Did Jesus really Exist ? See Capt Ajit Vadkayil Blog . Appolonius transformed into Jesus. According to Kota Venkatachalam in his book Abhasa Kristava argus that krishna cult becomes Christ cult
Many Jaya Jaya Sankara to Shri ST Ravikumar for the translation. Rama Rama
Christ, Siva & Vishnu
In between these two, Christmas is celebrated today *. It is being celebrated by the people, world over, as a very religious day or a ‘holiday’ with merriment – as either a ‘holy day’ or merely, a ‘holiday’. It looks like that we can call the person who is the reason for this, as one of our own, especially as a person who is highlighting, by his very name, the lack of difference between Siva and Vishnu.
** The reader is once again reminded that this speech happened in the year 1966 on 25 December, in between Vaikunta Ekadasi which occurred on December 23 and Thiruvadirai of that month on 27/28th.
What was his name? We call him as ‘Jesus Christ’. It is a name given to him in German language, which is called Germanic and Teutonic and belonging to the language group, English, Dutch and the so called Scandinavian languages spoken in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. His name, which was originally in Hebrew language, has, like the Sanskrit word ‘Sravani’ transforming to ‘Aavani’ in tamil, has become ‘Jesus’ in these languages.
He does not belong to Europe, where these languages are prevalent. He belongs to our Asian continent. His mother tongue is Armian. It belongs to the Semitic group of languages, spoken by Hebrews. The name given in that (language) is ‘Yeshua’. The final ‘a’ should be spelt without much emphasis. That only became ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ in the other European languages.
It is quite common (in many languages) where the ‘ya’ becomes ‘ja’. Even in Vedas, what comes as ‘ya’ in other branches, comes as ‘ja’ in the Madhyantina branch of Sukla Yajur Veda, which is prevalent in North India. Yamuna is referred to as Jamuna. Yantram (machinery) is called as Jantar. In tamil, it is common to mention ‘ja’ of Sanskrit, as ‘ya’. Funnily, this is a converse to that! What is mentioned in Sanskrit as “Yamam’ is called as ‘Jamam’ in Tamizh. Why I mention this is because, the ‘ye’ in ‘Yeshua’ only has become ‘Je’ in ‘Jesus’. And that ‘Je’, we further change it to ‘Ye’ and call, slightly differently, as ‘Yesu’.
It is felt that we can presume that the original ‘Yeshu’ is our ‘Esa’, that is, a name of Siva.
If I say it that way, it is possible that some people in our own or in their religion could have a difference of opinion. After all, have I not been emphasizing on not having differences. Therefore, instead of saying, we can presume, I feel I will correct myself to say ‘May we presume’! To say ‘Jesus’ in ‘Jesus Christ’ as ‘Esan’ (one of Siva’s names).
Let me come to ‘Christ’. It is entirely, a word originating from the European language. Don’t we perform special abhishekams (special bathing of the divine idols), as Pattabhishekam? By applying oil on the head and a holy bath (Mangala snanam). The same thing, applying oil as a religious ceremony, is prevalent in all the countries. There is no bath thereafter. It ends with only applying the oil. Since only a little is applied, it will get absorbed on its own. This (ritual) is called ‘anointment’. It is said that Eswara himself does anoint a few people in this manner, that is, perform Pattabhishekam, with a view to sending them as “messiah’ to elevate the world. The Hebrew, ‘Meshia’ became ‘Messiah’ in English. The equivalent to that in the European language of Greek is ‘Chris Tos’. Words like, ‘Christ’ in English have their roots only from that. People who believe that the person specially anointed by God and sent for the upliftment of the people and society, refers specifically to ‘Jesus’.
It occurs to me as to why not show a link between ‘Christ’ and Krishna, just as shown for Jesus and Esa!
Don’t we call Krishna as Kishtan, Kittan, Krittinan etc? In the same way, we can also say, ‘Kristen’. The ‘an’ in the end, is prevalent only in Tamizh. The Easwaran we call in Tamizh, is Eshwar for north Indians. Our Sankaran, Raman etc., are in the same way, Sankar and Ram. Nowadays, that has become a fashion here also. Let that be. If the ‘an’ is removed, what will happen to Krishnan, the Kristen. Would he not become ‘Krist’? In the same way as those linked to Siva becoming Saivam and those related to Vishnu, becoming Vaishnavam, does not what is related to ‘Krist’ become ‘Christ’?
To sum up, ‘Jesus Christ’ = ‘Esa Krishnan’.
(After himself laughing for a long time and making all who were with him, to laugh, Sri Charanar, continues).
Thought, whether I could extend (the argument) of religious harmony, as in this way only, in the month which shows the non-difference between Siva and Vishnu, the person who is the reason for the Christmas festival, which occurs between the holy days belonging to the two, looks like, that with his very name, has adopted Siva, who is called as Eswara and also Krishna, the complete incarnation of Vishnu, without showing any difference between the two, is highlighting the lack of difference between Siva and Vishnu. Just told what occurred to me.
