Saturday, April 26, 2008

About Nicolas Notovitch

One of the most important documents which can help us discover the real life of Jesus is the one published by Nicolas Notovitch in 1894 under the title ‘The unknown life of Jesus’. This text is a translation of a manuscript written in ancient Pali, found by Notovitch himself during his trip in Tibet in a Buddhist Monastery in Hemis. According to the tradition, this story written in Pali is the one which was told by caravan merchants coming to Tibet from Palestine, and bringing the news of the crucifixion of Issa- this is the name given to Jesus by Buddhists.

In this manuscript, Notovitch was surprised to find out that Jesus had traveled through Iran, India and Tibet during his lifetime, and that he took the opportunity to study eastern religions. He even preached himself on the way to all those who wanted to listen to him.

This manuscript allows us to discover a significant number of unknown facts on Jesus’ life. Even if the authenticity of Notovitch story has been contested by the Dr. Max Muller, Nicolas Notovitch never ceased to defend his statements on Jesus. He even went on to give more details of his trip to prove his claim. He even invited a scientific expedition to be carried out to Hemis to study the document. It must be said that a number of eminent people after Notovitch’s claim, tried to make the trip to Tibet to verify his theory. One of them is Swami Abhedananda, a direct disciple Ramakrishna and good friend of Max Muller. Abhedananda has always been skeptical of Notovictch’s claim, so he decided to make the trip himself in 1922 to Himis to reveal the fraud to the world. He was surprised during his trip to find the same document which has been shown to Notovitch, and he even translated portions of the text in his book entitled ‘Kashmir O Tibeti’. From that moment, he also became convinced of the authenticity of Issa’s legend. Other people who were lucky enough to see the original manuscripts are the Russian Nicolas Roerich who visited the monastery in 1925 and Elizabeth Caspari in 1939. Roerich made his own translation of the text as well. And his version matches those of Abhedananda and Notovitch.

Website for Roerich writings:

Unfortunately for us, the original manuscript can no longer be found at the monastery anymore. It must have been removed from there by an unknown authority.


Eve said...

This is such a fascinating subject. Why people are so ready to dismiss the idea of Jesus having visited the East at some time in his life (before he was 30 or after his supposed crucifiction) I don't understand, when there is a lot of stuff out there which shows it is quite plausible. Too many are afraid to challenge their ridgidly held beliefs rather than seek the truth.

Anonymous said...

Indeed it is very fascinating subject. Very Sad, but true "Jesus" is the most marketed "Commodity" marketed all over the world by many in the name of "Religion". Accepting the findings of people like Notovich will be putting the axe to their own foundation! It would mean end of "business" to many. Truly sad that a great Mastr like Jesus is put to such a state! For the records, I am a staunch Hindu, but I adore and Love Master Jesus in my heart in a speacial way. But not the way the Church wants people to "Believe" in him. There is much much more to him than what they preach!! Thanks for the blog.
Venkatesh, Tamilnadu, India

Paul Arthur Reeves said...

I am afraid that I can only say, again, "fascinating"! That is the word to describe this discovery.

I totally agree with the premise of your website, and I can see why there are many in this world who would not want this discovery to be true.

If it is a hoax, forgery, call it what you will, it has at least opened people's minds to the possibility that Jesus may indeed have visited the East either before or after his crufixion.

Thank-you for your site and for trying to widen our knowledge of what Jesus' life was really like and about, not just relying on the 4 Gospels. After all, I believe that there are some dozen "Gospels" that did not make it into the accepted canon for various reasons. It would be interesting to look at those reasons in detail, bearing in mind the social and political situation that existed in Palestine during the 1st century A. D.