be able to read Sanskrit, and, likewise, in order to understand the Sanskrit of several Buddhist texts composed in that language, one must know ancient Greek. The reason for this is simple: Just as the New Testament often depends on Buddhist sources, thus Buddhist texts often depend on Greek sources. These scholars were bilingual, they knew Greek and Sanskrit.

Here is a passage from the Saddharmapundarîkasûtram (SDP), or Lotus (Kern ed. p. 391; Wogihara ed., p. 331; Vaidya ed. p. 231). In the translation of Kern (p. 367), with a few additions:

"Therefore, young men of good family (kula-putras), you should after the complete extinction of the Tathâgata, with reverence keep, read, promulgate, cherish, worship it. And wherever on earth, young men of good family, this Dharmaparyâya shall be made known, read, written, meditated, expounded, studied or collected into a volume, be it in a monastery or at home, in the wilderness or in a town, at the foot of a tree or in a palace, in a building or in a cavern, on that spot one should erect a shrine (caityam) in dedication to the Tathâgata. For such a spot must be regarded a a terrace of enlightenment (bodhi-mandas); such a spot must be regarded as one where all Tathâgatas &c. have arrived at supreme, perfect enlightenment; on that spot have all Tathâgatas moved forward the wheel of the law (dharma-cakram); on that spot one may hold that all Tathâgatas have reached complete extinction."

The idea, in brief, is: The SDP is a dharma-parable. It may be recited, written (or drawn, Sanskrit likhyeta), considered, copied, explained etc. on a given spot of earth, in a given place. A caityam, or sanctuary, shrine, should then be made in honour of the Lord - Tathâgatam (accusative), for this spot is the bodhi-temple (mandas) of ALL the Tathâgatas. They have been enlightened in that spot of earth. Moreover, all the Tathâgatas have turned the Wheel of Dharma, the dharma-cakram, in that place.

To understand this curious passage, it will be helpful to visualize the situation as a whole. First, it says that the SDP is a dharma-parable. The Sanskrit for parable is paryâyas, and, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Sanskrit paryâyas, is translated in the New Testament by the Greek parabolê. Greek parabolê, means, in geometry, application. In other words: the SDP is being drawn on a spot of earth, in the learned sand, as the Greek scholar would say.

The numerical value (psêphos) of Saddharma-pundarîka-sûtram is, according to the Greek mode of calculation,352 +666+1041 = 2059. The diameter of a 2059 circle is 656, and the radius, of course, 328. The numerical value of dharma-cakram is 146+182 = 328; and the numerical value of Tathâgatam (the accusative case as found in the text above) is 656. (For the Chistians 656 is Messias = 40+5+200+200+10+1+200).

To sum up: The passage invites the kula-putras, son of good family, i.e., the educated reader, to draw a 2059 circle with the 656 diameter of Tathâgatam, and the 328 radius of dharma-cakram. The Sanskrit cakram (here the neuter, also attested in earlier Sanskrit masculine: cakras) clearly represents Greek kuklos, circle. Once we know Greek, we easily see that dharma-cakram is 328, that Tathâgatam is 656, that Saddharma-pundarîka-sûtram is 352+666+1041 = 2059. Furthermore, it is said that all Tathâgatas have turned the dharma-cakram on that spot of earth. This means that the 656 diameter of Tathâgatam has turned, i.e. has drawn the 2059 circle of Saddharmapundarîkasûtram.

What, then, about the two words caityam and bodhimandas (nominative case)? It will be observed that the numerical value of caityam is 20+1+10+300+10+1+40 = 382. Likewise, the number of bodhi-mandas is 86+296 = 382. The number 382 must, therefore, be significant in the present context, i.e. in connection with the drawing - the 2059 circle of SDP - before our eyes. If we draw Tathâgatas, which is 816, as a circle, the inscribed pentagon measures 763.62..or 764, which is the sum of the numerical values of caityam and bodhimandas (i.e. 382 + 382 = 764). The 816 circle with the inscribed 764 pentagon thus tells us that the caityam which is the bodhimandas, is contained in Tathâgatas. Or, to the same effect: Tathâgatas contains the caityam and (or: which is) the bodhimandas.

