Nicolas
Notovitch was a Crimean Jewish adventurer, Cossack officer, writer and
journalist. He was born in Russia and later lived in Paris. He had published a number
of books and the most widely known is the "Unknown Life of Saint Issa" first
published in French in 1894, which spurred heated debates. Issa is a Tibetan name for Jesus and may also
be a Hindu name Isha which means Lord. In the foreword of the book, it is said
to be sourced from a Tibetan document, in two big volumes yellowed by the lapse
of time in Himis Lamasery situated at the highlands of Ladakh. The Abbot at Himis read
the document to Notovitch which he wrote down at the backpage of his travelling
notebook while being translated by his interpreter. This transpired while Notovitch was under the
care of the monastery while he was recuperating from a broken leg due to
accident. The document resembles the account on the life of Jesus as recorded
in the Gospels, but it includes an account where he went to India and trained under
the Masters. He also became a great expositor and opposed the tradition of caste
system in India. The documents contain striking deviations from the Gospels as
there is an absence of Jesus’s working of miracles; and the real culprit on
Jesus’ crucifixion is Pontius Pilate instead of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Naturally, the
book faced lots of oppositions from Christian scholars as it deviates and contradicts what is written in the New Testament and
the mainstream Christian belief. The book was immediately labelled a hoax by F.
Max Mueller, an Orientalist and a professor in Oxford . His article was
published in The Nineteenth Century British journal (July –Dec 1894). He
accused Notovitch of fabricating the whole story concerning the Life of Saint
Issa. From the analysis of Dr James Deardoff, an atmospheric scientist who
later turned independent scholar of the New Testament, there are some valid arguments that
Mueller raised in his article but were satisfactorily answered by Notovitch in
the preface to the English translation of his book in 1895 and therefore became
seemingly irrelevant. Dr James Deardoff discussed his defense for Notovitch in
his article, "A New Ecumenism based upon Reexamination of the ‘Lost Years’
Evidence“. Dr. James Deardoff says that one of the valid ones among
Mueller’s arguments is accusing Notovitch that he may not have been in Ladakh
where the Lamasery is because careful inquiry from missionaries and English
officers passing through Leh, Ladakh, they declare that no Russian gentleman of
the name of Notovitch ever passed through Leh, and that no traveller with a
broken leg was ever nursed in the monastery of Himis; Another is the absence of
the so-called Life of Saint Issa in the catalogue of Tibetan manuscripts and
books, known as Kandjur and Tandjur, which had already been published in
Asiatic Researches and had been studied by scholars. In addition, there was a
missionary lady in Leh who wrote to Mueller that she went to the Lamasery and
was told that no Russian has ever been there and no one has been taken into the
Seminary for the past fifty years with a broken leg!
Notovitch
answered Mueller’s accusation mentioning that the list in the Kandjur and
Tandjur are incomplete as there are over a hundred thousand of Tibetan books
and manuscripts in Lhasa alone, and he explained in later editions of his book that
it can never be found in the catalogue because they were originally diverse
copies from a number of books under the form of isolated verses and then
compiled into two volumes, where the order and placement frequently had no
apparent connection with or relation to each other. As said by Notovitch, he simply put
everything into coherent unity. Some of
the critics construed or misconstrued that he back-pedaled on revising the book.
However, it can be interpreted that Notovitch simply tells the exact details of
the information he obtained from Himis. It is probably because in the first
edition, Notovitch finds that simply mentioning the two yellowed volumes was
more appealing to the readers; but since this was being put into question, he
had it clarified in later editions. Or it could be that he intentionally made it so as a way of protecting the document, because he foresees the possibility that some malicious/fanatic character would try to steal it.
Moreover, he
encouraged a scientific expedition by the Society of Savans to Tibet to prove
the authenticity of his work. He also said to his future critics to limit their
criticism whether the passages in his book is existent in the lamasery or not and
if he faithfully reproduced the same. Later, he responded to Mueller by saying
that he is no hoaxer nor forger and he will journey to the Himis lamasery again
to prove the authenticity of his work.
