Isa Masaha: The Holy Man West of Tibet

Yesterday's Jesus as Isa is a pair calling for explanation. This article explores the Jesus featured in a peculiar account of an old Hindu scripture, where Jesus is featured as a sage with a golden glow, clad in white robes, living in western Tibet in the years following his preaching of dharma among "uncultured civilizations" — the lands of the Mlecchas.

While the authenticity of the narration in the Bhavishya-purana is questionable, it is nevertheless worth studying to gain insight into the blending of Jesus Christ and the Dharmic religions. The topic of the Jesus of Aquarian Gospel and his possible travels across India is somewhat outside the scope of this article, written merely in explaining the word Isa and commenting on apocryphal references to Jesus found in Hindu scriptures.

"Shrine of Hazrati Yousa Asouph" — believed by some to be Jesus' tomb in Kashmir.
For more information, see Flickr photos and The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website.

In Arabic (and Qur'an), Jesus is known as Īsā, the al-Masīḥ one of his frequent titles. "He is also a word from God and a spirit from Him." He is also called Yasu in Arabic speaking countries, much like people in India call him Yeshu or Ishu, and many others in their own variants by culture and language.

Some versions of Bhavishya-purana ("Ancient Text of Future"), a popular Hindu text of uncertain origins, have an account of a great sage known as Isa Masaha. The Bhavishya-purana itself is largely in the "Hindu Apocrypha" department, in the body of texts that are somewhat canonized, but in many cases either entirely of more recent origin, or substantially enlarged by later authors over the centuries.

A persian miniature of Jesus / Isa
giving the famous Sermon on the Mount

The word Isa is also an often-used short form of the Sanskrit word Isvara, "Master" or "God", not unlike the word "Lord" in English and Christian usage. In a curious parallel, the word "Father" is "isä" in Finnish; also used for the Father-aspect of the Trinity: Isä, Poika and Pyhä Henki. For a Wisdom Wheel parallel: Yang: Creator, Father/Heaven; Yin: Neutralizer, Son/Lamb/Earth; Wuji: Nondual, Uncreated Holy Spirit. We are dealing with universals, once again.

The word "isä" in Finnish comes from Proto-Uralic ičä;  while Uralic languages are not directly related to Indo-European languages (such as Sanskrit and Latin), the two have shared plenty of terrain and culture with the Aryan languages over the millennia. (This is why even a language as peculiar as Finnish has some uncanny similarities with a wide range of European and Indic languages.)

It's more than likely that texts like Bhavishya-purana have been altered (read: critique that prompted this write-up) — whether by Christian missionaries eager to establish a predating legacy of Jesus for the Hindus, or by Hindus themselves in an attempt to absorb the emerging spread of Christianity under their syncretic umbrella. For reference, the relevant passage is in Bhavishya-purana, Catur-yuga Khanda, Second Adhyaya. (Link to text. The transliteration and translations there are sloppy, but sufficient to understand the meaning in the original.)

The following are summary notes of the text and the discussion of Isa Masaha and king Shalivahana, taking place following Jesus' years of preaching in the distant lands:

• Describes himself as Isa-putra (Son of Isa or God) and Kumari-garbha-sambhava (Begotten of virgin womb).
• Lives on a mountain in Western Tibet near Mount Kailash and Manasarovara (Hunadesh: Lands of the Huns).
• Acted as a teacher of dharma to the Mlecchas (barbarians and uncultured people outside Vedic civilization).
• Became Masiha (messiah) to dissipate the spread of the fearsome religions by the uncivilized, who had lost the way of the truth.

In the text, Isa presents to king Shalivahana (c. 78-102 CE) a summary of the principles of dharma he taught  (verses 27-30) for people, whose pure way had become corrupted over time:

1. The mind should be made pristine.
2. Embodied beings are subject to good and bad taints.
3. Abolishing sacrifices, one should pray in highest pristinity.
4. As duty and in thoughts one should speak the truth.
5. In contemplation one should worship the Lord, established in the Solar Field, the Immovable Master himself, everywhere like the light of the Sun.
6. Having the Lord firmly manifest in the heart leads to everlasting purity and welfare.
7. "In this way, my name came to be established as Isa Masiha (Jesus Messiah)."

