“Relatively little is known about the origins of Hinduism, as it predates recorded history.”

“Hinduism – as I see it – is a coming together of various doctrines and philosophies. To find out the exact origins of Hinduism is a bit pointless I think. It is like asking – Where did the Ocean Originate”

“Hinduism, the world’s oldest religion, has no beginning–it precedes recorded history. It has no human founder. It is a mystical religion”

Here is the first ever look on the founders of Hinduism.

Just as there has been a huge amount of migration in the last four centuries from all over the world to United States and other North American provinces, there was a time thousands of years ago,  when huge and gigantic rivers like Saraswati were wetting Indian lands, India was the preferred choice of destination for migration.  While a lot of places in the world were covered with ice, the Indian subcontinent, with its mighty rivers and its relatively tropical climate, offered the most ideal place for settlements and habitations. Huge number of tribes used to frequently migrate onto the Indian subcontinent in large numbers. Each incoming community had its own tribal deity and the environment became highly polytheistic with every community of few hundred or thousand individuals having its own God. With thousands of deities present all over the place, the essence of religion itself was completely lost. It was necessary to arrest this polytheism and bring some sanity. That’s when an institution called Saptarshis was formed.

Hinduism was the result of a well-formed organizational institution headed by Seven Sages, called Saptarshis, who aimed at arresting the excessive polytheism resulting from these migrations. Just as we have Pope for Christianity today, Hinduism, from the beginning, had this institution of seven sages who were the patriarchs of the religion. They used certain scriptures called Vedas to arrest polytheism, and took excessive pains to integrate all these different deities under one hood of a universal religion. They very strictly guarded the Vedic body of knowledge, and the copy of the Vedas available with them was considered to be the final copy.

Any changes to the Vedas were needed to be approved by this elite group of sages. If the reasons were justified, they approved the changes and incorporated them into the Vedas. Otherwise, they rejected it and kept the Vedas intact without any contamination. From what appears, they were extremely strict about changes to the Vedas. Even to this day of Hinduism, a word in Veda is normally considered as the final authority to the literal T. And this faith in Vedas was built upon a tradition where the Vedas were very strictly and jealously guarded from any changes whatsoever, unless the change really justified it. Some super human justification was required to have them changed. Any changes, to the extent possible, were always added as appendages rather than their being incorporated into the Vedas. So we have Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads as appendages to the Vedas. As more and more philosophy developed, all of them got incorporated into this body as appendages.

It is this institution of seven sages that expended large amount of effort over thousands of years in unifying a large number of traditions from across civilizations into one single religion of Hinduism that we see today. The Hindu trinity, the Hindu divine hierarchy, the Hindu festivals, and everything else that we see today were formulated by them. It is they who declared Ram and Krishna to be the incarnations of God. It is they who inserted Purusha Sukta, Narayana Sukta, and Sri Sukta  into the Vedas – these hymns, which are so important to the religion today, were once not part of Vedas.

The names of the Saptarshis carried over from one generation to the next. For example, if Kasyap dies, his son would take on the name of Kasyap and get inducted into the Saptarshis. Once in a while, for some reason, like one of the seven rishis dying without having any children, the names of the one or more of the rishis changed, giving us a different set of Saptarshis.

The religion got so excessively dependent on these sages that they started being considered as the representatives of the creator on earth. This slowly led to their deification and they started being mythicized. They were declared as the mind born sons of God. Subsequently, they were equated with the most evolved light beings in the creation and the guardians of divine laws. Further deification of their attributes lead to the addition of more and more myths and halo around them. This sort of excessive mythicization finally led to the relegation of this institution from the purview of the real world into the realm of mythology, to the extent that they started being regarded as mythical personalities.

This institution got destroyed at the time of the three hundred year severe drought of 2200 BC. At that time, most of the Indians, devastated by the drought, left India for foreign shores, especially to European lands.  Because of the severe suffering that people underwent because of the drought, people lost faith in a useless God who did not answer their prayers, leading to the rise of atheistic cults on the subcontinent. The institution of seven sages got destroyed in this religious upheaval and societal turbulence, as a result of which, the origins of Hinduism have once and for all become lost in the dungeons of time, becoming the source of intense mystery to this day.

