Why God can't be found?

The shortest, simplest, and likely most accurate answer to the question, "Why can't God be found?," is: because God doesn't exist. We also can't find unicorns, leprechauns, or the Tooth Fairy  for what almost certainly is the same reason.

They don't exist.

But for the sake of argument let's assume that some entity which reasonably could be called "God" does exist. Don't ask me to define that term, "God," because it isn't possible. An understanding of God comes at the end of the search for him/her/it, not before.

And that brings us to the biggest problem in finding God. There's no preferred direction in which to look. If you doubt this, pick up the book that I've been reading, "God is Not One." 

The author, Stephen Prothero, clearly shows how different Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoruba Religion, Judaism, and Daoism are. These aren't just superficial differences, either.

In each of these major faiths, countless dedicated seekers of truth have labored long and hard to pierce the veils that supposedly separate humans from an ultimate divinity. These saints, mystics, yogis, monks, sages, and wise men/women have meditated, prayed, chanted, mortified themselves, and otherwise engaged in an amazingly wide variety of spiritual practices.

End result: no agreement about the nature of God.

Some faiths say that God (using that term as loosely as possible) is personal; others impersonal. Some faiths say there is only one God; others many Gods. Some faiths say that God is a perfect being; others that God is as flawed as we are. Some faiths say that God is transcendent; others that God is immanent within every atom.

Recently a commenter on this blog said something familiar: "God is to be found within." Well, that tells us absolutely nothing. What isn't to be found within? Name one entity in the cosmos that can be known by a human being outside of that person's consciousness.

Everything is found within our consciousness. The trick in finding something is having some idea where to look. In everyday life, as in science, almost always there are preferred hypotheses that enable us to narrow down the range of search options.

When it comes to finding God, though, I've reached the conclusion that there aren't any search techniques which are demonstrably more likely to be effective than any others. I've read countless (almost) descriptions of mystical and spiritual experiences by people from all sorts of religious backgrounds. Also, non-religious.

Everything seems to work for somebody, somewhere, some time. Putting in effort. Utterly relaxing. Eyes open. Eyes shut. Finding God on your own. Trusting a guide/guru. Purifying your body/mind. Embracing drugs, sex, and rock & roll. And so on. And so on.

When people say, "I'm a seeker of God," they aren't really telling the truth. Again, how is it possible to seek something that (1) probably doesn't exist, and (2) if it does exist, leaves no clues where it can be found?

What they actually mean is that they've decided, for no good reason, that God is most likely to be found by following the precepts of a particular religion, spiritual path, mystic practice, or such.

Without any demonstrable evidence that God is to be found on a particular section of the 360 degree Possibly Divine Truth Circle, they confidently head off on a certain "degree heading." Meanwhile, other people all over the world are choosing their own preferred paths.

Underlying what I call "my theories" is a sense that this is senseless. Now, I can't prove that no one finds God by searching in a certain direction. But in return, no one can prove that this is possible -- so I'm sticking with my null hypothesis:

God can't be found.

Here's the funny thing, though: I'm still open to the possibility that God exists. Yes, I think this is exceedingly unlikely. But unlikely isn't impossible. So every morning I sit down and meditate for a while.

I don't search for God. I'm simply open to the possibility of God. I say "hello," wordlessly. To nobody and nothing in particular. It's the same thing I do when I answer the phone. Except in this case, there's no signal to alert me that God is calling.

Only silence. And, when I have my eyes shut, darkness.

I figure that if God exists, it isn't possible for me to find him/her/it. It's up to God to find me. If that never happens, I won't be surprised, since I think it is extremely unlikely that an entity anything like our human conceptions of "God" exists. I simply enjoy being open to the possibility.

Surprises are fun.

