Section Two

Evidence from Buddhist Records

Let it be clear that Buddhist Scriptures have made available to us various kinds of evidence, which, on the whole, is enough to prove that Jesus must have visited the Punjab, Kashmir, and other places. I have set down this evidence, so that all impartial readers may first study it, and then, by arranging it as a connected account in their minds, arrive at the aforesaid conclusion on their own. Here is the evidence. First: the titles given to the Buddha are similar to the titles given to Jesus. Likewise, the events of the life of Buddha resemble those of the life of Jesus. The reference here, however, is to the Buddhism of the areas within the boundaries of Tibet, like Leh, Lhasa, Gilgit and Hams, about which it is proved that they were visited by Jesus. With reference to the similarity of titles, it is enough to point out, that if, for example, Jesus calls himself the Light in his teachings, so has Gautama been called the Buddha in the Buddhistic literature which in Sanskrit means ‘Light’. If Jesus has been called the Master in the Gospels, so has the Buddha been called Saasta or the Master. If Jesus has been called Blessed in the Gospels, so has the Buddha been named Sugt — the Blessed. If Jesus has been called Prince, so has the Buddha been called Prince. Jesus has also been described in the Gospels as one who fulfils the object of his coming, so has the Buddha been called in Buddhistic Scriptures Siddhartha — one who fulfils the object of his coming. Jesus has also been called by the Gospels the refuge of the tired and the weary, so has the Buddha in Buddhistic Scriptures been called Asarn Sarn — the refuge of the refugeless. Jesus has also been called by the Gospels King, though he said that his was the kingdom of Heaven, so also has the Buddha been called the King. The similarity of events pertaining to both is also proved by events. Just as Jesus was tempted by the Devil with the riches and kingdoms of the world provided he made obeisance to him, so was Buddha tempted when the Devil said to him that he would give him the pomp and splendour of kings if he abandoned the austerity of his living and returned home. But, just as Jesus did not obey the Devil, so, it is recorded, the Buddha too did not obey him.1 See Buddhism by T. W. Rhys Davids and Buddhism by Sir Monier Williams.2

This shows that the same titles which Jesus ascribes to himself in the Gospels, have been ascribed to the Buddha in Buddhistic Scriptures which were compiled much later; and just as Jesus was tempted by the Devil, so do these books claim that the Buddha was also tempted by the Devil; rather, the account of the temptation of the Buddha, as stated in these books, is even longer than the account of the temptation of Jesus. It is recorded that when the Devil offered him the temptation of wealth and kingly honour, the Buddha felt inclined to return home. He, nevertheless, did not succumb to the temptation. But the same Devil met him again one night, bringing with him all his progeny, and tried to frighten him by assuming frightfully grotesque shapes. To the Buddha, these Devils appeared like snakes which were emitting fire from their mouths. The snakes began to throw poison and fire at him but the poison turned into flowers and the fire formed a halo round the Buddha.

The Devil, not having succeeded so far, called upon sixteen of his daughters, and asked them to reveal their beauty to the Buddha who remained totally unmoved; and the Devil was baulked in his designs. He adopted a variety of other tricks, but was helpless against the steadfastness of the Buddha, who continued to rise higher and higher to different stages of spiritual eminence, and, after a long night, that is, after severe and protracted trials, he overcame his enemy, the Devil. The Light of True Knowledge dawned upon him and, with the break of day, as soon as his trials were over, he came to know all. The day this great battle ended was the day of the birth of Buddhism. Gautama was 35 years old at the time when he was called the Buddha3 or the Light, and the Tree under which he was sitting at the time came to be known as the Tree of Light. Now, if you read the Gospels, you will find how closely the temptation of the Buddha resembles the temptation of Jesus to the extent that the Buddha’s age at the time was nearly the same as Jesus’. As it appears from Buddhist literature, the Devil did not appear to the Buddha in a corporeal and personified form. It was only a vision seen by the Buddha and the talk of the Devil was a satanic inspiration. The Devil, as he appeared to him, suggested to the Buddha that he should abandon his course and follow him and that if he did so, he would give him all the wealth of the world. Likewise, Christian scholars believe that the Devil who appeared to Jesus did not come to him in any corporeal form, like a human being, before the very eyes of the Jews, traversing the streets in his physical body and talking to Jesus so as to be audible to those present. On the contrary, the meeting was of the nature of a vision seen only by Jesus. The talk too was a kind of inspiration. As is the Devil’s old wont, he put his evil intentions into Jesus’ heart, which Jesus did not accept, and, like the Buddha, rejected all the Devil’s temptations.