[Excerpts from Prithviraj Rathod’s book 19,000 Years of World History. The book constructs the lost history of the world from the scriptures and cultural practices of Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and other religions and cultures. It covers the precise way in which Vedas were formulated and used to control Polytheism. Prithvi's Blog:  http://19000years.blogspot.com]

Jewish tribes, led by Abraham, were continuously displaced from their homeland, which then led them to go on a prolonged and arduous search for the promised land, a land supposedly promised by God. Even though Bible says that God commanded Abraham to move out to promised land, there must be some other non-mythological reason on why those tribes got displaced in the first place. Abraham is normally dated to 2200 to 1800 BC by historians.

We by now know very well that the crucified savior phenomenon did not start with Jesus, but existed much before him. Large number of crucified saviors across the world have been identified by researchers, saviors who supposedly lived much before Jesus. When did this phenomenon start at all? Well, the earliest crucified saviors have been dated to this period of 2200-1800 BC! – Adonis to 2000 BC, Thulis to 1700 BC, Horus to 1550 BC and so on.

Even though Buddha is dated to 500 BC by present day historians, Indian tradition claims that he lived around 1800 BC; and Indian claims have a ring of truth in them as the findings of my article “Buddha’s date – The need to take a fresh look at World History,” published earlier on Disinfo, show. What led people living at that point of time to suddenly abandon theism and the thoughts of God in favor of the atheistic thoughts of Buddhism?

The five states of India – Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra, and Tamilnadu – are called Pancha Dravidas, or five Dravidian states. Even though the languages of the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra are not classified as Dravidian languages, they, nevertheless, are classified as part of Pancha Dravidas.  What is the reason for this? The explanation given is that some external invaders called Aryans invaded India around 1800 BC and later formed the Vedic religion in India. The Dravidians, supposedly the adherents of the religion of Saivism, who were living in Gujarat at that time, got pushed by this invasion towards south of India. They traveled through these five states towards Tamilnadu, which is the reason why these five states are called Pancha Dravidas. Both the Aryan invasion as well as Dravidian migration are dated to 1800 BC!

What is it so special about this period of 2200 to 1800 BC? What was taking place around the world at that time?

Geologists now aver that there was a mighty drought of three centuries around the time of 2200 BC, which severely affected civilizations across India, West Asia, and North Africa. The following is a Wikipedia extract about this event:

“A phase of intense aridity in ≈4.2 ka BP (4200 years Before Present)  is well recorded across North Africa, the Middle East, the Red Sea, the Arabian peninsula, the Indian subcontinent, and even mid-continental North America. Glaciers throughout the mountain ranges of western Canada advanced at about this time.”

Michael Staubwasser of Hannover University and Harvey Weiss of Yale University, who made a study of the correlation between the climatic changes and the cultural evolution of West Asia, have the following to add :

“the event begins at 4200 cal yr BP (4200 years Before Present) and lasts about 300 yr. In records from the eastern Mediterranean region and West Asia, a severe drought is observed almost everywhere. A cultural response to the 4.2 ka climate event may also be seen within the Harappan civilization centered around the Indus valley into the Makran (West Pakistan) and Northwest India. A transition from an urbanized (mature or urban Harappan) to a rural (post-urban) society is well documented beginning at approximately 3950 cal yr BP (Possehl, 1997a). At the end of the third millennium and the beginning of the second millennium BC, the Great Bath and Granary at Mohenjo-Daro were abandoned, settlement in Sindh, the Indus-Sarasvati valley and the Baluchi highlands collapsed and shifted east to the headwaters of the Sarasvati and south to the Saurashtra Peninsula”

When most of our history was written, historians were not aware of this drought. World history was written when historians were not aware of the occurrence of this drought. Now that the drought has been discovered, world history needs to be rewritten.

There was a massive amount of migration all across the world at that point of time. People migrated hundreds or even thousands of miles to wherever they thought they could find water. Apart from the mythological reason of being commanded by God, the non-mythological reason why Abraham and his people went out in search of the promised land was because of the drought – they were displaced from their homeland. The reason why the Christ savior figures started appearing all over the world from that period was because the original set of Christ worshippers migrated away from their homeland at this time. The crucified legends of this group went along with these migrators to distant corners of the globe, in different forms, shapes, and variations, leading to a large number of crucifed savior figures all over the world.