While not exactly a reflection of the entirety of the key teachings in the Gospel (in that they omit the central teaching of love), these teachings are certainly very much in line with the spirit of the original teachings of Jesus. Also, the connection of Isa/Father as the Prime Solar Force goes well with my Wisdom Wheel model in contextualizing Christian triune theology with other cosmologies — something for another day.

The characterization of Christianity as the religion of the Mlecchas, or uncivilized barbarians, isn't particularly complementary — while certainly an accurate description from the Brahmana point of view, where people living in deserts were regarded as being of sinful birth, lacking in culture of purity and as such ineligible to study the finer truths of theology and philosophy. If this were the handicraft of a Christian missionary, I would have expected a more complementary spin to the story.

It would be interesting to read the text in its entirety at some point. Overall, the Puranas — including Bhagavata, which is relatively late — are in the habit of listing chronologies of rulers in a future tense, when the narration is placed into anciety. For reference, see the 12th book of Bhagavata-purana. The correlative tables I have drafted for some of these lists make for a reasonable match with the actual names and sequences in history, reaching well into the common era — as with king Shalivahana (Gautamiputra Satakarni), a historical ruler of the Satavahana empire who is told here to have met Jesus the Messiah.

Still, many fundamentalists subscribe to the idea of such texts being 5,000 years old in their current form, believing them to be literal and detailed predictions for some 4,000 years into the future. I'd take it all with a grain of salt when it comes to claims to the ancience of Indic scriptures from the believers — or any other scripture with an uncanny level of specific detail for a  "prediction" of the future for that matter.

Predictions are based on enlightened and inspired observation and intuition of the patterns and undercurrents of the world, and are therefore by definition more abstract in nature. They are also not a proof of anything else than of themselves — they certainly do not validate a number of other unrelated claims heard in the same general direction.

Whatever the historicity of all these predictions may be, let's remember the gist of the lesson to be learned: Great teachers and prophets do not concern themselves with the particularities of the future, they address the problems of the humanity here and now. The thought of a salvation is a slim joy if the primal peace of the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven is absent from within you during your lifetime.

On that note, souls in the Kingdom of Heaven do not wave the flag of Israel or the insignia of any collective of people on Earth, whether crosses and crucifixes or wheels of dharma. They live in both immanence and transcendence, dwelling in an absolute state of pristinity within — whatever the path they may have followed in reaching that supreme peaceful and enlightened destination of the heart.

The God Who Created the God Who Created the God

Religious philosophers tend to argue in favor of an original intelligent cause as an answer for the question of our origins. It stands to reason, they argue, that an original cause be accepted to avoid the paradox of beginninglessness. The original cause being of course a monotheistic god, who is assumed perfect and benevolent.

From these roots come the marked difference in the linear and finite versus cyclic and infinite models of the Occident and the Orient, along with some wildly varying concepts of god or its equivalent. When it comes to god and gods, much is assumed and little is certain.

The pursuit for an original cause is much like a walk in Escher's paradox.

Original Cause as a Non-Solution

Proposing that there is an original cause is philosophically unsatisfactory, inasmuch as the original cause always remains incomprehensible to us smaller units, its originality unproven in the face of the possibility that our original cause is but the a link in a chain of causation. The concept of a greater creator merely begs the question whether there might be more creators at work somewhere up the pyramid of creations.

If there is one creator god for the existence we know, it is in fact entirely plausible that there may be any number of other, more compassive gods further up the line of creations, the extent of which we'd never be able to decipher as either infinite or finite. The seemingly definitive solution of an original cause now effectively returns to square one, once again face to face with the paradox of infinity and beginninglessness.

Brahma, the Hindu demiurge, is born from a lotus growing from Vishnu's navel.