But how do we go from the initial 328 radius in 2059 SDP circle to the 382 of caityam and bodhimandas? First, 328 is the 2 x 164 solar cross in the 514.95 = 515 circle. Four such circles amount to 514.96 = 2059.84, which, taken as 2059 was, as demonstrated, the number of SDP. The 515 circle contains the inscribed 464 square. When we subtract one half of 164, i.e. 82, from 464, we arrive at 382, the value of caityam as well as bodhimandas. We can now easily how the author, who must have known the Greek language as well as the Greek mode of psêphos, went about: He started out with 328 - dharmacakram. From that he derived the figure 382. This figure he divided by five, giving him the image of the 382 pentagon inscribed in the 408. 20.., or 408 circle. Two such circles gave him 816 for Tathâgatas.

The words of the SDP, in this passage, to sum up, thus operate - as the text itself often states when it refers to "hidden or symbolic language (samdhâ-bhâsya)" - on two levels. There is a hidden message. There are, as always in Mahâyâna, two truths. On the superficial level of words one can translate from one language into another language. On a deeper level, one must know the numerical value of each Sanskrit word according to the Greek mode of calculation (psêphos).

All this was, as I hope to have shown by numerous examples, also know to the authors of the New Testament. Let me therefore, briefly repeat what I have pointed out elsewhere:

Revelation 13:18 refers to the number 666, saying that "it is, in fact, the number of a man" - a-rith-mos gar an-thrô-pou es-tin. These nine syllables of the Greek represent the nine original syllables of the Sanskrit of the title: sad-dhar-ma-pun-da-rî-ka-sût-ram
.
The total number of syllables, as said, is, in both cases, nine. Moreover, the number of letters is, in both cases, 23. Each phrase consists of four different words. The Sanskrit counts nine vowels, but the Greek has ten.

Revelation13:18 does not explicitly identify the man whose number is said to be 666. This omission has, unfortunately, given rise to endless speculations. In our view,philological problems must, if possible, be solved in the light of their sources. The Greek for "man" is anthrôpos (nominative form). His number is said to be 666. But 666 is the number of Sanskrit pundarîka: 80+400+50+4+1+100+10+20+1 = 666. The "man" in Revelation 13:18, is, therefore, the Lotus, the pundarîka. Something is missing! The man has not been fully identified from the New Testament point of view. The Greek anthrôpos, man, is 1310. When we subtract 666 for pundarîka, we are left with 644. We would expect, from the context, that 644 somehow refers to the hero of the NT, i.e. to Jesus or Christ (888 or 1480).

According to the OT quotation in Matthew 1: 23, Jesus will be called Emmanouêl - but, strangely, the New Testament never mentions him by that name. We must thus look for our Emmanouêl on some deeper level, i.e. on the numerical level. Now Emmanouêl is 5+40+40+1+50+70+400+8+30 = 644. The 1310 "man" that Revelation 13:18 refers to, is, therefore, pundarîka as Emmanouêl, for 666 + 644 = 1310.

To put it simply: The Christian saviour (known as Jesus etc.) is identified with the Buddhist saviour (known as Sâkyamuni(s) etc.). The great hero of the SDP is, of course, Sâkyamunis, whose number is 932. The Lotus is his symbol. Since Emmanouêl was identified with this Lotus, we would expect that Jesus also was identified with the Lotus, for Emmanouêl is one of the names of Jesus.

When we look closer at various passages of the NT, we shall find that our suspicions be fully confirmed: During the Last Supper, Jesus refers to his body, Greek sôma, and to his blood, to haima mou. The sôma is 1041, and 1041 is also Sanskrit sûtram. And "the blood of mine", to haima mou, is 932, and 932 is Sâkyamunis. The tês diathêkês, of the covenant, that follows (Matthew 26:28) contains a clear pun on Sanskrit Tathâgatasya, of the Tathâgata, i.e. of Sâkyamuni(s), both pentasyllabic. Jesus thus identifies himself with Sâkyamuni(s), the main Tathâgata of the SDP. Jesus is an embodiment of the SDP.

There is more to the very same effect: When we draw a circle that measures 888 for Jesus (Iêsous), the inscribed Lotus (the Star of David, the hexagram) measures 1470, but 1470 is the number of the Greek word for the Lotus, viz. ho lôtos = 70+30+800+300+70+200 = 1470. So we see Jesus as the Lotus, the Star of David.