The reason why people converted in large numbers to the atheistic cult of Buddhism at that point of time was because their prayers to the almighty to provide them relief and succor against the drought went unanswered for years, decades, and centuries. Even the staunchest of the faithful found it difficult to believe in any God who could answer their prayers. There was a revolt against theism, which led to the birth of atheistic cults.

The reason why Dravidians migrated toward south India at that time was not because of any external invasion, but because of drought. No Aryans ever migrated to or invaded India. Vedic religion and Vaishnavism are indigenous to India. Migration did take place to India by these people; but the migration took place thousands of years before the drought time of 2200 BC. The reason why Buddha is strongly considered as an incarnation of Vishnu even today by Indians is because many Indians at that time were Vaishnavites, the worshippers of Vishnu. When they converted to Buddhism, most of them did so by simply considering Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu.

A lot of our valuable and precious history has been lost in the dungeons of time. That history can be ferreted out not by looking at archaeological remains and fossils, but by peaking into our religious scriptures. All of our history, for the last 19000 years, has been well preserved by our religious scriptures and practices – we only need to give them the due respect for the information they contain.

Source: Excerpts from “19,000 Years of World History: The Story of Religion” by Prithviraj R – a reconstruction of 19,000 year world history, based on the historical content of the scriptures and theologies of ancient religions. The book is now available on Amazon, Lulu, and other online stores. Prithvi’s Blog – http://19000years.blogspot.com

“In the history of the world there have been thousands of kings and emperors who called themselves ‘their highnesses,’ ‘their majesties,’ and ‘their exalted majesties’ and so on. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines brightly like a bright star, even unto this day.”

Ashoka was a Buddhist emperor who was responsible for the spread of Buddhism, to distant corners of India and the neighboring countries, by sending large number of Buddhist missionaries to these places. He built thousands of Buddhist stupas and established thousands of Buddhist monasteries all over his empire that stretched from Iran to Bandladesh and from Central Asia (Afghanistan) to South India. A large number of rocks and pillars, present all over his empire, have been inscribed with his edicts and promulgations to his subjects, written in Magadhi, Sanskrit, Greek, and Aramic languages. He was initially a cruel king who killed a large number of his brothers in order to ascend the throne. He inherited a large empire and tried to expand it by waging a war against the neighboring kingdom of Kalinga. He won the war, but the gruesome sight of thousands of mutilated dead bodies at the war completely changed his heart. He felt repentant about it, stopped his empire expanding spree, and converted to Buddhism after being attracted to the Buddhist principles of non-violence and renunciation.

We have two sources to thank for much of this information on Ashoka – his rock edicts and Buddhist scriptures (one Indian and two Sri Lankan). The scriptures talk about Ashoka of Mauryan dynasty. Mainstream historians are not much aware of Ashoka of the Gupta dynasty. As per them, there is only one Ashoka – Ashoka of the Mauryan dynasty, as given by the Buddhist scriptures. And these Ashoka’s rock edicts mention five neighboring Greek and Egyptian kings – Antiochos, Ptolemy (second), Antigonos, Magas, Alexander (second). Since these kings are dated to 250-300 BC, this has been the date arrived for Ashoka (Mauryan). As per the Buddhist scriptures, Ashoka (Mauryan) was crowned two hundred and eighteen years after the demise of the Buddha. This would mean that Buddha’s date is roughly 500 BC. And this date tallies perfectly with the date of 500 BC they arrived through the Aryan Invasion methodology. The calculations seem completely perfect and pretty straight forward, and mainstream historians have accepted these calculations completely for the last two hundred years.

The most troubling aspect with these date calculations is that there are two Chandragupts and two Ashokas in Indian history. And as per the writings of Greek traveler Megasthenes, the Gupta dynasty was ruling India at about 300 BC. And these writings of Megashtenes tally with the Puranic calculations as well. And Indian history does not talk about two Chandragupts or two Ashokas ruling India at the same time. While traditional Indian and Greek sources talk about Ashoka of Gupta dynasty ruling India at about 300 BC, mainstream historians have arrived at the conclusion that Ashoka of Mauryan dynasty was ruling India at around 300 BC. So we either have to discard the writings of Megashtenes as well as Puranic sources completely, or we have to see if mainstream historians have got the date of Ashoka wrong.