The question now arises as to why there was so much resemblance between the Buddha and Jesus. The Aryas in this connection say that Jesus, God forbid, became acquainted with Buddhism in the course of his journeys in India, and having acquired knowledge of the facts of Buddha’s life, incorporated them in the Gospel on return to his native country; that Jesus composed his moral precepts by plagiarizing the moral teaching of the Buddha, and that just as the Buddha called himself the Light and Knowledge and adopted other titles, so did Jesus assume all such titles, so much so, that, even the long story of the Temptation of the Buddha was appropriated by him. This, however, is no more than a dishonest fabrication by the Aryas. It is quite untrue that Jesus came to India before the event of the cross, for he did not need to undertake such a journey at the time. The need for it arose only after the Jews of Judea had rejected him and, as far as they were concerned, crucified him. He had, however, been saved by a subtle divine intervention. Jesus felt that he had done his duty in conveying the message to the Jews of that country, and that they did not deserve compassion anymore. Then, on being informed by God that the ten tribes of the Jews had migrated towards India, Jesus set out for those regions. As some of the Jews had accepted Buddhism, there was no alternative for this true prophet but to turn his attention to the followers of Buddhism. As the Buddhist priests of that country were waiting for the ‘Messiah Buddha’ to appear, they hailed Jesus as the Buddha considering all the signs like his titles, his moral teachings like ‘love thine enemy’ and ‘do not resist evil,’ and the Buddha’s prophecy about fair skin. It is also possible that some of the titles and teachings and facts of Jesus’ life may, consciously or unconsciously, have at that time been ascribed to the Buddha; for the early Indians never had any scruples about recording history objectively. The events of Buddha’s life had not been recorded till the time of Jesus. Buddhist priests, therefore, had ample room to ascribe to the Buddha anything they wished. It is quite likely, therefore, that when they came to know of the facts of Jesus’ life and his moral teaching, they mixed them up with many of their own innovations and ascribed them to the Buddha.4 Presently I shall prove that the part of the moral teaching of Buddhism which resembles that of the Gospels, the titles like ‘Light’, which are attributed to the Buddha as they are to Jesus, and the Satanic temptations, are all details which were incorporated into the Buddhistic literature only after Jesus’ visit to this country which took place after the crucifixion.

There is yet another resemblance between the Buddha and Jesus. Buddhist chronicles show that the Buddha during the temptation was fasting and that the fast lasted for forty days. Readers of the Gospels know that Jesus also observed a forty-day fast.

Anyone who is acquainted with the teachings of Buddha and Jesus will also marvel at the close resemblance and similarity between the moral teaching of the two. For example, the Gospels say, do not resist evil, love your enemy, live in poverty, and shun pride, falsehood and greed; the same is the teaching of the Buddha. Rather the Buddhistic teaching lays greater stress on it, so much so that the killing even of ants and insects has been considered a sin. The outstanding principle of Buddhism is sympathy for the whole world, seeking the welfare of the whole of humanity and of all the animals, and promotion of a spirit of unity and mutual love. The same is the teaching of the Gospels. Again, just as Jesus sent his disciples to different countries, journeying to one himself, so was the case with the Buddha. Buddhism by Sir Monier Williams5 records that the Buddha sent out his disciples to preach, addressing them thus: ‘Go forth and wander everywhere out of compassion for the world and for the service of gods and men. Go forth in different directions, go and preach total abstinence, piety and celibacy.’ He said that he too would go and preach the same doctrine. Accordingly, the Buddha went to Benares and worked a number of miracles in that area. He delivered an impressive sermon on a hill just as Jesus had delivered his sermon on the mount. Again, the same book states that the Buddha preached mostly in parables; he used to explain spiritual phenomena in material terms.