Did the authors of the SDP already have this drawing in mind - the drawing of the Lotus inscribed in a circle? The answer is: yes, they did: The psêphos of SDP was, as will be recalled, 2059 (or 2059.84) If one draws a Lotus (as the Buddhists often did) measuring 2059, the circle in which this hexagram is inscribed measures ca. 1244. To be quite precise: the inscribed hexagram measures 6 x 343.306666666...suggesting the number of man: 666. If we add 816, the number of Tathâgatas (above), we arrive at 2060 or 2059, which is the number of Saddharmapundarîkasûtram. This Buddhist drawing, therefore, also identifies Tathâgatas on the basis of a drawing of a hexagram showing us the stylized image of a Lotus.

Jesus, was, therefore, in several ways born from a Buddhist lotus.

A final point: In the SDP, the Lord Sâkyamuni(s) encourages his disciples to spread the message in writing etc. His disciples are called Bodhisattvas, Mahâsattvas etc., and kula-putras, i.e. "family-sons" (often translated freely as "sons of good family").

The passage from the SDFP quoted above read:

"Therefore, young men of good family, you should after the complete extinction of the Tathâgata, with reverence, keep, read, promulgate, cherish, worship it."

In other words: Once Sâkyamuni(s) as passed away, it is up to the kula-putras to spread the SDP in various ways. The kula-putras is thus one of the many synonyms of a Buddhist missionary. The psêphos of Sanskrit kula-putras is 451+1081 = 1532. I have already pointed out, again and again, that Jesus is such a Buddhist missionary in disguise.

The truth of this observation can now be established from yet another point of view.
The number of Jesus is 888, and the number of Emmanouêl is 644. Thus Jesus Emmanouêl is 888 + 644 = 1532. But 1532 is also the number of kula-putras, a missionary of the Lotus. It was stated clearly, that the kula-putras was expected to become active AFTER the extinction of Sâkyamunis.

Jesus Emmanouêl, therefore, was such a kula-putras, who propagated the message of the SDP - in disguise as the son of God, the son of David etc. etc. He was, indeed, born in or from a lotus, for all Bodhisattvas are, as students of Buddhist art are aware, born in a lotus.

Jesus was also known as Messias, and Messias is 40+5+200+200+10+1+200 = 656.
But, as we have seen, 656 is the diameter of the 2059 circle of the Saddharmaundarîkasûtram. Thus, Messias, alias Jesus Emmanouêl, was also born from the Lotus. In various places, the New Testament would like to have us believe that Jesus is identical with the Messias mentioned in the OT.

We can now prove that this belief is, in a strange and unexpected way, quite true, for since the SDP circle is 2059, and since Jesus is 888, and since Messias is 656,and since 515 was also established above, it follows that:

Jesus is Messias - in Greek: Iêsous esti Messias = 888+515+656 = 2059.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
May 31st, CE 2010

WHY WAS JESUS SO RUDE TO PETER? - Buddhist source of Matthew 16:23 & Mark 8:33

When Jesus foretold his death and resurrection, Peter took him aside and rebuked him, saying: "God forbid, Lord, this must never happen to you!"

With these words Peter showed that he cared for his Lord, and thus we are surprised to learn how Jesus reacts: " Go behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle (scandal) to me, for you do not think of the (things?) of god, but of the (things?) of men."

Peter must have been puzzled, if not shocked, and so are we.

Why is Jesus so rude? Why is Jesus so obscure?

Why does Peter have to go behind (Greek opisô) Jesus, and what does that have to do with his not thinking of the (things) of god but of men?

The answers are to be found in the Buddhist source, in this case MPS 35:2.

On that occasion - we read - the venerable Upamâna (in Pâli called Upavâna) was standing with a fan in front of the Lord. Then the Lord said to him:" Monk! do not stand in front of me!"

One of the other monks present, Ânanda, is surprised, for he has never in his long life heard the Lord express himself so rudely to anyone.

Why is the Lord so rude to the monk?

The Lord explains: When a Buddha is about to pass away - as Jesus foretold his death in Matthew and Mark - the gods (devatâ) gather from afar in order to witness the spectacular event. When Upamâna is standing in front of him with his fan, he becomes an obstacle that prevents the gods from seeing what is going on. Hence the Lord commands the monk not to stand in front of him, but to go behind him. Then only the gods can observe the event.

I have already given many examples of the MPS as a major source of the New Testament Gospels, and when it comes to the rude words of Jesus to his disciple, the source is once again the MPS.