Several mainstream historians are not aware of this controversy. Even if they are aware, they dismiss Megasthenes as an unreliable writer and dismiss the Indian scriptures as pure mythology. They even easily shrug away the fact that other Greek accounts at the time of Megasthenes do not talk much about the presence of Buddhism in India. And almost all the mainstream historians are blissfully unaware of the presence of two Ashokas in Indian history. A handful of Indian historians are aware of this puzzle; they have suggested that the Ashoka of the Buddhist sources belongs to Gupta dynasty and he ruled India around 300 BC. However, the Buddhist scriptures clearly talk about the emperor Ashoka to be belonging to the Mauryan dynasty, completely negativating the arguments of the few handful Indian historians who try to wriggle out of the conundrum. This has been the biggest puzzle that has been haunting Indian historical calculations for more than a century, almost like a Sherlock Holmes and Hercules Poirot mystery.

Does this mean that the mainstream historians are completely happy and are not at all puzzled by their calculations? The answer is, surprisingly, no; they are still quite puzzled over the most important things.

The rock edicts of Ashoka mention that Ashoka converted to Buddhism because of the remorse he felt on account of Kalinga war. However, both the Indian as well as the Sri Lankan Buddhist scriptures differ with this; these scriptures do not talk anything about Kalinga war! They talk about Ashoka being converted by the serene teachings of a certain novice Buddhist monk Samudra/Nyagrodha. Why are Buddhist scriptures silent about Kalinga war? While scriptures talk about 84,000 monasteries established by Ashoka, the edicts are silent on this; they do not mention any Buddhism related activities by Ashoka. The Buddhist scriptures talk about Ashokan missionary activities to Kashmir, Maharahtra, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Mysore, Himalayas, Western India, and Greek country. However, the edicts talk about medical help to his neighboring kingdoms; they talk about the names of the kings and dynasties around his empire including Choda, Pandya, Satiyaputra, Kerala, Sri Lanka, and five Greek kingdoms. The scriptures do not talk about officials called Dharma Mahamatras in his kingdom, as professed by the edicts. There are several other discrepancies as well in the basic details of his life.

The Ashoka of Buddhist scriptures is an exceptionally devout individual who used to fall prostrate at the feet of even the lay Buddhist monks. He was desparate to be known as the greatest of all donors to the faith of the Buddha. Indian scripture mentions that, at the end of his life, he donated almost everything he had to Buddhist monasteries. He was someone who wanted to ensure that Buddhism spread all across the globe. In Bengal, one follower of Mahavira drew a picture showing Buddha bowing at the feet of Mahavira. Ashoka came to know about this and ordered that all Mahavira followers at that place be executed – 1800 of them were slain in a single day! He decreed in a similar manner on another occasion, promising gold to those who brought slain heads of non-Buddhists! And Ashoka went out of his way to convert people into Buddhism as some legends show. He wanted to convert his brother Veetashoka to Buddhism; for doing this, he enacted a drama. One day, he contrived with his ministers to get Veetashoka sit on the emperor’s throne for a few minutes. He then, as if he was not aware of the happenings, caught his brother in the act. He then declared that his brother sitting on his throne is an act of treachery and decreed that his brother be executed. Ashoka, however, gave one week time for the execution and let his brother enjoy all the royal comforts for a week, as if he (Veetashoka) were the emperor. At the end of the week, Ashoka called his brother and asked him if he enjoyed the one week of heavenly comforts of an emperor. Veetashoka told him that the death that was hanging on his head did not allow him to enjoy the heavenly comforts at all. Ashoka then told him, “if you are oblivious to pleasures just because of one impending death, how do you expect enlightened monks to be happy about comforts of this life when they have to fear the deaths of hundreds of lives in future births?” Veetashoka was taken by this and converted himself into a Buddhist monk.

However, the Ashoka of the rock edicts gives us a completely different picture. In one of the edicts, he does profess his faith in the Buddha; but that is about it. There is no evidence that he carried out any missionary activities. None of his rock edicts mention anything about the teachings of the Buddha. In fact, the Ashoka of rock edicts talks about equality of all religions! One of the edicts, mentions the following :

“Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi (Ashoka), does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this – that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one’s own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one’s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one’s own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought “Let me glorify my own religion,” only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi (Ashoka), desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

Those who are content with their own religion should be told this: Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi (Ashoka), does not value gifts and honors as much as he values that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. And to this end many are working – Dhamma Mahamatras, Mahamatras in charge of the women’s quarters, officers in charge of outlying areas, and other such officers. And the fruit of this is that one’s own religion grows and the Dhamma is illuminated also.”