Did Jesus really Exist ? See Capt Ajit Vadkayil Blog . Appolonius transformed into Jesus. According to Kota Venkatachalam in his book Abhasa Kristava argus that krishna cult becomes Christ cult
Many Jaya Jaya Sankara to Shri ST Ravikumar for the translation. Rama Rama
Christ, Siva & Vishnu
In between these two, Christmas is celebrated today *. It is being celebrated by the people, world over, as a very religious day or a ‘holiday’ with merriment – as either a ‘holy day’ or merely, a ‘holiday’. It looks like that we can call the person who is the reason for this, as one of our own, especially as a person who is highlighting, by his very name, the lack of difference between Siva and Vishnu.
** The reader is once again reminded that this speech happened in the year 1966 on 25 December, in between Vaikunta Ekadasi which occurred on December 23 and Thiruvadirai of that month on 27/28th.
What was his name? We call him as ‘Jesus Christ’. It is a name given to him in German language, which is called Germanic and Teutonic and belonging to the language group, English, Dutch and the so called Scandinavian languages spoken in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. His name, which was originally in Hebrew language, has, like the Sanskrit word ‘Sravani’ transforming to ‘Aavani’ in tamil, has become ‘Jesus’ in these languages.
He does not belong to Europe, where these languages are prevalent. He belongs to our Asian continent. His mother tongue is Armian. It belongs to the Semitic group of languages, spoken by Hebrews. The name given in that (language) is ‘Yeshua’. The final ‘a’ should be spelt without much emphasis. That only became ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ in the other European languages.
It is quite common (in many languages) where the ‘ya’ becomes ‘ja’. Even in Vedas, what comes as ‘ya’ in other branches, comes as ‘ja’ in the Madhyantina branch of Sukla Yajur Veda, which is prevalent in North India. Yamuna is referred to as Jamuna. Yantram (machinery) is called as Jantar. In tamil, it is common to mention ‘ja’ of Sanskrit, as ‘ya’. Funnily, this is a converse to that! What is mentioned in Sanskrit as “Yamam’ is called as ‘Jamam’ in Tamizh. Why I mention this is because, the ‘ye’ in ‘Yeshua’ only has become ‘Je’ in ‘Jesus’. And that ‘Je’, we further change it to ‘Ye’ and call, slightly differently, as ‘Yesu’.
It is felt that we can presume that the original ‘Yeshu’ is our ‘Esa’, that is, a name of Siva.
If I say it that way, it is possible that some people in our own or in their religion could have a difference of opinion. After all, have I not been emphasizing on not having differences. Therefore, instead of saying, we can presume, I feel I will correct myself to say ‘May we presume’! To say ‘Jesus’ in ‘Jesus Christ’ as ‘Esan’ (one of Siva’s names).
Let me come to ‘Christ’. It is entirely, a word originating from the European language. Don’t we perform special abhishekams (special bathing of the divine idols), as Pattabhishekam? By applying oil on the head and a holy bath (Mangala snanam). The same thing, applying oil as a religious ceremony, is prevalent in all the countries. There is no bath thereafter. It ends with only applying the oil. Since only a little is applied, it will get absorbed on its own. This (ritual) is called ‘anointment’. It is said that Eswara himself does anoint a few people in this manner, that is, perform Pattabhishekam, with a view to sending them as “messiah’ to elevate the world. The Hebrew, ‘Meshia’ became ‘Messiah’ in English. The equivalent to that in the European language of Greek is ‘Chris Tos’. Words like, ‘Christ’ in English have their roots only from that. People who believe that the person specially anointed by God and sent for the upliftment of the people and society, refers specifically to ‘Jesus’.
It occurs to me as to why not show a link between ‘Christ’ and Krishna, just as shown for Jesus and Esa!
Don’t we call Krishna as Kishtan, Kittan, Krittinan etc? In the same way, we can also say, ‘Kristen’. The ‘an’ in the end, is prevalent only in Tamizh. The Easwaran we call in Tamizh, is Eshwar for north Indians. Our Sankaran, Raman etc., are in the same way, Sankar and Ram. Nowadays, that has become a fashion here also. Let that be. If the ‘an’ is removed, what will happen to Krishnan, the Kristen. Would he not become ‘Krist’? In the same way as those linked to Siva becoming Saivam and those related to Vishnu, becoming Vaishnavam, does not what is related to ‘Krist’ become ‘Christ’?
To sum up, ‘Jesus Christ’ = ‘Esa Krishnan’.
(After himself laughing for a long time and making all who were with him, to laugh, Sri Charanar, continues).
Thought, whether I could extend (the argument) of religious harmony, as in this way only, in the month which shows the non-difference between Siva and Vishnu, the person who is the reason for the Christmas festival, which occurs between the holy days belonging to the two, looks like, that with his very name, has adopted Siva, who is called as Eswara and also Krishna, the complete incarnation of Vishnu, without showing any difference between the two, is highlighting the lack of difference between Siva and Vishnu. Just told what occurred to me.