Krishna is the God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims

It has already been long pointed out by several historians that Abraham of Jews and Brahma of Hindus are too close by name to miss. Additionally Sarai is too close to Hindu goddess Saraswati, the wife of Brahma, and the connection cannot be missed. As per Hindu legends, Saraswati is the daughter of Brahma because he has created her. And together with her, he fathers the people of this world and creates all living beings. So Brahma’s relationship with Saraswati is an incestual relationship. And the same is the case with Abraham and Sarai of the Abrahamic world. Sarai is the half-sister of Abraham. In that sense, his relation with her is an incest. And as in Hindu legends, Abraham along with Sarai fathers a large number of nations across the world. 

This relation between Brahma and Abraham, Sarai and Saraswati has already been recognized by several historians. And Mount Moriah itself is pointed out to be Mount meru of the Hindus. We cannot miss the similarities. Despite such close connections being shown, the similarity of two or three names does not seem to break much ice; one problem with these similarities is the causative factor. It can be argued both ways – that Jews have copied from Hindus or that Hindus have copied from Jews. And as long as the argument stays at this deadlock, it does not progress much in capturing public as well as scholarly imagination. So let me show that there is more resemblance than just two names here. 

Abraham’s son Issac is none other Iswar aka Siva of the Hindus! the similarity of names and the concept cannot be missed. In Hindu legends, Iswar is the son of Brahma, he is even called Brahmaputra meaning son of Brahma. And in Jewish legends, Issac is the son of Abraham. 

Rebeccah, the wife of Issac is none other than Ambica, the wife of Siva of the Hindus. Ambika/Rebecca – the names are quite similar. Rebeccah of Jews is portrayed as a pleasing and benign woman. And just like in Jewish legend, the ambika of Hindus is actually a benign and pleasing goddess, it is durga who is of the ferocious form. 

The most revealing connection is that of Hagar, the handmaiden of Sarai. This is nothing but the tributary of river Saraswati, the river by name Ghaggar in India!. Ghaggar/Hagar - the resemblance is overwhelming. And the relations they have with Sarai/Saraswati are quite revealing in themselves. Ghaggar is a tributary to river Saraswati and this relation of being tributary is being described as that of handmaiden. Saraswati is the mighty river and Ghaggar is small tributary to it. Similarly Sarai is the real mistress holding all the powers while Hagar is just handmaiden under her. 

And what does the son Ishmael of Hagar signify? Ishmael is just a morphed form of Ishalay (Isha + Alay) meaning temple of Ishwar or Siva. Why would a temple of Siva be made the son of Hagar the tributary of Saraswati? 

This entire covenant of Abraham is nothing but an agreement amongst Yadavas that henceforth, they are not going to worship any god other than Krishna/Yahweh. So having made such an agreement, it was necessary to show that they have discarded other gods of Hinduism. Which all gods did they discard? They listed down the entire Hindu pantheon as the descendants of Abraham! They are just symbolically representing the gods rejected as Abraham and his descendants. These gods named under Abraham are henceforth to be considered as humans and not as divine. And then they have woven all of their experiences in India, after Krishna’s time, into these legends, with Abraham and others as central characters. So the experiences of Abraham and his descendants are nothing but symbolic allegories of all the difficulties faced by Yadavas during their time of stay in India. 

So the gods who are rejected by Yadavas are listed under the covenant as different characters. Who all have they rejected? They have rejected Brahma (Abraham). They have rejected Saraswati (Sarai), they are no longer going to consider her as a goddess, if anything, she would be shown as a human woman who would be dependent on the grace of Yahweh/Krishna as much as the Yadavas are. They have rejected Siva (Issac). They are no longer going to worship him. They have rejected Amibka, Siva’s wife (Rebecca), she would henceforth be considered as human. Siva is an important god of the Hindu pantheon, his worship was strong in the Gujarat region. So it is likely that some Yadavas were reluctant to completely give up the worship of Siva. It might not be that they wanted to worship Siva alone but they probably wanted to continue worshipping the Hindu religious trinity of Brahma/Vishnu/Siva and the Vedic Gods they probably did not want to completely discard the worship of everyone, especially Siva. Such Yadavas have been left in India on the banks of Hagar river. 