Unable to explain these dichotomies, some mainstream historians have dismissed the Buddhist scriptures as unreliable; they go purely by the rock edicts to get a picture of Ashokan personality, while they rely on the Buddhist scriptures for historical aspects. We can see as to how selective they have been about the whole Ashokan episode – they have dismissed Megasthenes as a liar, they have dismissed the Indian scriptures as pure mythology, they have shrugged off other Greek writings, and they finally have dismissed even the Buddhist scriptures! I think that they have a whole lot of answering to do about the Ashokan episode, even if they seem to currently think that their calculations are perfect.

I think the whole confusion has arisen because there are two emperor Ashokas, and both are Buddhists! The Ashoka of Buddhist scriptures belongs to the Mauryan dynasty of 1500 BC. He was a compulsive individual, devout in his faith, and took steps to spread his religion far and wide by sending missionaries and constructing Buddhist monasteries and stupas. However, he had nothing to do with the edicts and the Kalinga war. The Buddhist scriptures are talking about Ashoka the Mauryan. The scriptures mostly talk about parts within India – Kashmir, Maharahtra, Mysore, Himalayas, Western India. Buddhism was not yet spread in India by his time – so the scriptures are clearly talking of the spread of Buddhism within India under Mauryan emperor Ashoka.

The Ashoka of the edicts belongs to the Gupta dynasty of 300 BC. He was the one who was involved in Kalinga war. He felt remorseful and later converted to Buddhism. However, by his time, Buddhism was already spread far and wide and there was no need for him to send missionaries. Moreover, by his time, Buddhism was reeling under the onslaught of Sankara and the Vedic religion was making a comeback. Buddhism was in a confused state about its ideology because of the theological attack launched by Sankara. Buddhism was in a transition stage and it did not give much scope for missionary activites. So, Ashoka the Gupta was not hawkish about his religion, but was much more tolerant of all religions. And the places mentioned in his edicts are mostly his neighboring kingdoms – the edicts are not talking about places within India. The places mentioned in the edicts are Choda, Pandya, Satiyaputra, Kerala, and Sri Lanka on the south of his empire in South India, and five Greek kingdoms to the northwest of his empire. The places mentioned are clearly not talking about spread of Buddhism within India.

The two Ashokas are completely different. The confusion has arisen because both are Buddhists; so both the stupas and the edicts are being attributed to one and the same person. If we consider that the edicts belong to one emperor while the stupas and monasteries belong to another, the riddle is solved. The two Ashokas have been merged into one by historians.

So if we arrive at the date of 1500 BC for the Buddhist Mauryan emperor Ashoka, as per the Buddhist scriptures, we can easily arrive at the date of the Buddha. Buddha precedes Ashoka by two hundred and eighteen years. So this would put Buddha at anywhere between 1700 BC and 1800 BC. This roughly tallies with the Puranic calculations as well, which put Buddha’s date to around 1800–1900 BC.

Can we understand the implications of this finding? After reading my above analysis, a Sri Lankan historian replied to me:

“This article is quite interesting. But how are you going to deny the facts of the Buddhist missions took place around 300 BC such as the mission to Sri Lanka which they date Ca.274BC? If the missionary activities were from the Asoka lived 1500 years befire that then, do you deny the history of Sri Lanka as we say? The whole history of civilisation of Sri Lanka depends on this fact and if the mission was during the Asoka(I), then the history we know becomes a myth???”

I can only reply Yes to his question. Not just Sri Lankan, but even Indian, and subsequently, IndoEuropean history, as we have it today, becomes a myth. World’s historical timeline will have to be reframed.

Source: Excerpts from Prithviraj R’s book 19,000 Years of World History, based on the historical aspects of the major religions of the world.

Christian theology keeps tying up scholars in knots. There are a lot unexplained elements in it, which almost look mysterious.