Let it be remembered that this moral teaching and this mode of preaching — talking in parables — was the method of Jesus. This mode of preaching and this moral teaching, combined with other circumstantial evidence, at once suggest that all this was in imitation of Jesus. Jesus was here in India where he preached extensively. The followers of the Buddhist faith met him, and found him to be a holy and blessed man. They recorded these things in their books and even called him the Buddha, for it is part of human nature to try to acquire a good thing wherever one can find it. People try to record and remember any clever remark made by anyone they meet. It is, therefore, quite likely that the followers of the Buddhist Faith may have reproduced the entire picture of the Gospels in their books, as, for example, fasting for forty days both by Jesus and the Buddha; the Satanic temptation faced by both; the birth of both being without father; the moral teaching of both; each calling himself the Light; each calling himself Master and his companions disciples. Just as Matthew, chapter 10 verses 8 and 9, states: ‘Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,’ so did the Buddha command his disciples.6 Just as the Gospels encourage celibacy, so does the teaching of the Buddha. Just as there was an earthquake after Jesus was put on the cross, so it is recorded, there was an earthquake at the death of the Buddha.7 All these points of resemblance arise from the basic fact of Jesus’ visit to India. It was indeed a blessing for the followers of the Buddhist faith that he stayed among them for quite some time and they came to have a good knowledge of the facts of his life and of his noble teaching. It was, therefore, inevitable that a great part of his teaching and ceremonial rites should find way into Buddhist records because Jesus was held in great esteem by the Buddhists who had even pronounced him to be the Buddha. That is why they recorded his sayings in their books and ascribed them to Gautama Buddha.

Strangely enough, the Buddha, quite like Jesus, taught his disciples in parables, especially the ones contained in the Gospels. In one of these parables the Buddha says, “As the peasant sows the seed but cannot say the grain shall swell today or germinate tomorrow, so also is it with the disciple. He can’t tell if he will germinate well or will be like the grain which is sown in rocky soil and dries up.”

This, it will be noted, is the same parable which is still there in the Gospels. The Buddha, again, employed the parable: When a herd of deer prospers in a forest a man comes who opens for them a false path which leads to their death, that is to say he tries to lead them to a path which ultimately ensnares them brings them to death. And another comes who opens a safe path, that is to say he sows a field from which they can eat and he brings to them a canal so that they may drink thrive; such is the case with men who live in prosperity, the devil comes and opens the eightfold path of evil, so that they may perish. Then comes the Perfect Man and opens the eightfold path of truth, certainty, and peace, so that they will be saved.

The Buddha also taught that the righteousness is a safe treasure which no one can steal. It is a treasure which accompanies man even after death; it is a treasure which is the source of all Knowledge and all Perfection.

It should also be noted that this exactly is the teaching of the Gospels. It is also found in the ancient Buddhist books which belong to the period which is not much different from the time of Jesus; in fact it is the same period. Again, on page 135 of the same book, Buddha is reported to have said that he is so irreproachable that no one can point out a single blot on his character.8 This too has a close resemblance to a saying of Jesus. Buddhism, on page 45, states: “The moral teaching of the Buddha has a striking resemblance with the Christian moral teaching.”

I agree with this, and I also agree that both teachings tell us: Love not the world nor wealth; do not hate your enemies; do no evil; conquer evil with good; do to others as you wish to be done by them. All this shows so striking a resemblance between the Gospels and the teaching of the Buddha that it is unnecessary to go into any more detail.