In this case we have a Sanskrit version as well as a Pâli version, with minor variants. Both are to be found in the edition of Waldschmidt ( Berlin 1951 , p. 356).

The Greek (any modern edition) is: hypage opisô mou, satana, and it translates a combination of the Pâli and the Sanskrit:

The Sanskrit is : bhikso, mâ me purastât tistha - Monk, no (of) me in front stand!

The Pâli: apehi, bhikkhu, mâ me purato atthâsi - Go away, monk, not me in front stand!

We may here observe:

The Buddhist monk, in the vocative, becomes Satan, also in the vocative.

The Greek imperative hypage is a perfect rendering of Pâli apehi, also imperative.

The "not in front of me" in the original becomes "behind" in the Greek,which is opisô. The choice of opisô mou is perfect, for not only does it render the original meaning correctly, but it also contains a pun on the name of the monk in question, viz. Upamânas (nominative form): the consonants p-s-m. Only the n is not represented in the Greek.

When it comes to the gods, the Greek says ta... theou, those (what?) of (the) god. It is obscure. But the original mentions devatâ, meaning divine being, divinity, or simply god.

The form of the abstract noun deva-tâ is from deva + tâ. And so we understand the curious Greek ta... theou, those of god. The Greek ta reflects the Sanskrit -tâ.

Peter was said to be a skandalon, and the original meaning of that noun in Greek is an stumbling-stone, an obstacle-stone (on the road).

The choice of this word, again, demonstrates the skill of the translators. In the orignal it was understood that the monk was an obstacle because he prevented the gods from seeing the spectacle when he stood there in front with his fan.

This is quite clear.

On the other hand, it is unclear in the gospels why he is an obstacle. To understand the point of Peter being an obstacle we need the information about the gods as spectators. But this information is left out by Matthew and Mark.

Moreover, there is, in skandalon, a hidden pun on the name of Peter - a pun on petros, a stone, or petra, a rock.

Finally, the original of the "those of the men" - ta tôn anthrôpôn - is not to be found in MPS 35.

Conclusion: To get the complete picture we need the Buddhist source.

Again and again we come to this conclusion: Matthew and his colleagues deliberately leave out parts of the original story, so that the gospel version becomes obscure and puzzling. The purpose can only be to make the reader wonder and invoke his curiosity.

The use of puns, obscure and puzzling pohrases, parables etc. is explicitly recommended in the Lotus Sûtra - another major source of the NT- for the purpose of attracting people to be converted.

Unfortunately, theologians, as a rule, mistake a deliberately obscure and absurd version of the Buddhist original as an expression of the profundness of the mind of Jesus.

This was also this intention of Matthew and Mark.

Christian LindtnerJanuary 31st, CE 2010

JESUS - VERY CRUEL AND VERY COMPASSIONATE - Buddhist source of Matthew 9:36 & Mark 6:34

Jesus was - we are expected to believe - not only very cruel to innocent animals ( the pigs, Matthew 8:32), but also to human beings, "enemies" , who would not subject themselves to his royal authority , Luke 19:27: " Verumtamen inimicos meos illos, qui noluerunt me regnare super se, adducite huc: et interficite ante me!

Kill ´em!

Sounds to me like a command given by Lenin to his Bolshevik thugs!

But there is also a human touch, for, paradoxically, it is also said of Jesus: " As he saw the crowds, his heart was filled with pity for them".

Thus the Greek of Matthew 9:36, above, runs: idôn de tous okhlous, esplagkhnisthê peri autôn.

The Greek of Mark 6:34 runs: kai exelthôn eiden Iêsous polun okhlon, kai esplagkhnisthê ep´ autous...

The paradox of Jesus being cruel as well as compassionate is solved once it is seen that we are here dealing with two different versions of the same Sanskrit phrase, found in MSV (ed. R. Gnoli, p. 130, line 5):

drstvâ ca punar asya sattvesu mahâkarunâ ´vakrântâ:

"having seen -and-again- for him-to human beings- great compassion descended".

The idea simply is: The Lord sees how ignorant human beings are, and therefore feels compassion for them.The purpose of teaching is to remove suffering.

Matthew first took the six syllables of drstvâ ca sattvesu, and rendered them in six syllables: idôn de tous okhlous.

Then he took the eight syllables mahâkarunâ ´vakrântâ, and rendered them in eight syllables: esplagkhnisthê peri autôn.