Yadavas were traveling from Gujarat region along the banks of Saraswati river towards Kashmir in search of water. As the famine drew stronger, it was necessary to find water and people just about migrated to any place where they thought that they could find water. Right from the next day of Krishna’s death, they are likely to have had an agreement that they are no longer going to worship anyone other than Krishna. On their way to Kashmir, it looks like they had a disagreement in this regard. Obviously the strongest of faiths can wither at the onslaughts of such dramatic famines of hundreds of years. And some Yadavas are likely to have lost faith in this new religion of theirs. They wanted to go back to the old Vedic religion where they worshipped all Vedic gods including Siva and mother goddesses. A disagreement arose and such Yadavas who wanted to go back to the pre-Krishna religion were discarded. This separation probably took place on the banks of river Ghaggar probably near some Siva temple. So they have recorded it in their scriptures in the form of Hagar and Ishmael. Jews did not take these people along with them to Kashmir and later to Israel.

And then after they broke away from this faction, the Yadavas then had a serious discussion amongst themselves about their religion. Once again they took oaths amongst themselves that henceforth they are not going to worship anyone else other than Krishna. In order to prove that they abide by this agreement, it is likely that various measures were taken by the Yadavas. For example any idols of Siva or other gods had to be thrown away, such other idols should not be kept with anyone. From then on, no one would even utter the name of Siva and other gods. This has been symbolically represented in their scriptures when Isaac is taken to mount Moriah and is offered as sacrifice to Yahweh. Mount Moriah is nothing but Mount meru of Vishnu/Krishna. Vishnu/Krishna is believed by vaishnavites to reside there. Abraham takes Isaac there and offers him as sacrifice before he is stopped in the last minute. This is symbolic representation of the fact that, in favor of Vishnu/Krishna, they would henceforth give up Issac/Iswar/Siva worship completely; his worship is given up as a sacrifice unto/in favor of Krishna. The sacrifice of Isaac on mount meru is an allegory that is representative of an agreement between the Yadavas, whereby any small remnant of Siva worship is thenceforth given up by them completely and they would henceforth have nothing more to do with his worship. 

They have rejected Brahma, Saraswati, Siva and Ambika/Parvati. Who else did they reject? Obviously Siva’s sons Ganesha and Skanda have to be rejected. And they have been rejected. Issac’s sons Jacob and Esau are none other than Siva’s sons Ganesh and Skanda! 

Ganesh is many a times called Jaiganesh in the north. In fact people are named as Jaiganesh and this particular habit of prefixing jai is a peculiar habit of this deity alone. For other deity names, they also append Sri along with Jai, for example JaiSriram. More over no one is named as Jaisriram. However I have seen people being named as Jaiganesh. Jai means ‘Hail’. They have done a lot of cutting the names right in the middle. For example, we can see that the long name of Saraswati is cut right in the middle and only Sarai portion of it is retained. Similarly in Ishwar, only Ish has been retained and a consonant has been suffixed to get Isaac. Similarly in Jaiganesh, only Jaiga has been retained and a consonant has been added to it as suffix to make it Jagob or Jacob. Similarly Siva’s other son is named as Swamy. Not many are aware of it that Siva’s second son is named as Swamy. I once read an article of a tamil scholar who claimed that the word Swamy originally belonged to Skanda. Later on it started being applied to all other gods. So for example tirupati Balaji is called Venkateswara swami. After pointing out all of this, the scholar claimed that, this is indicative of the fact that Venkateswara Swamy and Skanda are one and the same and likewise all forms of worship are different manifestations of the same god, he argued. Esau is none other than Swami (again cut in half like other names), Siva’s second son. In south India, Ganesha is considered elder to swami. However in north India he is considered to be younger, Swami is considered as elder. 