Buddhistic records also show that Gautama Buddha prophesied the coming of a second Buddha who would be named Metteyya. This prophecy is contained in Laggavatti Suttatta,9 a Buddhist record to which reference is made on page 142 of Oldenberg’s book. The prophecy reads thus:

He will be the leader of a band of disciples numbering hundreds of thousands, as I am now the leader of bands of disciples, numbering hundreds.10

It may be noticed here that the Hebrew word, Mashiha, is the same as the Pali, Metteyya. It is a matter of common knowledge that when a word is transferred from one language to another, it very often undergoes a phonetic change. An English word, too, when imported into another language, undergoes change: for example, Max Muller, in a list given on page 318 of Volume 11 of Sacred Books of the East, says: the th of the English alphabet becomes s in Persian or Arabic. Keeping these changes in view, one can readily understand that the word Messiah became Metteyya in the Pali language, which means that the future Metteyya prophesied by the Buddha is in reality the Messiah and no one else. This view is supported by the strong evidence of Buddha’s own prophecy that the Faith he had founded would not endure in the world for more than five hundred years; that at the time of the decline of the faith and its teachings, the Metteyya would come to this land and re-establish the faith and its teachings in the world. Now we find that Jesus appeared five hundred years after the Buddha, and that just as the Buddha had fixed the time frame for the decline of his Faith, Buddhism did indeed deteriorate into a state of decadence as foretold. It was then that, having escaped from the cross, Jesus travelled to those parts, where the Buddhists recognised him readily and treated him with great reverence. There is no doubt that the moral teaching and spiritual exercises taught by the Buddha were resuscitated by Jesus. Christian historians admit that the Sermon on the Mount as reported in the Gospels and the rest of his moral teachings are the same as those preached to the world by the Buddha five hundred years before. They also state that the Buddha not only taught moral precepts, he also taught other great truths. In their view, the title of ‘the Light of Asia’ applied to the Buddha is highly appropriate. Now, in accordance with the prophecy of the Buddha, Jesus appeared five hundred years after him, and as admitted by most Christian scholars, his teaching was the same as the teaching of the Buddha. There is no doubt, therefore, that he appeared in the ‘spirit’ of the Buddha. In Oldenberg’s book, on the authority of Lakkavatti Suttatta,11 it is stated that the followers of the Buddha, looking forward to his future coming, were sustained by the hope that as disciples of the Metteyya, they would have the bliss of salvation. They were certain that the Metteyya would come and that they would attain salvation through him, for, the words in which the Buddha had held out the hope for the coming of the Metteyya positively showed that his disciples would meet and acknowledge him. The statement of the above-mentioned book further reinforces the conviction that for the guidance of those people God had created two appropriate circumstances: Firstly, by virtue of the title Asif, mentioned in Genesis 3:10,12 which means ‘one who rallies a people’, it was inevitable that Jesus should visit the land to which the Jews had migrated and settled; secondly, in accordance with the prophecy of the Buddha, it was necessary that the followers of the Buddha should meet Jesus and profit from him spiritually. Considering both these points together, it looks almost certain that Jesus must have visited Tibet. The fact that Christian teaching and ritual have so deeply influenced Tibetan Buddhism necessitates the belief that Jesus must have visited the Tibetan people also. Moreover, the fact that the zealous followers of Buddhism, as stated in Buddhistic records, had always eagerly expected to meet him, cries out aloud that this desire on their part had become the prelude to Jesus’ visit to this country. In the face of both these facts, an impartial person has no need to search through Buddhistic records to discover for himself the statement that Jesus did in fact come to Tibet. For, in accordance with the prophecy of the Buddha, the desire for the Buddha’s second advent being so strong, the prophecy itself must have attracted Jesus to Tibet. It must be noted that the word ‘Metteyya’ so frequently mentioned in Buddhistic books undoubtedly means ‘Messiah’. On page 14 of the book, Tibet, Tartary, Mongolia, by H. T. Prinsep, it is stated concerning Metteya Buddha, which in reality is Messiah, that the first Christian missionaries, having heard and seen at first hand conditions obtaining in Tibet, came to the conclusion that in the ancient books of the Lamas there were to be found traces of the Christian religion. Again, on the same page, it is stated that there is no doubt about it that these ancient authorities believed that the disciples of Jesus were still alive when the Christian teaching reached this place. On page 171 it is stated that there is not the slightest doubt that at that time everybody was eagerly waiting for the great Saviour to appear. Tacitus says that it was not only the Jews who were responsible for this belief, but Buddhism itself had laid the foundation for it, i.e., it prophesied the coming of the Metteya. Furthermore, the author of this English work says in a note: The books Pitakattayan and Attha-Katha contain the clear prophecy concerning the appearance of yet another Buddha, whose advent would take place a thousand years after the time of Gautama or ‘Sakhiya Muni’. Gautama himself states, that he is the 25th Buddha and that the ‘Bagwa Metteyya’ is still to appear, that is, after he has gone, one whose name will be Metteyya who will be fair-skinned will come. The English author goes on to say that the word Metteyya has a striking resemblance to Messiah.13 In short, Gautama Buddha clearly states in this prophecy that there would arise a Messiah in his country, among his people and his followers. That is why the followers of Buddhism had all the time been waiting for the Messiah to appear in their country. The Buddha, in his prophecy, mentioned him as ‘Bagwa Metteyya’ because ‘Bagwa’ in Sanskrit means ‘white’, and Jesus, being an inhabitant of the Syrian territory, was fair-skinned. The people of the land where this prophecy was announced, i.e., the people of Magadh, in which was located Rajagriha, were dark-skinned. Gautama Buddha himself was dark. He had narrated to his followers two conclusive signs regarding the future Buddha.