To the question that
Notovitch may not have been in Ladakh, Dr. Deardoff explains that Notovitch’s
detailed description of exterior and interior of Himis monastery as well as
mentioning names who can attest to his presence there, is enough to dispel
doubts that he had been in the monastery. Furthermore, a certain English and
History Professor in a Government College in Agra,India, Prof. J. Archibald
Douglas had acknowledged evidence that Notovitch had been in Leh, Ladakh
although he severely criticized the authenticity of the book by Notovitch,
which we will discuss later. Moreover, Dr. Fida Hassnain has discovered that in
the diary entry of the Moravian missionary, it mentions Notovitch had been in
Himis in 1887 although she says that his story is pure nonsense and fraud. Dr
Fida Hassnain said that he has a photograph of the said diary entry. Dr Fida
Hassnain was a Kashmiri writer and Sufi Mystic. He became Director of Kashmir
State Archives (1954-1983).
Having learned
of Mueller’s accusations of forgery and Notovitch’s defense of his
controversial book, Prof. J. Archibald Douglas went to Ladakh and investigated
the truth or falsity of Notovitch’s Unknown Life of St. Issa. He had it
published in "The Nineteenth Century" (Jan – June 1896), a year after Prof.
Mueller published his. The article shows that Prof. Douglas came to the
Lamasery and with the help of an interpreter Shamhwell Joldan, a late
postmaster in Ladakh, he was able to ask the Chief Lama series of questions
regarding Notovitch’s narrative and the document about the Unknown life of
Saint Issa. Overall, the article displays that the Chief Lama repudiated
everything about Notovitch’s claim. According
to the article, the questions and answers was signed by and sealed with
official seal by the Chief Lama along with the signature of Prof. Douglas and
Shahmwell Joldan.
To this article
Notovich answered that the Lama lied to Douglas for fear that the manuscripts
might get lost as there had been occurrences of stealing their properties
purportedly committed by foreigners.
At first reading
of the articles of Profs. Mueller and Douglas in the Nineteenth Century
Journal, you could be convinced that the Life of Saint Issa by Notovitch is
really a fabrication and you would say that this Life of Jesus in India had already
been debunked. However, there are lots of prominent writers and personalities
who still believe that Jesus went to India and has therefore cast doubt in the veracity
of Douglas’ article. I believe this is partly because, upon careful examination
of Douglas’ article, it appears that an original copy of the document said to
have been signed and officially sealed by the Chief Lama was not photographed and
printed in The Nineteenth Century journal because Prof Douglas simply mentioned that he
gave it to Mueller; and Mueller simply attested that what Douglas said in the
article is the same as the original. This means that the said signed document
from Himis was never shown to the public. If this is the case, some readers
following the Nineteenth Century journal would think that it was just a
fabrication of Douglas carefully coloured to make it real and that there was a
collusion between Mueller and him; or it could be that in truth, the Chief Lama
refused to meet Douglas pertaining to the said manuscripts. Possibly, Notovitch
did not dare to raise this question for it is better to presume that the said Q
& A was authentic and simply responded by saying that the Chief Lama lied
to Douglas. I believe the reason why the
book of Notovitch was republished in America in 1926 (it had been banned
before) was because the publishers were not convinced of Prof. Douglas’ investigation
and of course also to make more business profit.
Among the
writers who expressed doubt in the veracity of Douglas’ interview with the Chief
Lama is Mrs. Prophet, who in her book, “The Lost Years of Jesus” she implies
the possibility of Douglas’ fabrication as she mentioned that there is no
mention of background of Prof. Douglas except as an English and History
Professor in College of Agra. In addition, the said interpreter Shamhwell Joldan
is a Christian convert in Tibet who would be bias in favour of Christian belief.