What does the phrase “Son of Man” mean? We can understand what “Son of God” means, but what does “Son of Man” mean? Why are the two phrases “Son of Man” and “Son of God” used interchangeably in the scriptures? The explanation generally given is that Jesus wanted to show himself as both human and divine, so both these phrases were used by him. However, the term “Son of Man” is clearly used in Bible in divine context, to refer to Jesus as divine. Several phrases like “Son of Man will send out his angels,” “Son of Man seated at the right hand of God,” “Do you believe in Son of Man?” – these phrases tell us that the phrase Son of Man is being used to refer to Jesus as divine rather than as human. Some scholars tried to explain it by saying that “Son of Man” means “Sun of Man;” As per them, it is related to Sun worship, and all these crucified gods around the world are actually Sun Gods. Admitting this, I would say that even the phrase “Sun of Man” or “Sun of God” does not look convincing enough. Why would anyone call a Sun God as Sun of Man or Sun of God? This phrase is even more odd; I would rather vote for the earlier explanation that “Son of Man” was used to refer to the human element in Jesus.

Even as we try to come out of this puzzle, we have another puzzle staring at us on why God is divided into a Father, a Son, and Holy Spirit. God having a spirit that is distinct from him is not easily and readily intuitive; and the concept of anything being one and three at the same time is quite difficult to comprehend. Other scholars have gone and researched the crucified savior legends all over the world and have come up with the conclusion that this division of three originated from the supposedly pagan cults, like that of the Horus,Orisis,Isis of Egypt. This only throws up another question on why Egyptians or others found it necessary to divide their God into three from the theological perspective.

The questions have been quite daunting. It has been recognized by a large number of scholars by now that the concepts of Christianity did not originate with Jesus but have existed much before Jesus’ time, as attested by the large number of crucified savior legends and figures that existed across the world since ancient times. Kersey Graves, in his 1875 book, The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, has identified sixteen crucified saviors around the world. Since then, researchers have been coming up with more and more crucified saviors from the nook and corners of our globe. There must be one central root figure in all of these, from where the Christ concepts actually originated from. If we can get at this root figure and the root theology, we can probably better answer the above puzzles related to the Christ concept.

The key to the whole question lies in the observation that the terms Man and God are being used interchangeably. When the terms “Son of Man” and “Son of God” are being used interchangeably, it means that Man is being considered same as God and is being used interchangeably with God. And there lies our answer. The only place where Man is considered as God since ages and continues to be so is India.

The supreme God of Indian religion is called Purusha, meaning Man. Their holiest scriptures are Vedas. And the most important hymn in their Vedas is the Purusha Sukta, termed as the essence of all Vedas by Vyasa, the central and revered figure of most Hindu traditions. It is a hymn addressed to Purusha, the Cosmic Man. It is related to Indian theology, which views God as a Universal Cosmic Man, who pervades and fills this universe. This Cosmic Man theology is common to many IndoEuropean cultures. While other IndoEuropean cultures have given it up long ago, it still goes pretty strong in the IndoEuropean culture of India.

So the original Christ concept probably originated from the Cosmic Man theology of India, which is why the phrases Son of Man and Son of God are used interchangeably. We have solved one piece of the puzzle. We have answered why Man is being used interchangeably with God. We next come to the second missing piece of the puzzle on why God has to be divided into three. Since we have nailed down the connection to the Cosmic Man theology, we need to ask ourselves on whether there is any other theology in India that is related to the theology of Cosmic Man. And the answer we would get is yes – there is an old and almost forgotten Vaishnavite concept in India called Nara-Narayan. You want to know the meaning of the word Narayan? As per Monier-Williams English-Sanskrit Dictionary, Narayan means Son of Man! And you want to know the meaning of the word Nara? It means the eternal holy spirit!

Even though researchers have been going all around the world in search of the original crucified savior figure or trinity, I do not think they would find another trinity that so closely matches the Christian trinity, right to the very meanings of the words. For example, does Horus mean “Son of Man?” Do Egyptian dictionaries tell you that the meaning of the word Osiris is Man or God, or that Isis means holy spirit? The Christian trinity originated from the Purusha-Narayan-Nara trinity of the Vaishnavite religion of India – an old and almost forgotten concept in India. The minute anyone tries to research into trinity in India, he or she immediately latches on to the popular Indian trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, and compares the Christian trinity with it. And since the two theologies do not match up, the argument always remains unconvincing. As a result, this Nara-Narayan concept is completely overlooked, leaving a big gap in Christological studies.