1. He would be ‘Bagwa’ or of fair skin.

2. He would be ‘Metteyya’, a traveller, and that he would come from a foreign land.

People, therefore, constantly looked out for these signs till they actually saw Jesus. Every Buddhist must necessarily profess the belief that five hundred years after the Buddha, the Bagwa Metteyya did, in fact, appear in their land.14 It should not be surprising, therefore, if books of the Buddhist faith should mention the coming of the Metteyya — the Masiha — to their land, and of the fulfilment of Buddha’s prophecy. Supposing there is no such mention, even then, because on the basis of divine revelation, the Buddha had communicated to his disciples the tiding that the Bagwa Metteyya would come to their land, no Buddhist who was cognizant of this prophecy could deny the coming to this land of the Bagwa Metteyya, whose other name was Masiha; because the non-fulfillment of the prophecy would have meant the falsity of the faith itself. If this prophecy, for whose fulfilment a time frame had been fixed, and which Gautama Buddha had communicated to his disciples again and again, had not been fulfilled at its appointed time, his followers would have begun to doubt the truth of his claim that he was the Buddha. Also, it would have been placed on record that this prophecy had not been fulfilled. Another argument in support of the fulfilment of this prophecy is that books belonging to the seventh century A.D. were discovered in Tibet, in which the word ‘Mashih’ figures out prominently, which means Jesus(as), and it is written as Mi-Shi-Hu. The compiler of the list which contained the word Mi-Shi-Ho is a Buddhist. (Vide A record of the Buddhist Religion by I. Tsing, translated by G. Takakusu.) This Takakusu is a Japanese who has translated I. Tsing’s book, and I. Tsing is a Chinese traveller. On the margin and in the appendix to the book Takakusu states that an ancient book contains the name Mi-Shi-Ho15 (Masih). This book belongs approximately to the seventh century……. It was recently translated by the Japanese, G. Takakusu,16 published by Clarendon Press, Oxford. The book in any case contains the word Mashih which shows with certainty that this word was not imported by the Buddhists from outside; rather, it was borrowed from the prophecy of the Buddha and was written sometimes as Mashih and sometimes as Bagwa Metteyya.