Another writer, Dr. James Deardorff put forth in his article, "A New Ecumenism based upon Reexamination of the Lost Year's Evidence" that
Douglas was the unknowing victim of a monk's discretion or subterfuge; and indicates
that J. Archibald Douglas had either been hoaxed into confirming the
conclusions he was looking for, or had engineered such a hoax himself. Many
authors who maintain that Jesus lived in India are definitely aware of Mueller’s
and Douglas’ articles. There is Edward T. Martin, author of “King of
Travellers” which has inspired Paul David and created the film “Jesus in
India”. In one of the interviews about the film, David mentioned that there are
critics of Jesus’ lost years but many of them are spurious. He further
states metaphorically, that if there is smoke, there is fire.
I would like to put
forward two things that have never been discussed in any books and article that
I know of regarding the veracity of Douglas’ article. Upon reading, I realized that it is more likely
that Douglas’ Article is originally meant to pre-empt or to dissuade Notovitch
from coming again to Himis lamasery to prove the truth of his Issa book since
he had said that he will do so. Should Notovitch was able to prove this,
Mueller would be at risk of being sued in court or losing his face. Thus,
collusion between Mueller and Douglas is also not a remote possibility in this
case. Another possibility is a British
official is behind the publication of article because of strong suspicion that
Notovitch is a Russian spy. Take note that Douglas said in the article that, “With reference to M. Notovitch's
declaration that he is going to Himis to verify the statements made in his
book, I would take the liberty of earnestly advising him, if he does so, to
disguise himself at least as effectually as on the occasion of his former
visit. M. Notovitch will not find himself popular at Himis, and might not gain
admittance, even on the pretext of having another broken leg”. It seems
that this statement is calculated to dissuade Notovitch from coming to Himis
again.
We must remember
that Russians like Notovitch who comes to India, Tibet and neighboring
countries are at risk of being suspected as spies during that time by British
authorities. It can be learned from history that there was geo-political
rivalry between Russia and Britain during that time as to who can control
Tibet. The general sentiment of Tibetans including the 13th Dalai
Lama is they are not in favour of gradual intrusion of Imperial British from
India towards Tibet. In fact, when a treaty was created between Russia and
Tibet, the British Empire decided to invade Tibet in 1904 for fear that Russia
may gain control of Tibet. So, it is very possible that a British authority is
behind Douglas’ investigation to prevent Notovitch from taking another journey
to Tibet. It can be observed that
Douglas mentioned at the end of the article that, “The general accuracy of my statements respecting my interviews with
the Lama of Himis can further be borne out by reference to Captain Chevenix
Trench, British Commissioner of Ladakh, who is due to visit Himis about the end
of the present month, and who has expressed to me his intention of discussing
the subject with the Chief Lama”. This means that Prof. Douglas conveyed the
matter to Captain Trench prior to publication of article. Why did Douglas do it
and why would Captain Trench still discuss the matter with the Chief Lama when he
could had been fully convinced with Douglas’ investigation (as the Q&A already
bears the signature and official seal of the Chief Lama)? We can herein even suspect
that Captain Trench and Prof Douglas is one and the same person.
Careful
examination of Douglas’ article will reveal a possibility that no Question and
Answer had taken place between Douglas and the Chief Lama. For one thing, Prof.
Douglas portrays that the Chief Lama exhibits real indignation over Notovitch’s
story and even emphasized that he burst out with “lies, lies, lies, nothing but
lies!” He also said that the Chief Lama
further asked him if there is no means in Europe that can punish person who
tells such untruths. To my mind, it is unlikely for a venerable Chief Lama to
exhibit such attitude.