The resemblance between the characters is quite striking. In Hindu legends, Swami is a warrior god, he is fit and agile and served as the commander general of the armies of gods. This fits in with the description of Easu who is said to be an agile and able hunter. Obviously Jewish forefathers could not write that Esau is the chief of armies of gods because they want to consider Easu as human in their legends. The legend needed to be suitably modified to fit in the new realm. Similarly in Hindu legends Ganesha is a rotund personality who is no where near as agile or as able as his brother. However he is said to be high in intellect. This is quite similar to the description of Jacob. Jacob is not so able but is considered to be an intellect. 

There are several legends that show that Ganesha and Swami/Skanda fought with each other for various things. Ganesha’s original name as Vignesa (lord of obstacles) and not Ganesha (lord of ganas). How did he get this name, the legend runs as follows: 

Once Siva and Parvati decided to make one of their sons as the chief or lord of the ganas (warriors or attendants who accompany Siva and live along with him on kailas) of Kailas. Considered to be an extremely important post, both the brothers fight for the post. In order to break the deadlock, it is declared that whoever goes around the world and comes back first would be made the lord of the ganas. Skanda immediately starts on his peacock and goes around the world at a fast pace and comes back in seven days. To his surprise however, his brother Ganesha is happily seated munching sweets on mount kailas, and is declared as the winner of the contest and is given the title of Ganapati/ganesha or the lord of the ganas. How did he get the title? Simple. As per scriptures, circulambulating around one’s parents seven times is considered equal to circulambulating the world. So after Skanda went away, Ganesha promptly bowed down to his parents and then ambulated around them seven times. That was it, he won the contest! Skanda feels cheated by this development and he in fact goes away from Kailas to far away place in the south. 

This legend has other variations. For example, in another variation, they were fighting for the two grand daughters of Brahma. Whoever wins the contest gets both their hands in marriage. In another variation, something else. But all these legends carry the same framework. There is something to be gained for which Skanda leaves home and goes out. In his absence the less able Ganesha wins the booty through guile/wisdom. And needless to say that this is the same framework that was adopted for the fight of Jacob and Esau in the Jewish bible. Abrahamic legacy is the booty to win to attain which, the more able Esau goes out. In his absence, Jacob wins the booty through guile/wisdom. On his comeback, Esau feels extremely cheated. In both cases it is about the title and legacy. Ganesha in Hindu legends becomes the lord of ganas whereas Jacob in Jewish legends gets the title of Israel and is bestowed with abrahamic legacy. The legends of the Jewish bible have been appropriately modified to fit them with human beings. The legends of Hindus are obviously pertaining to godly figures. So they need to be suitably modified so as to fit them and show them as legends about mortals. Some modifications are done here and there to fit the legend of godly figures into the legends of mortals. For example, to justify the attainment of title by Jacob, they have shown Esau as a bad figure, otherwise it would be difficult to justify the guile with which Jacob had acted. 

They have rejected Brahma, Saraswati,Siva, Ambika, Ganesh, Skanda. Who else? Well the Vedic gods. Even they need to be rejected and discarded. Obviously they would have taken a decision to discard all Vedic gods as well? And the answer to that is yes. They have rejected the Vedic gods as well! 

At the ripe old age of 137 years, Abraham is said to have married another woman, termed as concubine, named Ketura. And he is said to have fathered six sons through her. And the names of these six sons along with their meanings are as follows : 

Zimran – Celebrated, Vine Dresser 
Zokshan – Hardnes, knocking 
Medan – contention, conflict 
Midian – Strife, Judgement 
Ishbak – Leaving 
Shuah – Ditch, Humiliation 

Let us start with Ketura. Ketura is none other than Hindu goddess Gayatri, considered to be the mother of Vedas. And she is considered to be the second wife of Brahma! And the most important Gayatri mantra of the Hindus belongs to her, it is in her name. In terms of importance as a wife of Brahma, she is only second to Saraswati. And this nicely tallies with Ketura, Abraham’s second wife. 

And Gayatri being considered as the mother of Vedas, the Vedic gods have been represented as her sons in the Jewish legends. The six sons of Abraham through Ketura are none other than the Vedic gods of India. 