Hierarchy of Creator Gods in Indic Lore

The Vaishnavite mythology, found throughout the Puranic lore, posits the existence of a single eternal transcendent deity, Vishnu, who dwells beyond the world of creations, and also permeates the creation as its supporting substratum. At the dawn of creation Vishnu, lying at the bottom of each of the universes he created, let a lotus sprout from his navel, atop which awoke Brahma, the creator god of the Hindu trinity, set to organize the elements of the cosmos provided by Vishnu.

This prime creator, in turn, set forth a number of Prajapatis, progenitors of mankind and diverse species, along with a number of sages to impart wisdom to the creation. In a fair number of epics the lesser gods, created by Brahma, mistake their immediate creator to be the supreme creating deity and the original cause, and in fact he is found to be so deluded on a number of occasions himself.

The god Brahma also features in early Buddhist lore as one among a number of Brahmas, each presiding over their own Brahma-worlds, fancying themselves as creator gods, frequently original causes in their own right. These Brahmas feature in a number of legends from the Buddha's cosmic adventures, and it was in fact Brahma Sahampati who urged the Buddha to go forth and preach the dharma in the wake of his enlightenment.

The theology of some Vaishnavas, most notably the Gaudiya tradition and the Hare Krishnas, further posits that Krishna is, rather than an avatar of Vishnu, in fact the original source god, of whom Vishnu is an extension for purposes of creation. Yet they are in some respects identical, one deity and one mind, and yet again different in some minute manners. Overall, I get the effect of calling to an office for the person responsible, only to be routed around in circles until the line breaks. No wonder some prefer speaking face to face, whether it's gods or service personnel.

Not surprisingly, adherents of the Shaiva school likewise claim Shiva to be the supreme god, as again the Shaktas insist that Shakti is the ultimate mother-godhead, of which Shiva, Vishnu and the rest spring forth. Faced with the immense plurality and conflicting opinions of the Indic gods, good old Christian monotheism might begin to seem like a welcome breeze of fresh air. If so, please breathe to your liking before starting the following section.

David Tarleton: The Aeon Sophia at the Birth of the Demiurge

Gnostic Demiurge and Judeo-Christian Creator God

I recall a lively conversation I once had with an elderly Jehovah's Witness. He was adamant that the mainstream Christian Church was wrong in claiming that Jesus was God, while he was in fact the first creation, as also god's instrument for the making of the creation that sprang forth — all standard Jehovah's Witness theology.

Incidentally I was also once filled in into the higher secret of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, again by an elderly gentleman somewhere in northern Finland. All was fine with my theology, but the fact that I was a monk at the time. Skipping the preliminaries, he related how we, as married couples, are to evolve and one day become creator gods and goddesses of our own universes.

To make things even more confusing on the Judeo-Christian front, we are confronted with the question of their god being perhaps a legion of gods, as the plural address Elohim and covenants to "not have any other gods" indicate. How much do the Elohim have in common with the gods of the Olympos mountain, the Egyptian Pantheon and the Hindu gods of Himalaya?

It was the Gnostic tradition that first identified the Judean God as a so-called Demiurge, an inferior and imperfect deity responsible for the creation of an imperfect world. Gnostic estimates of the lesser deity span from an embodiment of evil to merely an imperfect yet benevolent being. The Gnostics view the birth of the Demiurge as an accident that was never meant to happen, in effect describing an unplanned pregnancy leading to the birth of a defective god.

In contrast to demiurge are the eternal Pleroma, self-manifest beings transcending our dimension, ascension among whom is the final destination of the humans. As fascinating as it is, one can't help but wonder whether there might be yet another layer of causation beyond the supposedly eternal Pleroma, who as a matter of fact sound remarkably similar to the residents of the Immaterial Realms of the Buddhist cosmology, who are again superceded by the cryptic nirvana.

The Judeo-Christian God's wrath in the Genesis incident over Adam's acquisition of classified knowledge is interesting in its own right. We even find the following admission in God's own words (3.21): "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Interestingly, the serpent was right over the fruit's effects, while God was in fact trying to prevent access with threats of death upon eating. Now that ought to get the conspiracy theorists running!