Secondly, the
Chief Lama is most likely to turn down any request of interview from him for
the ff reason: If the manuscript was
really non-existent in the monastery and no Sahib had ever asked about it, the
Chief Lama would not allow or bother himself for such a lengthy Q&A as
there would be no need for it; simply saying that there is no such manuscript
in the lamasery and there was no one inquired about it is more than enough. He
doesn’t need to sign any document and seal with his official seal such lengthy Q
and A which is subject to error because of possible mistranslation. Besides,
Douglas’ interpreter is a Christian convert. Take note that Lamas are
practitioner of honesty and truthfulness.
Thirdly, considering
that Tibet is in precarious position due to increased tension between Russia
and Britain during that time, upon learning that Douglas is an Englishman
verifying the work of a Russian (which could be a spy), will make the Chief Lama
(as Tibetan Official) stay away from discussion in any subject (whether
Notovitch had or had not been in Himis monastery) and thus will likely refuse
to entertain Prof Douglas (who maybe Captain Trench as well).
It seems that
the whole Q and A in the article is a fabrication carefully calculated to fully
convince the public that Notovitch’s book is a lie. Or maybe at the same time,
it is a British’s extra propaganda to show that Englishmen are in good terms
with Tibetan Official instead of the Russians. Douglas’ discussion about
religious matters were just additional or simply to hide the real motive of his
article.
Let us now examine some of the questions and answers.
Question 5. Are you aware of the existence of any book
in any of the Buddhist monasteries of Tibet bearing on the life of Issa?
Answer 5. I have been for forty-two years a Lama, and
am well acquainted with all the well-known Buddhist books and manuscripts, and
I have never heard of one which mentions the name of Issa, and it is my firm
and honest belief that none such exists. I have inquired of our principal Lamas
in other monasteries of Tibet, and they are not acquainted with any books or
manuscripts which mention the name of Issa.
This is an
interview that needs to be answered right away. The answer of the Chief Lama in
the second sentence, “I have inquired of our principal lamas in other
monasteries….” means he had inquired long before the interview. Because to
inquire just after the interview will take a long time to get the answer for it
should be via telegraph or phone or sending messengers to other monasteries,
and they will still need to research it. If the Chief lama inquired long before
the interview, it will be because he must have read or learned about the book
of Notovitch, and he must therefore mention it to Douglas and say that there is
no truth in it. To me the above Q & A is very unlikely. Perhaps, this is Douglas’
mistake on fabricating the Question and answer. The last sentence could be
aimed to further discredit Notovitch that there is no truth in his story that a
lama from other monastery informed him of existence of life of Saint Issa in
Himis monastery; but it turned out to be an evident mistake on his part.
Question 6. M. Nicolas Notovitch, a Russian gentleman
who visited your monastery between seven and eight years ago, states that you
discussed with him the religions of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and the
people of Israel.
Answer 6. I know nothing whatever about the Egyptians,
Assyrians, and the people of Israel, and do not know anything of their
religions whatsoever. I have never mentioned these peoples to any sahib.
In my opinion, a
Chief Lama is expected to be a well-educated man or at least keen seeker of
knowledge. He should at least know
something about the Egyptians, people of Israel or Jews and religion of Judaism
in comparison with Christianity considering that that there were many Christian
missionaries in their area. There should be books, newspapers and magazines
that are sources of knowledge in their area regarding different religions during
that time. These can also be researched in their educational institutions. If
this Q and A was true, his answer could have been something like, “I know
something about religions of Israel and Egypt but I have never discussed this
to any Sahib”
Question 7. Do you know of any Buddhist writings in the Pâli language?
Answer 7. I know of no Buddhist writings in the Pâli
language; all the writings here, that I know of, have been translated from Sanskrit and Hindi
into the Tibetan language.