Apart from the testimonies, we have found in Buddhistic chronicles, there is one recorded by Sir Monier Williams, on page 45 of his book Buddhism. He says that the sixth disciple of the Buddha was a man named ‘Yasa’.17 The name is Yasu or Yasa for short. As Jesus appeared five hundred years after the death of the Buddha, sometime in the sixth century, he was called the sixth disciple. It should be noted that Professor Max Muller, on page 517 of the October 1894 issue of his periodical The Nineteenth Century, supports the aforesaid statement and says that established and renowned writers have pointed out many a time that Jesus was influenced by the principles of Buddhism and that attempts are being made even today to discover some historical route along which the principles of the Buddha’s faith could be proved to have reached Palestine in the days of Jesus.18 This observation by Max Muller corroborates the Buddhistic records in which it is claimed in as many words that Yasa was the disciple of the Buddha. When Christians of such repute as Professor Max Muller admit that the principles of Buddhism had certainly influenced Jesus, it would not be far wrong to say that this would amount to his being a disciple of the Buddha. Nevertheless, we consider the use of such a title in respect of Jesus disrespectful and impertinent. The statement found in the Buddhist literature that Yasu was the disciple of the Buddha, is only an example of the age-old habit of Buddhist priests to designate a great personage appearing at a later date as if he were the disciple of his prototype. Apart from this, as has been pointed out, there being great resemblance between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Buddha, it would not be wrong to speak of their relationship as that of the master and the disciple, though such thinking is very irreverent. Nevertheless, we do not approve of the way the European investigators are eager to prove that the teachings of Buddhism had reached Palestine in the days of Jesus. It is, indeed, unfortunate that when the name and mention of Jesus are found in the ancient books of Buddhism, these investigators should adopt the dubious course of trying to find traces of Buddha’s faith in Palestine. Why should they not search for the blessed footprints of Jesus on the rocky soil of Nepal, Tibet, and Kashmir? I know, however, that these researchers could never be expected to uncover the truth which was lying hidden under a thousand veils of darkness; it was for God to do it. He watched from on high that man-worship was running rampant the world over, and worship of the cross and the supposed sacrifice of a human being had alienated the hearts of millions of people from the true God. In His indignation, He sent to the world his servant in the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth, to demolish the creed of the cross. And he did come as the Promised Messiah in accordance with the old prophecies. Then at long last came the time for the breaking of the cross, the time when the error of the creed of the cross was to be exposed beyond any doubt quite like a piece of wood torn asunder. Heaven has now thrown open the way for the demolition of the cross, so that the seeker after truth may look around and investigate. True, the physical ascension of Jesus to heaven was a misnomer; nevertheless, it had a significance of its own. The truth about the life of the Messiah had been forgotten and lost, as a corpse is eaten up by the earth and is no more; but in heaven he had an existence of his own and was present like a disembodied human spirit. It was inevitable, therefore, that this reality should finally descend to the earth in the latter days and assume the form of a living human being. This Messianic reality has indeed descended to the earth in this age in the shape of a living human being. It has broken the cross and dispelled the evils of falsehood and its worship. The Holy Prophet(sa) in a Hadith about the cross has compared these evils to the swine. They have now been killed just as swine are killed. It is wrong to interpret this Hadith to mean that the Promised Messiah would kill the infidels and break crosses. In reality, the breaking of the cross means that at the time, God of Heaven and Earth would reveal the hidden Truth and, all of a sudden, the entire structure of the cross would collapse. The killing of swine does not mean the killing of men or of swine, but the killing of swinish qualities like persistent falsehood and flaunting it with impunity, which is like eating excrement. Just as dead swine cannot eat dirt, so, there would come a time — in fact, it has already come — when evil would be prevented from gorging on this kind of dirt. Muslim clerics, the Ulama, have been grossly mistaken in the interpretation of this prophecy of the Holy Prophet(sa). The true meaning of the breaking of the cross and of the killing of the swine are the ones we have already mentioned. If the Mahdi and the Messiah were supposed to go on a killing spree, what will become of the other prophecy which says that at the time of the Promised Messiah, religious wars will be brought to an end and Heaven will radiate such resplendent truths as will clearly differentiate between right and wrong. Do not think, therefore, that I have come to wield the sword. No, I have come to put all swords back into their sheaths. The world has been groping in the dark for far too long. Many have conspired against their well-wishers, wounded the hearts of true friends, and hurt their dear ones. But now darkness shall be no more. Night is gone and the day has dawned. Blessed is he who remains not deprived any more!