Left: Intimidating Jaffa servant of an Egyptian Goa'uld. Right: The Ori grant supernatural powers to their Priors.

Evil Gods of Science Fiction

The well-documented traits of the God Institution have also found their way into popular entertainment. For an example, the popular TV-series Stargate features two separate races of malevolent beings posing and worshiped as gods, only to be overthrown by their subjects in due course.

The Goa'uld, evil and technologically advanced power-hungry parasites, used humans for slavery for millennia in the guise of various Egyptian, Greek and Oriental gods, posing as immortal lords and the creators. The Goa'uld were snake-like creatures who bonded with human hosts, integrating themselves with the hosts' spinal cord and the brain. (Incidentally the often-controversial kundalini-energy of Hindu Tantrics literally means "female serpent" and, when activated, rises up the spinal cord and yields psychic powers.)

Again the Ori, an ascendend incorporeal species, inspired massive crusades to have everyone worship them, for they gained power through the energy sapped from lower sentient beings. For them, the religion is a conduit for transferring upwards the energy expended by the worshipers. In return for worship and absolute dedication, they offered their followers a false promise of ascension, unwilling as they were to share of their power. Really, exactly how many of the available promises of afterlife are guaranteed real deals? It's a pity religions don't come bundled with a money-back guarantee.

While there would be a number of other juicy examples to illustrate the concept, let's focus on the gist of the idea, namely the assumed integrity and benevolence of the said god or gods. There is no reason to assume that a more powerful being would have also evolved in benevolence, even if the religions of the world do tend to take the goodness of their gods for granted. Hey, the gods of the Zoroastrians being the demons of the Brahmanas and vice versa, one or other of the gods out there has got to be evil! And evil or not, faithfully worshiped by devout followers.

Something is fundamentally wrong with the above scenario.

Final Thoughts

The final day of reckoning pending and yet to be proven, there are few compelling reasons for worshiping one authoritarian god or the other. Given the insubstantiability of the said claims of absolute originality, omnipotence and omniscience, there is little reason to accept demands of allegiance. Neither claims of rightful ownership of our souls or threats of damnation or annihilation can serve as a basis for a healthy, working relationship. If there's one thing that puts me off on so many levels, it is intimidation.

If some choose to voluntarily pursue the worship of a god or several gods or goddesses, whether it be for solace, pleasure, profit or wisdom, I don't see it as objectionable as long as the relationship remains non-abusive. If a god or the gods are real, existing and sentient beings, it stands to reason that our free will ought to be respected, and all forms of life, regardless of evolutionary level, ought to have certain rights. Just like we also treat nature and animals, eh? Do unto them as he did unto us...

Coming from a god who created hell, a promise that he can save me from going to hell isn't exactly playing it fair. You cannot create a threat and then play the good guy for alleviating the threat! When a threat is produced to gain advantage from the object of threat, it is called coercion. Use of coercion with self-produced ultimatums spanning infinity cannot be the work of a a truthful, loving and benevolent being.

Not that I'm an atheist. Atheism as a concept is far too limited, as is theism along with its bretheren ideologies. Pantheism and monistic nondualism are high on my chart of working elements for a coherent overall picture of existence. No single theory in itself seems to be adequate for capturing the essence of existence, and a comprehensive Theory of Everything is yet to be written. Be that as it may, it seems evident that the era of authoritarian creator gods is nearing its inevitable end.

Further Reading

Brahma (Buddhism): A fascinating gloss on the role of the god Brahma in Buddhist lore, little known to many Hindu adherents who fancy Brahma as a Hindu deity. Ironic as it is, the god of the Brahmanas was identified as one of the Brahmas known to the Buddha long before the Puranas began to grow into their current renditions!

Brahma (Hinduism): A good overview of the Hindu lore of creation, the birth of Brahma, who was to become one of the popular Hindu trinity, and the subsequent gods he created for the sake of expanding his domain. Path to Deification: How we evolve into gods, as understood in the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Gnosticism: Pleroma and the Demiurge. Goa'uld and Ori: Two fictive races of false gods in the Stargate universe.