Mark took the six syllables drstvâ ca ´vakrântâ, and rendered them in six syllables: kai exelthôn eiden.

Then he took the seven syllables: punar asya sattvesu, and rendered them in seven syllables: Iêsous polun okhlon kai.

Finally, he took the eight syllables: mahâkarunâ ´vakrântâ, and , repeating the kai, rendered them in eight syllables: kai esphlagkhnisthê ep´ autous.

As a rule, Buddhist texts mention compassion in the context of teaching: The Lord observes that human beings suffer due to ignorance. Hence, moved by compassion, he starts to teach them the Dharma that removes ignorance and thereby leads to liberation from suffering.

This fits the gospel context perfectly: Jesus is here presented as a teacher and he sends out his disciples to teach others - about Righteousness, dikaiosunê, i.e. Dharma.

But Jesus wants to remove suffering, not by knowledge, but by faith. That idea is also Buddhist - it is lifted from Mahâyâna, mainly the Saddharmapundarîkasûtram - the Lotus.

Jesus, we may conclude, borrowed his great compassion from the Buddha, but that did not prevent him from being cruel to innocent animals and to human beings.

After all, as the alleged son of Jahweh, he came of a very cruel stock. The paradox, in short, comes from the combination of OT and Buddhist sources.

Christian Lindtner
January 26th, CE 2010

BE IT FAR FROM THEE, LORD! - Buddhist source of Matthew 16:22

The New Testament gospels, are, by and large, literary mosaics, fabricated by lifting words and phrases from Buddhist gospels, combining them with words and phrases from the OT.

We are, therefore, not dealing with history, but with fiction.

One of the main Buddhist sources is the Lotus Sûtra - the Saddharmapundarîka (SDP).

According to Matthew 16:22, Peter took the Lord aside and said to him: hileôs soi, kurie; ou mê estai touto: "Gracious for you,Lord, may this not be!" This is taken from the Sanskrit of the SDP (p. 53). The Lord asked Sâri-Putras a question, and Sâri-Putra answered - Sâri-putra âha: na hy etad Bhagavan; na hy etad Sugata: "Not surely this, Lord; not surely this, Good-gone!" The Greek hileôs means gracious, which suggests that a "let God be", or "God is", may be understood. The Vulgata, however, says:
Absit a te , Domine; non erit tibi hoc! "Be it far from thee, Lord; for this shall not be unto thee." The Vulgata, for the first word, thus comes closer to the original (na hy, not surely) of the SDP.

Observations: The Buddhist disciple, PuTRaS becomes PeTRoS.- Perfect!

The Sanskrit Bhagavan, Lord (vocative) becomes kurie, Lord (vocative).- Perfect!

There are two negations in the Sanskrit (na, na); likewiese in the Greek version (ou mê).-Perfect! The Sanskrit consists of 7 (6) plus 7 (6) syllables. (hy etad may be read as 3 or 2 syllables.) The Greek consists of 7 plus 6 syllables. - Perfect! Sanskrit etad becomes Greek touto, "this". - Perfect! In the Sanskrit the verb is understood (as normally). The verb understood is, for sure, asti/bhavati, "is", becoming estai in the Greek.

What is - apparently - missing in the Greek is the Su-gata of the original.Sugata is, of course, one of the many names of Bhagavân (nominative form). Su-gata, here in the vocative, may be understood as: (You) are well gone! But gata, in itself, has many meanings: "understood, disposed" etc. Su-gata may thus be taken as "well-disposed" - which is the interpretation behind the Greek: hileôs.

Conclusion: Sugatam! This patchwork was, as always, done with great care and attention to all details in the original Sanskrit. This conclusion is in accordance withe established fact that all syllables have been carefully by Matthew in the gospel (wrongly) ascribed to him.

Christian Lindtner
January 14th, CE 2010

AND or OF? Buddhist source of Mark 2:16

When it comes to Comparative Gospel Studies (CGS), there is a rule that says - or ought to say - that the Devil is to be found in the philological detail, and that that Devil may in fact turn out to be a tiny god of revelation.

How so?

