srinivas Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 This is true but the tomb of jesus and moses exist in the same town - pahalgam.You can visit it. http://www.tombofjesus.com http://www.tombofjesus.com/links.htm It is very interesting but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 Please don't post the "free-sex" guru OSHO's pseudo-religious propaganda here. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 This website has nothing to do with Osho.I just want people to know that a site exists for the tomb of jesus.Besides it is a proven fact that jesus visited india before he started preaching so it is very natural he came to india after his crucification. If you feel that it does not interest members i will not do so.I am not osho follower but as his books interest me i feel like sharing.This is a discussion forum.My views may not agree with you but even dicussing a person/book/website is sometimes good . As intelligent human beings discussion forums are created to discuss all issues.They has been a lot of ANTI-OSHO comments which shows many people do not agree with osho on this forum so i will not discuss osho/controversial websites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 I believe that Osho is much misunderstood personality. It requires lot of openness and throwing away of all our prejudices, to really listen to see what he’s talking about… humanity needs his message! More comments at sulochanosho.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/hello-world/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 I have seen documentaries on this before. What astonishes me is that they do not mention any Hindu or influences or Hinduism (Krishna who is older then Jesus) it all. Yet they mention Buddhism and Buddha. Not to mention, they say that Jesus went to India and fiercly argued with the Brahmins about the caste system and lower classes loved him because he spend a lot of time with them and stood up for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Also, I forgot to mention that many also believe this to be a hoax by Buddhist priests to present the lost life of Jesus in their records. Also, notice how Jesus's entire life story matches exactly that of Buddha's. From his teachings on life and his love for the poor to his rejection of Brahmin caste burdens and rituals. Could Jesus and Buddha have been the same person? hmmm interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 I forgot to add one major point... Buddha is supposed to have lived 500 years before Jesus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niranjan Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 It is noteworthy that the Bible makes no mention of Jesus Christ between the ages of 18 to 30 . Jesus Christ lived in India between the ages of 18 to 30 . After crucifixion , he returned back to India where he lived in Kashmir till his death . This has been said by the Indian spiritual masters Paramahamsa Yogananda , Satya Sai Baba and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Jesus's teaching of chastity, non-violence, and renunciation were derived from Hinduism, Buddhism and Yoga. The proof for this can be obtained from the books 'Jesus lived in India', written by a team of Western scholars and archaeologists and ' Hinduism and Christianity' by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar( the founder of the Art of Living Foundation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tensriram Posted April 28, 2007 Report Share Posted April 28, 2007 Even Jesus !!! Never gave out his source for the teachings!!! He was the founder of PLAGIARISM his followers have to do the same to perpetuate Christianity! Creation of Sinners, Redeemers for Sinners, and the sinners redeemed is the only item special in Christianity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tensriram Posted April 28, 2007 Report Share Posted April 28, 2007 English language has limitations and to misunderstand and misinterpret is inherent. Study the original texts mentioned by OSHO under a competent teacher and true meanings will emerge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted April 28, 2007 Report Share Posted April 28, 2007 It is noteworthy that the Bible makes no mention of Jesus Christ between the ages of 18 to 30 . Jesus Christ lived in India between the ages of 18 to 30 . After crucifixion , he returned back to India where he lived in Kashmir till his death . This has been said by the Indian spiritual masters Paramahamsa Yogananda , Satya Sai Baba and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Jesus's teaching of chastity, non-violence, and renunciation were derived from Hinduism, Buddhism and Yoga. The proof for this can be obtained from the books 'Jesus lived in India', written by a team of Western scholars and archaeologists and ' Hinduism and Christianity' by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar( the founder of the Art of Living Foundation). Why do they not mention Hinduism in any of the articles or documentaries that I have read. They only mentioned Buddha and Buddhism. In fact, the only mention of Hinduism that I have seen was when Jesus came in contact with the upper castes Hindus whom he fiercl;y fought with about abusing the lower castes. So how did he learn from Hinduism? Can you please provide more information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 Why do they not mention Hinduism in any of the articles or documentaries that I have read. They only mentioned Buddha and Buddhism. In fact, the only mention of Hinduism that I have seen was when Jesus came in contact with the upper castes Hindus whom he fiercl;y fought with about abusing the lower castes. So how did he learn from Hinduism? Can you please provide more information. Well first of all Jesus quarelled with the Brahmins and not Hindus which means the rest of the population. What a lot of people don't know is that Brahmins have contributed very little to Hinduism and Hindu philosophy, only in their later years they contributed (adi shankara). Most sages and Gods are not Brahmin. Brahmins made themselves superior. They are not superior in anyway when you really study Hinduism. They used Hinduism to control masses which is why everyone in India worships Brahmins instead of God. Brahmins make a lot of money by doing