Among the testimonies contained in Buddhist records is the evidence mentioned on page 419 of Buddhism by Oldenberg. It is recorded on the authority of the book named Mahavagga (page 54 section 1) that a man called Rahulta19 was a successor to the Buddha. This Rahulta has been described not only as his devoted disciple, but also as his son. I am convinced that Rahulta of Buddhistic records is none other than Ruhullah, which is one of Jesus’ titles and reads as Rahulta due to phonetic variation. To say that Rahulta was the son of the Buddha, who abandoned his child in infancy, went into exile and, wishing to part from his wife for good, left her asleep without informing her or saying farewell, and fled to some other land, is altogether absurd and derogatory to the high spiritual station of the Buddha. It portrays him as a cruel and hard-hearted man who had no compassion for his poor wife and left her asleep and slunk away like a thief without saying a word of consolation to her. He altogether ignored the duties he owed to her as a husband, neither divorcing her nor asking her permission to proceed on an endless journey, wounded her heart by disappearing so suddenly and did not care to send her even a single letter and took no pity on his child who grew up to manhood in his absence. Could such a man, who had no respect for the morals he taught his disciples, be righteous? Conscience refuses to accept this story, just as it refuses to accept the story of the Gospels that once Jesus failed to show regard for his mother, that he did not attend to her when she called on him and uttered words which were disrespectful.

So although the two stories about hurting the feelings of a wife and a mother have a mutual resemblance, yet we cannot ascribe such stories as do not size up to the lowest level of moral conduct either to Jesus or to Gautama Buddha. If the Buddha loved not his wife, had he no pity on a poor woman and her suffering child either? It is so serious a lapse of moral conduct that I am shocked even to think of this story which is hundreds of years old and belongs to the dead past. Why at all should he have misbehaved like this? To be a bad man, it is enough to be callous towards one’s wife, unless she be immoral, disobedient, faithless, or hostile to her husband. We cannot, therefore, ascribe such offensive behaviour to the Buddha, which militates against his own teachings. All this shows that the story is false. In point of fact, ‘Rahulta’ means Jesus, whose other name is ‘Ruhullah’. The word ‘Ruhullah’ in Hebrew comes close to Rahulta, and ‘Rahula’, or, ‘Ruhullah’, has been described as a disciple of the Buddha because, as I have already stated, that Jesus came after the Buddha and brought a dispensation similar to that of the Buddha. That is why the followers of the Buddhist faith declared that the Buddha was the source of the teachings of Jesus, and that Jesus was one of his disciples. It should not be surprising if the Buddha, on the basis of revelation from God, should have declared Jesus to be his ‘son’. Another important piece of circumstantial evidence is that in the same book it is recorded that when the infant Rahulta was separated from his mother, a woman whose name was Magdaliyana, and who was a follower of the Buddha acted as the intermediary. It may be noted that the name Magdaliyana is in reality a corrupt form of the name Magdalena, a female follower of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels.

All this evidence, which has been briefly given, should lead an unbiased mind to the conclusion that Jesus must have visited this country. Regardless of all these certain and sure grounds, no intelligent person can afford to disregard the similarity to be found between the teachings and the ceremonial rites of Buddhism and those of Christianity, especially in Tibet. This resemblance is so close and striking that most Christian researchers believe that Buddhism is the Christianity of the East, and Christianity the Buddhism of the West.20 Isn’t it strange that Jesus said, ‘I am the Light and the Way’, so said the Buddha. The Gospels call Jesus the Saviour, the Buddha too calls himself the Saviour (see Lalta Wasatra). In the Gospels, it is stated that Jesus had no father, and about the Buddha too it is stated that he was born without a father,21 although apparently, just as Jesus had a foster father Joseph, so had the Buddha a foster father. Similarly, it is stated that a star appeared at the time of the Buddha’s birth. Also there is the story of Solomon ordering the cutting of the child in two halves and giving each half to the two women; an exactly similar episode is to be found in the Buddha’s Jataka.22 In addition to showing that Jesus did come to this country, it shows that the Jews who had migrated to this land had also established close ties with Buddhism.