[From this answer, and other observations of the Lama,
it would appear that he is not acquainted with the term 'Pâli.'----J. A. D. ]
Pali is a liturgical
language of Theravada Buddhism and many of the earliest extant Buddhist scriptures
are in Pali. So, there were surely lots of Buddhist writings in Pali
language in India which persisted up to about 10th century, although
we never know if there are any of them that got into Tibetan lamaseries and
translated into Tibetan language. (Although Pali has been lost in india, it was
still included as a subject in their educational institutions and has only been
removed recently.) The Chief Lama, being an educated man, most likely know what
Pali language is, being a liturgical language of Theravada Buddhism; and he
must have known that there are many Buddhist writings in Pali language. In my
opinion, the answer could be Douglas’ fabrication and was an evident mistake
that he appended in parenthesis that based on his observation, “the Chief Lama
appears not to be acquainted with the term ‘Pali’”.
Question 10. Is the name of Issa held in great respect by the Buddhists?
Answer 10. They know nothing even of his name; none of
the Lamas has ever heard it, save through missionaries and European sources.
Why did Douglas
ask this last question when he already knew from the answer to question 5 that
the Lama has never heard of nor acquainted with the name Issa in any Buddhist
scriptures? In my opinion, this question and answer is simply added, calculated
to emphasize that the story of Issa simply came from outside sources like
missionaries and European travellers, further vindicating the missionary Lady
of Leh that she truly inquired about Notovitch’s visit. This is also to support
the answer to question 5 to make it appear that the Chief Lama inquired about
it prior to Q and A.
However, if the
Chief Lama already inquired about the Issa manuscripts in other monasteries
long before Archibald Douglas’ interview, this means he had already learned
about Notovitch’s book and should therefore come as no surprise to him, then
why should he burst out with “lies, lies, lies, nothing but lies!”?
The above
lengthy discussion did not prove in any way that the manuscript about the
Unknown Life of St Issa was existent. It merely serves to debunk Prof Douglas’
investigation of Notovitch’s claim. However, there are many eyewitnesses of the
original document in HImis lamasery. I have discussed about these in my other
blog, “The Holy Scriptures and the Mystical Life and Teachings of Jesus”.
I just want to discuss
some claim by apologists which can be read from Wikipedia and other sources
online - that Notovitch admitted that He only fabricated the unknown Life of St
Issa. This purported admission of Notovitch is often repeated online but its
source is never quoted. I think, the
original source is from the book, “Indology, Indomania, and Orientalism“ by
Douglas T. Mcgetchin (2010). On p. 133 of this book, right after Mcgetchin
mentioned the criticism of Oxford Professor Max Mueller against Notovitch and
the subsequent efforts and attestation of History Professor J. Douglas that
Notovitch’s work was a lie, He then states
that “Faced with this cross-examination, Notovitch confessed to fabricating
his evidence”. The wordings used sound like a case in trial court. However, Douglas
T. Mcgetchin has no source where he got this confession of Notovitch from. As I
have mentioned earlier, we knew that Notovitch answered their accusations. Mr.
Mcgetchin probably interpreted or misinterpreted the later silence of Notovitch
to be an admission. Or perhaps the statement is meant as a propaganda tool.
If the document
about the Unknown life of St Issa were just a fabrication, how do you explain the
fact that there are many other eyewitnesses of the original document, and one
of them, Swami Abhedananda, has even translated the same. Objectors have also
questioned this, but I am satisfied with the rebuttal and explanations by Dr
James Deardoff in his aforesaid Article.
There is latest criticism
against Notovitch by a writer Marcel Theroux, which he expressed in his article "why a Russian may have forged a tale about Jesus in India" published in The
Times Literary Supplement, January 9, 2018. Obviously, he is prejudiced against
Notovitch’s book. It seems that he has not read or did not care to read, or
simply disregarded the articles and books of other authors who defended
Notovitch particularly those that I mentioned above. He only mentioned a book “Jesus
Lived in India” by Holger Kersten which to him is loopy and unreliable. It seems
that the article is primarily aimed at digging the undesirable background of
Notovitch and to connect it with his book about Saint Issa. One in particular: Marcel
Theroux cited that in Notovitch’s book, Pontius Pilate was the one to be blamed
in the crucifixion story of Jesus instead of the pharisees and sadducees. Since
he noted that Notovitch himself was a Jew, he concluded that Notovitch simply
fabricated this story with an intention to mitigate the pillories against the
Jews in Russia where citizens are mostly Orthodox Christians. Jews there were often
labelled as killers of Jesus at that time. But Notovitch was a Christian
convert; and Mr Theroux reasoned that he simply converted to Orthodox
Christianity to evade such religious derisions. Assuming that this observation
was true, it however has no connection with Jesus coming to India. Besides, it
can be noted that similar story was translated and transcribed from the same
document that Swami Abhedananda had verified, which presumably Mr Theroux was
not aware of, and therefore his observation can also be negated.
