YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED: F.A.Q. 28

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