The Nara-Narayan theology was quite popular amongst the masses of India at the time Mahabharat war, a famous and legendary war in Indian history. Krishna, the Godly figure of Indians, played a prominent role in this war. The reason for the popularity of this theology at that time was that Krishna was believed to be the Narayan, and Arjun, Krishna’s friend and devotee, was considered to be the Nar. The theology took hold of the imagination of the people because of the influence of Krishna. Wikipedia says:

“According to Bhandarkar, the gods Nara-Narayana must be very famous at the time of the composition of the Mahabharata, since in the opening stanzas of different books obeisance is made to these two gods. In Vanaparvan, Krishna says to Arjuna,”O invincible one, you are Nara and I am Hari Narayana, and we, the sages Nara-Narayana, have come to this world at proper time..”

After Krishna’s time, this theology took hold of the masses, and dominated the Indian theological landscape. The idols of the Vaishnavite God (God, Man), along with those of Narayan (Son of God, Son of Man) and Nara (eternal spirit) are all placed together and worshipped side by side in a trinity form. This practice of worshipping the trinity of idols exists even today in India at a handful of places like Badrinath. The concept of Nara-Narayan has almost been forgotten in India today; but during its heydays, just after Krishna’s time, this mode of worshipping all the three idols in the trinity form must have been the most common mode of worship in India. There is evidence available to show that, at that time, this trinity was more popular than the usual trinity of Hindus that is found today. This trinity is a big black hole in Indian historical studies, something that no historian ever bothered to research about. And it is this trinity that traveled out of India.

The important thing to notice is that this trinity is a human conceptual understanding of the divine reality. It did not originate from any historical person or from any fancy unconnected legends or pagan cults. The theology did not start with Krishna, it existed even before him. Just like the Cosmic Man theology, the Purusha-Narayan-Nara theology is a conceptualization in Indian religion, in relation to the concept of incarnations of God for the benefit and the ultimate deliverance of human soul. It is about why the Supreme God Purusha incarnates on earth as both Narayan and Nara for the betterment of humanity.

So when did this Nara-Narayan theology travel out of India?

The Mahabharat war is normally placed at around 800-1000 BC by academic historians, while Indians claim a date of 5000 years ago. Given the research of Christ scholars that Christ concepts existed for thousands of years before Jesus’ time of 2000 years ago, this gives sufficient scope to think that the Indian claims are true. Mahabharat war of India did take place 5000 years ago, and Krishna lived around this time.

Later, there was a mighty three century drought aound 4200 years ago, which severely affected civilizations across India, West Asia, and North Africa. This intense drought is now universally recognized by geologists and is named as 4.2 Kiloyear BP Aridification Event. This drought debilitated the Indian civilization, leading to a mass exodus of Indians to foreign lands. When these people migrated, they took their religion with them. Krishna is also considered as a crucified savior by all Christ researchers. The mainstream Indian scriptures downplayed the crucifixation aspect, because it did not fit into their general paradigm of God who fought and vanquished evil. However, they did mention that his body was pierced by an arrow into a tree; other apocryphal literature and practices survived, which amplified on this crucifixation to the tree. The crucified legends of Krishna, and the trinity concept, went along with the Indian migrators to distant corners of the globe, in different forms, shapes, and variations, leading to a large number of crucifed savior figures and trinities all over the world, ultimately finding their way into Christian theology. As the theology traveled across the world, it was assimilated into the native religions. Often, the native religions were deliberately modified to fit into the trinity concept without even properly understanding the theological implications; which is why we have so many crucified savior figures.

The very word Christ (pronounced Krist) originated from Krishna. The word Christ originated from Greek Khristos, meaning ‘anointed’ (as Savior). And where did Khristos originate from? Linguists are normally silent on this, despite an overwhelming similarity between words Khristos and Krishna, the latter referring to the Savior of Indians. Given that both Christ and Krishna are considered as crucified saviors by Christ specialists, given that both the words Krishna and Khristos carry meaning of being Savior, and considering that both are almost similar words, I am surprised that the etymological derivation has not been made until now. In India, in south, people named after Krishna are very commonly named as Krishtiah, where T replaces consonant N. And people named as Krishna are very often addressed as Krishtiah, Kittiah, Krishta, Kishta, or even Kitta by their friends. Even though a person is named as Krishna, his friends or relatives are often seen addressing him as Krishta. And if Krishta and Kristiah are derived from Krishna, why Khristos and Krist are not derived from Krishna is a simple question that I hope linguists would care to answer.