There have been claims of the Christian Messiah, Christ Jesus of Nazareth, having gone to the East and studied under wise gurus during his "unwritten years" where there is no viable account of what happened then. This might be true, but I doubt it. What would even bring Jesus to go that far, to learn philosophies barely spoken of at that time and place of his life?

Firstly, there is no physical evidence that Jesus existed (although I don't doubt he existed), much less that he made a long journey to the East and then returned.

So, assuming he did exist, and didn't obtain his teachings from the East, how do they then show themselves to be so congruent that it would no doubt seem otherwise?

Most who have even just dabbled in Eastern thought systems and religions understand what the universal conscious is, or a singular conscious. I've heard it likened to islands, tipped above the water, giving the illusion of independent existence while being in the Buddhist concept of Pratityasamutpada, or dependent arising.

In this way, it wouldn't be such a stretch to infer that the teachings of the Buddha are not alone or unique, but that this has been floating around for an unimaginably long time. Innumerable eons even.

Therefore, concluding that Jesus had this knowledge simply by becoming enlightened through some means, which may or may not somehow have been brought on by Eastern philosophy, the we must draw the theory that Jesus did not teach others that he himself was the son of God, but a son of God, or God. This means we are all God, and thus Jesus was teaching how others may realize their own true underlying nature, one that is pure and has virtuous merit.

This has radical implications regarding the Christian church. If Jesus taught this as such, the church have been involved in basically taking a wise teacher and philosophy and deifying him, putting him upon a pedestal and implying that no other man may ever claim Godhood. Jesus never set out to create a religion in his name, and never explicitly said so. If he did, what would that say about the man himself?

This also says something far more powerful about Jesus: He didn't just die for us. Far from it. He reached such an enlightenment, that he set out to expose the hypocrites of his time, and for what he believed in, he was murdered.

The issue with this post will ultimately be Christians attempting to explain to me how Jesus was really what they claim him to be, or even possibly attacking me. I've been down this road before. But know that I'm not attacking your religion. I'm simply asking questions to doubts that arise in me. So please be civil.

Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
There have been claims of the Christian Messiah, Christ Jesus of Nazareth, having gone to the East and studied under wise gurus during his "unwritten years" where there is no viable account of what happened then. This might be true, but I doubt it. What would even bring Jesus to go that far, to learn philosophies barely spoken of at that time and place of his life?

Firstly, there is no physical evidence that Jesus existed (although I don't doubt he existed), much less that he made a long journey to the East and then returned.

So, assuming he did exist, and didn't obtain his teachings from the East, how do they then show themselves to be so congruent that it would no doubt seem otherwise?

Most who have even just dabbled in Eastern thought systems and religions understand what the universal conscious is, or a singular conscious. I've heard it likened to islands, tipped above the water, giving the illusion of independent existence while being in the Buddhist concept of Pratityasamutpada, or dependent arising.

In this way, it wouldn't be such a stretch to infer that the teachings of the Buddha are not alone or unique, but that this has been floating around for an unimaginably long time. Innumerable eons even.

Therefore, concluding that Jesus had this knowledge simply by becoming enlightened through some means, which may or may not somehow have been brought on by Eastern philosophy, the we must draw the theory that Jesus did not teach others that he himself was the son of God, but a son of God, or God. This means we are all God, and thus Jesus was teaching how others may realize their own true underlying nature, one that is pure and has virtuous merit.

This has radical implications regarding the Christian church. If Jesus taught this as such, the church have been involved in basically taking a wise teacher and philosophy and deifying him, putting him upon a pedestal and implying that no other man may ever claim Godhood. Jesus never set out to create a religion in his name, and never explicitly said so. If he did, what would that say about the man himself?

This also says something far more powerful about Jesus: He didn't just die for us. Far from it. He reached such an enlightenment, that he set out to expose the hypocrites of his time, and for what he believed in, he was murdered.

The issue with this post will ultimately be Christians attempting to explain to me how Jesus was really what they claim him to be, or even possibly attacking me. I've been down this road before. But know that I'm not attacking your religion. I'm simply asking questions to doubts that arise in me. So please be civil.

Despite this, Christianity is truly a moral compass, and if it was considered a truth, I would take it metaphorically, not literally. Perhaps it was skewed to place fear in those for a basis on control. What makes god look ungodly is his intolerance to morality, like a godlike being has any quarrels with human constructs like good and evil ( LOL ). I truly believe that this singular consciousness is truth, because those that grasp it, innately are drawn to its enlightened nature, and its invariable mark on your psyche. Those that follow this nature, are conceptually more intelligent and eloquently are able to articulate these concepts on a broad platform to which anybody can relate to.

The truth is, singular consciousness is logical. Logical because actions reflect other actions in a cascading effect, rendering this a rational belief that anybody can understand. Once understood, it's a brief moment of enlightenment that truly embraces unconditional love. It's something that emboldens oneness and empowers all people, with tolerance and patience, and an altruistic nature. I look at everyone like my brother, or my sister, or myself, and consider them that because of empathy, and these concepts which truly liberate your mind from division.

I personally believe that once a Christian sees something like this, they proclaim it as "being touched by god," or "seeing the light." We all have our own aphorisms to this idea, but regardless of it, it is spiritual by nature, and it is enlightening and knowledge driven. Education eventually leads you to this path, and it's not religious... it's more of a systemic undermining of indoctrination that promotes division and seeing differences, rather than similarities.

Jesus said in Matthew, "if thy eye be single thy whole body will be full of light." I think this is metaphorically describing buddhist meditation. It makes more sense if you replace eye with mind, as the mind is the souls eye, so maybe it was a translation error, but anyways with mind singular, thy whole body will be full of light, this is an actual state of meditation., combine this with reports of yhe unwritten years it is entirely possible Jesus studied Eastern philosophy.