Showing the connection between the six sons and the Vedic gods requires some Linguistic analysis; it would not be possible to show the analysis here. Just to capture the results of the analysis, Zimran is Devendra, Zokshan is Daksha, Medan is Marut, Midian is Mithra, Ishbak is Aswins and Shuah is Rudra. One important thing to notice is that they have not listed Pancha Bhutas or the five elements and Sun and Moon in this list of six sons; probably because they considered these to be the manifestations of Krishna on earth. 

All six sons of Ketura are Vedic gods! Since she is the mother of Vedas, they have been listed as her sons. It is said that Abraham sent them to the east, far away from his son Issac. This symbolically represents the fact that they had left the worship of these Vedic gods in the east, in India. The Jews no longer wanted to have anything to do with these Vedic gods. 

To put it succinctly, the entire covenant with God of Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam is nothing but an agreement amongst Yadavas to worship only Krishna/Yahweh and to reject all other Hindu gods in favor of Krishna. So given that Vaishnavite Jews/Yadavas who had forsaken Vedic religion were considered to have been in central Asia by 1800 BC itself after migrating from India, does it make sense to say that some Aryans invaded or migrated into India in 1500 BC and formed Vedas and epics after that date in India? Indian civilization is extremely ancient; and Indian and world civilizations are 19000 years in the making. 

Source: Prithviraj's forthcoming book on history - 19000 YEARS OF WORLD HISTORY: The Story of Religion
Prithvi's blog: http://19000years.blogspot.com
Prithvi's mailbox: prithvi.book@gmail.com

~KIROAN~

India's God Krishna Was the King of Jerusalem!

India's God Krishna Was the King of Jerusalem!By Gene D. Matlock

What a strange world in which we live! The Catholic Church has always known that Christianity did not begin with Jesus Christ, but yet it tries to make us think it did.St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) wrote: "This, in our day, is the Christian religion, not as having been unknown in former times, but as having recently received that name."
Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 283-371 AD) said: "The religion of Jesus Christ is neither new nor strange."
In Anacalypsis, The 17th century British orientalist and iconoclast, Godfrey Higgins, insisted that Christianity was already firmly in place in both the West and the East, many centuries before Jesus Christ was born. He said, The Crestians or Christians of the West probably descended directly from the Buddhists, rather than from the Brahmins. (Vol. 2, pp 438, 439.)
The existence of the Christians both in Europe and India, (existed) long anterior to the Christian era... (Vol 2, p. 202.) I think the most blind and credulous of devotees must allow that we have the existence of the Cristna of the Brahmins in Thrace, many hundred years before the Christian era-the birth of Jesus Christ. (Book X, p. 593.)
"Melito (a Christian bishop of Sardis) in the year 170, claims the patronage of the emperor, for the now so-called Christian religion, which he calls "our philosophy," on account of its high antiquity, has having been imported from countries lying beyond the limits of the Roman empire, in the region of his ancestor Augustus, who found the importation ominous of good fortune to his government." This is an absolute demonstration that Christianity did not originate in Judea, which was a Roman province, but really was an exotic oriental fable, imported from India, and that Paul was doing as he claimed, viz: preaching a God manifest in the flesh who had been "believed in the world" centuries before his time, and a doctrine which had already been preached "unto every creature under heaven." (Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions; T. W. Doane, p. 409.)
Religious historians have for hundreds of years struggled to find out how and why the stories about Jesus and Krishna, who were born 2,000 years apart, are so nearly identical.