rituals and things that are not needed. They have to stay in business so they invent a new way to stay in everytime. Krishna then Buddha then Jesus were against the practices of the Brahmin classes and their path allowed everyone to have some kind of dignity rather then having to hire Brahmins for services. Krishna tried to harmonize society and said varna is based on qualities. He also said to let everything go and follow his path to gain the highest perfection. All of these sages spoke out against the malpractices of Brahmins but no matter what they have said Brahmins still continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 All this talk about Jesus in India is pure speculation. The gnostic gospels is probably closer to Jesus's original teachings. The church today is quite different from the early church just after Jesus's life which proably tuaght his true teachings. hindu12, the reason they don't mention Krishna is probably becasue they don't believe he existed, so they don't take him or his teachings seriously, whereas they do believe in Buddha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 All this talk about Jesus in India is pure speculation. The gnostic gospels is probably closer to Jesus's original teachings. The church today is quite different from the early church just after Jesus's life which proably tuaght his true teachings. hindu12, the reason they don't mention Krishna is probably becasue they don't believe he existed, so they don't take him or his teachings seriously, whereas they do believe in Buddha. Almost all historians and scholars believe Krishna was a historical person. His historicity is just as much as valid as Buddha's. I am sure you read my previous posts regarding the various birth dates regarding Buddha. Therefore, why wouldn't they believe he existed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 I think the problem is the westerners have given very little attention to Hinduism as much as they did with Buddhism and Taoism and other religions of the far east. Therefore, Hinduism is hardly taken seriously. From all the books I have read regarding the historicity of Krishna, I Sri Aurobindo explains it the best as it matches closely to what I have read... "The historicity of Krishna is of less spiritual importance and is not essential, but it has still a considerable value. It does not seem to me that there can be any reasonable doubt that Krishna the man was not a legend or a poetic invention but actually existed upon earth and played a part in the Indian past. Two facts emerge clearly, that he was regarded as an important spiritual figure, one whose spiritual illumination was recorded in one of the Upanishads, and that he was traditionally regarded as a divine man, one worshipped after his death as a deity; this is apart from the story in the Mahabharata and the Puranas. There is no reason to suppose that the connection of his name with the development of the Bhagavata religion, an important current in the stream of Indian spirituality , was founded on a mere legend or poetic invention. The Mahabharata is a poem and not history , but it is clearly a poem founded on a great historical event, traditionally preserved in memory; some of the figures connected with it, Dhritarashtra, Parikshit, for instance, certainly existed and the story of the part played by Krishna as leader, warrior and statesman can be accepted as probable in itself and to all appearance founded on a tradition which can be given a historical value and has not the air of a myth or a sheer poetical invention. That is as much as can be positively said from the point of view of the theoretical reason as to the historic figure of the man Krishna; but in my view there is much more than that in it and I have always regarded the incarnation as a fact and accepted the historicity of Krishna as I accept the historicity of Christ. II The Krishna consciousness is a reality, but if there were no Krishna, there could be no Krishna consciousness; except in arbitrary metaphysical abstractions there can be no consciousness without a Being who is conscious. It is the person who gives value and reality to the personality , he expresses himself in it and is not constituted by it. Krishna is a being, a person and it is as the Divine Person that we meet him, hear his voice, speak with him and feel his presence. To speak of the consciousness of Krishna as something separate from Krishna is an error of the mind, which is always separating the inseparable and which also tends to regard the impersonal, because it is abstract, as greater, more real and more enduring than the person. Such divisions may be useful to the mind for its own purposes, but it is not the real truth; in the real truth the being or person and its impersonality or state of being are one reality." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 All this talk about Jesus in India is pure speculation. The gnostic gospels is probably closer to Jesus's original teachings. The church today is quite different from the early church just after Jesus's life which proably tuaght his true teachings. Well it seems to be as if this whole talk of Jesus's matches exactly that of Buddha's life and philosophy. I personally think it may have been a hoax by Buddhist priests but who I am to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niranjan Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Why do they not mention Hinduism in any of the articles or documentaries that I have read. They only mentioned Buddha and Buddhism. In fact, the only mention of Hinduism that I have seen was when Jesus came in contact with the upper castes Hindus whom he fiercl;y fought with about abusing the lower castes. So how did he learn from Hinduism? Can you please provide more information. Go through the books I have mentioned. You will get what you need. Jesus stated " I and my Father are one." This is similar to the Upanishadic teaching Aham Brahmasmi, meaning "I am He." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindu12 Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Go through the books I have mentioned. You will get what you need. Jesus stated " I and my Father are one." This is similar to the Upanishadic teaching Aham Brahmasmi, meaning "I am He." thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.