In another
instance, Mr. Theroux mentioned that Notovitch was reprimanded by Russian
Government and was sent to Siberia for a brief period because of his Unknown
Life of Saint Issa book. This information is dubious to me because at the time
of publication of the book, Notovitch was already living in Paris. Besides, the
statement seems self-contradictory. Let’s have a look here. To be sent to labor
camp in Siberia even for a brief period of time means the person had been sued
in court (for what charges?), had faced judicial proceedings, found guilty and
then penalized. But there is no mention of such things instead it is stated
that he was simply reprimanded by Russian government (meaning there was no
judicial proceedings). However, to simply reprimand someone by sending to remote
region of Siberia even for a short period of forced labor would be against the
law and contradicts the Justice system in Russia which at that time has
democratic process. I hope this is not a
propaganda statement too.
There are still
many other sources of information about Notovitch that can be read online
focusing on his background, pointing out that he had records of being a liar and
forger just to strengthen the point that the document in question is really non-existent;
but to me this character assassination has no bearing about the existence or
non-existence of the said Saint Issa document, or for that matter - whether
Jesus went to India or not. Even if the whole Saint Issa book was just
fabrication, it doesn’t mean that Jesus did not visit India. Simply because
there is no evidence doesn’t mean there is no such story of Jesus in India. As
they say, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I have an
alternative proposition about the original document on the Unknown Life of St Issa aside
from the belief that it was written down by an Indian merchant who knew Jesus or was written down by Apostle
Thomas as hinted by Nicolas Notovitch in his book. There was really such a document,
but it was not a 2,000-year old document written just a few years after the
death of Jesus. It probably was just written down at the time when Christianity or
the life of Jesus had already spread throughout the world. Perhaps it was the
time when Christian missionaries from Europe have become active in India which
was around 1500s or even older. It might have originated from an advanced Buddhist
monk or Hindu Yogi who has supernatural ability to access the Akashic record.
And Jesus having become well-known religious figure in the region may have been
a perfect model for this Master to convey to his disciples what he read from
the Akasha about the Life of St Issa. This was probably written down and had
found its way to be placed in the Himis monastery. It probably was not spread in India because
part of the story recounts Jesus or St Issa criticizing the Brahmins and the
caste system in India. This could very well be one of the sources of the so-called
oral tradition of Jesus living in India.
The above was
just a product of my wild imagination. You can discard it if you want. Perhaps
it was really written down by an Indian Merchant or by Apostle Thomas. Perhaps,
it was just a fabrication of Nicolas Notovitch. We never know. We can never
tell exactly. If we will analyse the issue, the debate cannot be settled
because the said document is said to be missing. Both parties most likely knew this and thus
they probably recourse to some false propaganda and counter propaganda, which
is very disheartening. It is confounding
the truth instead of finding it or revealing it.
To me, since no
original document of the Unknown Life of Saint Issa can be found, its strength
rests upon the many eyewitnesses who have seen the same document. It, however,
cannot be considered as hard evidence. To me, whatever is the case about the
Unknown Life of Saint Issa, I still believe that Jesus lived in India because
there are Dictations by the Ascended Masters including Jesus himself affirming
this. I discussed this in my blogpost "The Holy Scriptures and the Mystical Life and Teachings of Jesus".