• Both Christ and Krishna descended from Noah.
• The future births of both messiahs were predicted ahead of time.
• Christ was descended from Abraham
• Krishna was the father of Abraham (Brahma).
• Christ was at once a Koresh, a Hebrew, and a Yehudi.
• Krishna was at once a Kurus, an Abhira, and a Yadava.
• Christ was an incarnation of Yah-Veh.
• Krishna was at once an incarnation of Vishnu and Shiva.
• Christ's first name, Jesus, was Yeshua.
• A title of Krishna, meaning "love; devotion," was Yesu. Even today, many Hindu parents name their sons, Yesu Krishna.
• Both men were born of virgins and in a stable.
• Krishna's mother was named Devaki.
• Jesus mother was called Mary.
• Krishna did not have an earthly father as such, but a protector, named Vasudeva.
• Jesus did not have an earthly father as such, but a mortal protector named Joseph.
• An evil king tried to kill Christ and Krishna when they were both infants.
• To protect the infant Jesus, Joseph and Mary took him to Maturai, Egypt.
• To protect the infant Krishna, his parents, Vasudeva and Devaki, took him to Mathura, India.
• It was predicted that both men would die to atone for the sins of their people.
• As you have probably noticed, they took refuge in places having almost identical names.
• Both men preached to their people.
• Christ was crucified and then resurrected. Krishna was killed by a hunter's arrow and impaled on a tree. Later, he returned to life.
• Christ was crucified in Jerusalem.
• Some Hindu scholars think that Krishna died in Jerusalem, having gone there when his coastal city of Dwarka sank under the sea. Others say he went to Iraq.
• Christ appeared after his "death." Krishna appeared after his "death."
• Both of them have a major holiday dedicated to them on December 25th.
• Christ had a female admirer named Mary Magdalene. Krishna had a female admirer named Marya Maghadalena.

Fanatically sectarian Christians and Hindus alike militantly reject the idea that the stories of these two deities are related. The Christians accuse the Hindus of blurring their identities on purpose. Some even claim that the Devil himself is the culprit.The Hindus reciprocate accordingly. Unfortunately, neither side can prove or disprove anything. In this article, I will attempt to clear up this mystery once and for all.
The Hindu Equivalent of our Old Testament Story of Abraham.
The story begins with our Abraham or Brahma as the Hindus called him. His father was Lord Krishna; his brother was Mahesh a.k.a Maheshvara who would be our Moses (Heb: Moshe).
The Hindu triad consists of the Gods Brahma, the equivalent of our God, and Gods Shiva and Vishnu. Actually Shiva and Vishnu are one and the same deities. Together, they are Brahma (God). Today, in India, there are only two temples dedicated to God Brahma because the Hindus say mankind is not yet ready to worship such a lofty concept.
Hindu Proof That Jesus Is the Son of God!
The Bible tells us that Jesus was both Shiva and Vishnu, for Jesus' biblical names are Isa/Isha(Shiva), Yeshua (Skt. Yishvara, pronounced in Sanskrit as Yeshwara), Kristos, and Yesu, another name of Krishna . Even in India, Lord Krishna was and still is called Yesu Krishna and Kristna. These names prove to us that Jesus was both Shiva and Vishnu, thus making Jesus the begotten son of the Unbegotten-Brahma.

Picture of Christ.The preceding information shows us that the Hindus are as Christian as the Christians are. Morever, the Hindus can prove that Jesus was the son of God, but we have to accept this as a matter of faith only. Even so, there is no lack of Christian sects wanting the Hindus to "convert" to their way of thinking although we must credit the Hindus with the honor of proving to us that Jesus is the son of God. But the Hindus don't need to convert to the spiritual knowledge they bequeathed to us. They were "converted" thousands of years before our Jesus was born. I say, leave them be.
Since Krishna was not born of man, he was not actually the earthly father of Brahma and Mahesh. Therefore, he himself was the protector (Tara) of Brahma. In Sanskrit, Tara means "savior; protector." It is a term generally used with the gods Rudra, Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. Even our Old Testament says that the father (protector) of Abraham was Terah(Genesis 11:26.) The Bible tells us that Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings. (Genesis12:19-20.). The Hindu holy books also tell us that a blood relationship existed between them. The Puranas relate Sarasvati to Brahma and Vishnu. Most frequently, she is associated with Brahma. Her connection with him dates earlier than to any other God. She is portrayed mostly as his wife and occasionally as his daughter. When Vishnu's popularity in India increased, myths relating Saraswati to him appeared. (Ref: Sarasvati and the Gods; www.vishvarupa.com.) Therefore, Brahma or Vishnu would also have been the Tara (Terah) of Sarasvati because of her divine origins.