One of the characteristic features of the Sanskrit language (and Pâli as well) is the extensive employment of compounds. Thus, for instance, two nouns may be combined thus: brâhmana-grhapati, or sramana-brâhmana, or bodhisattva-srâvaka, etc. These compounds are so-called dvandva-s, which means that an "and" is understood. That the "and" should be understood, and added when we translate, is clear not only from the Buddhist context but also from subsequent translations into other "Buddhist languages" such as Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, etc. In other words, brâhmana-grhapati should be translated as "priests AND householder(s)", sramana-brâhmana as "ascetics AND priests", bodhisattva-srâvaka as "bodhisattvas AND srâvakas" , etc.

We can, as said, be sure that the AND should be added from the context, but at the same time it is clear that in theory one could also translate, without violating the Sanskrit syntax, as "the householders OF the priests", "the priests OF the sramanas", or "the srâvakas OF the bodhisattvas". All this is known to Sanskrit scholars.

When the authors of the New Testament gospels translated from the Sanskrit, they also imitated these Buddhist compounds. For that reason, we are constantly confronted with " the Pharisees and Sadducees" (Matthew 16:1), with "the chief priests and the Pharisees" (Matthew 27:62) etc. All such New Testament dvandva-s have a Buddhist source. (For a fairly complete list, with the Sanskrit equivalents, my Geheimnisse, pp. 161-166, or Hemligheten om Kristus, pp. 156-160).

Now, in all these cases there can be no doubt that the "and" represents the original Sanskrit quite correctly.

One curious and utterly revealing exception to the rule is provided by Mark 2:16, who speaks of "the grammarians OF the Phariseees". This odd expression has led some translators to violate the Greek text Thus , for instance, the "Today´s English Version" of the American Bible Society translates: "Some teachers of the Law, who were Pharisees..." The reader is thus left with the wrong impression that the text speaks of one group of people, not of two different groups. If one is familiar with the Buddhist original it is easy to see what happened. The original Sanskrit compound was a dvandva, i.e. an AND - not an OF - had to be understood. We can see that Mark, without violating the Sanskrit syntax , translated the Sanskrit compound wrongly, i.e. deliberately wrongly. The Sanskrit, in other words, had a compound A-B. That compound could either be understood as A and B, or as B of A. Each of the two renderings would be in accordance with Sanskrit syntax, but only one of them would be in accordance with the sense originally intended.

To conclude: As a rule, all the New Testament compounds of the type "A and B", with reference to various groups of persons, are correct renderings of the Sanskrit "A and B compounds".

Mark 2:16 is an exception to that rule. But this exception points back to the same Buddhist source. Mark cannot - as shown by the many "correct" renderings in that Gospel - have been unaware that the OF was a "wrong" rendering. But it was, as said, correct from the point of view of Sanskrit syntax. Deliberately "wrong" versions of the original Sanskrit are not uncommon in the Greek of the NT.

Another example of the same sort - with focus on the firts part of the compound in the genitive case - is provided by two different renderings of one and the same Sanskrit original. Sometimes the Greek speaks of the Kingdom of God, some times it speaks of the Kingdom of the Heavens. Here we are no longer dealing with dvandva-s, but with another sort of compound combining two different nouns. The first part of the compound defines the second part more closely.

The Sanskrit original is, as a rule, deva-parisad - the "kingdom" of deva-. The first part of the compound tells us what kind of parisad ("congregation", "assembly") we are dealing with. Sanskrit deva (nominative devas) corresponds to Greek theos, to Latin deus.

Here, deva- is the firsat part the Sanskrit compound. The Sanskrit says "the deva-kingdom". One cannot see whether the deva- should be understood as being in the singular or in the plural.From the point of view of Sanskrit syntax, both options are allowed. If we therefore take deva- in the genitive singular (devasya = theou), we get "of god". If we, alternatively, take it in the plural (devânâm = ouranôn), we get "of the gods, of the heavens".

Thus the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the Heavens are but two different - but equally correct - versions of one and the same Sanskrit original. New Testament scholars have, as known, been puzzled by the two synonymous phrases. But this is only because they have failed to study Sanskrit. And a theologian of the New Testament with no knowledge of Sanskrit - how can the Kingdom of the heavens be said to belong to him?

Further examples and references in my Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus, Suederbrarup (Leuhe-Verlag) 2005.

Christian Lindtner
January 10th, CE 2010

You can read Dr. Lindtner at his own website, here.

The Buddha Myth--A Skeptic's Guide

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

JESUS WAS BUDDHA -- by Dr. Christian Lindtner