The Buddhistic account of the Creation is the same as the one given in the Torah. According to the Torah man is considered superior to woman, so is a monk in the religion of the Buddha considered superior to a nun. The Buddha did, however, believe in the transmigration of souls, but his view of transmigration is not opposed to the teaching of the Gospels. According to the Buddha, transmigration is of three kinds:

1. The conduct and courage of a man demands that after death he should be given some kind of a new body.

2. The kind of transmigration, which the Tibetans believe is peculiar to the Lamas. It means that part of the spirit of some Buddha or Buddha Satwas transmigrates into the Lama for the time being which means that his power, temper and spiritual qualities are transferred into the Lama and begin to animate the recipient.

3. That in this very life man goes through different creations until on account of his moral qualities he becomes an authentic human being. But before that a time may come when he is, figuratively speaking, a bull; when he grows in greed and evil, he becomes a veritable dog, the first existence giving place to the next, corresponding to the quality of his actions. All these ‘metamorphoses’, however, take place in this very life. This kind of creed is not opposed to the teaching of the Gospels.

I have already stated that the Buddha also believes in the existence of the Devil; he also believes in heaven and hell, in angels and in the Day of Judgment. The charge that the Buddha did not believe in God, is a pure fabrication. However, he did not believe in Vedanta23 and in the corporeal gods of the Hindus. He was an acute critic of the Vedas, and did not believe in the truth of the existing Vedas; he believed that they had been corrupted and tampered with. The period during which he was a Hindu and follower of the Vedas, he regarded as the period of evil birth. For example, he hints that for a time he was a monkey, again for a time an elephant, then a deer, a dog, four times a snake, a sparrow, a frog, twice a fish, ten times a tiger, four times a fowl, twice a pig, and once a hare. When he was a hare he used to teach the monkeys, the jackals, and the water dogs. Again, he says that he was once a ghost, once a woman, and once a dancing Devil. All these hints are meant to point to phases of his life as were full of cowardice, effeminacy, impurity, savagery, profligacy, gluttony, and superstition. It appears that in point of fact, his confessions pertain to the time when he was a follower of the Vedas, for, after rejecting them he gives no hint of any evil still clinging to him. On the contrary, he makes great claims. He said that he had become a manifestation of God and had attained Nirvana.24 The Buddha also states that the man who leaves the world accompanied by evil deeds is thrown into hell. Sentinels of hell drag him to the supreme guardian of hell, called Yamah, and the condemned one is asked whether or not he had seen the following Five Messengers who had been sent to warn him:

1. Childhood,

2. Old age,

3. Disease,

4. Being punished during one's life as evidence of the punishment in the hereafter,

5. Corpses which remind us of the transitory nature of the world.

The condemned one replies that he had been a fool and that he had not thought over any of these things. The guardians of hell will drag him to the torture chamber and secure him with red-hot iron chains. The Buddha, moreover, says that hell has several zones where sinners of different categories will be cast. In short, all this teaching cries out aloud that the Buddhist religion is to a large extent indebted to the personal example and influence of Jesus.I do not like to elaborate the point further, and should close the section here, because the prophecy about the coming of Jesus to this country has been so clearly spelled out in Buddhist literature; nor can it be denied that the parables and the moral teaching of the Gospels are positively to be found in Buddhist books compiled in Jesus’ time. These two points considered together do not leave any doubt about the coming of Jesus to this country. The evidence, therefore, which we wanted to find in Buddhistic records has been discovered in full. God be thanked.