Brahm (Abraham)

Sarasvati (Sarah)Abraham or Brahma's home was the land of Haran (Genesis 1:4.) Haran was the coastal principality governed by Krishna. It was even named after him because Hara (Sun God) is another name of Krishna. Brahma/Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran.
Just as Christ was crucified on a cross and then returned to life, Krishna, also known as Haran, was crucified on a tree and then returned to life. This fact appears to cause some confusion in The Bible. (Read Genesis 11:26-31).
There is also another "Haran" in India-today's state of Haryana. It is the region where Abraham decided to stop making idols and worship only one God. Brahmavarta, a region in Northeastern Haryana, is said to be the place where mankind was first created. (Varta=Dwelling.) Brahmavarta was the site of the Kuruksetra War between the Kurus and Pandavas, in which Lord Krishna distinguished himself. An ancient and holy river, now dried up, the Sarasvati, once flowed through Brahmavarta. The Hakra (the biblical Haggar) was a tributary of the Sarasvati. The relationships of these three geographical entities make sense. If Brahma provided the channel or bed for the Sarasvati river, Brahmavarta could easily have been the symbolical father or brother of Sarasvati. Hakra (Haggar), being a tributary of Sarasvati, depended on Sarasvati . So what were Abraham, Sarah, and Haggar? People, things, or places?

Map of India, showing Haryana

Map showing BrahmavartaI have stated that the Bible mentions Haran and Haryana. The Hindu holy books also say that Brahma/Abrahan lived in Ur of the Chaldees. Ur was a Sumerian name for "town; city." Chaldee (pronounced Kaldee) derives from the Sanskrit Kaul, a Brahman caste, and Deva (demi-god). The North Indian Kauldevas worshiped idols representing their ancestors. According to the Hindus, Brahma married Sarasvati in Chaldea, the part that is now Afghanistan.
Northern Afghanistan was called Uttara Kuru and was a great center of learning. An Indian woman went there to study and received the title of Vak i.e. Saraisvati (Lady Sarah). It is believed that Brahm, her teacher, was so impressed by her beauty, education, and powerful intellect, that he married her. (The Hindu History, by Ashkoy Kumar Mazumdar; p. 48, in passim.) Lord Krishna, the divine father (Terah/T‚ra) of Brahma/Abraham, was the king of Haran, with the seaport of Dwarka as its capital.
In about 1900 BC, hundreds of thousands of native Indians emptied Northern and Central India and fled to the Middle East after Krishna's Dwarka sank under the water.

Krishna gathered his family together and fled either to the Middle East or to what is now Iraq. Only some gigantic natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods could have caused such an exodus. It was at this time that the Saraisvati and the Indus changed their proper beds. The Saraisvati dried up.

Map showing the path of the Sarasvati before it dried up.The drying up of the Saraisvati... led to a major relocation of the population centered around the Sindhu and the Sarasvati valleys... caused a migration westward from India. It is soon after this time that the Indic element begins to appear all over West Asia, Egypt, and Greece. (Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World, by Subhash Kak, taken from IndiaStar online literary magazine; p. 14.)
And Joshua said unto all the people, Your fathers dwelt... in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and they served other gods.
Many people don't understand what is meant by Joshua's remark about "the other side of the flood."
And Joshua said unto all the people, Your fathers dwelt... in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and they served other gods.
And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan... (Joshua 24:2-3.)
Many people don't understand what is meant by Joshua's remark about "the other side of the flood." They think he was referring to the Noachide flood. He was referring to the time when God Krishna's Dwarka and Haran province, in today's Gujarat, sank under water in about 1900 BC. Abraham, Sarah, and their followers escaped southward, to the coastal ports of Kalyan and Sopara (Sophir or Sauvira), in Maharashthra. From there, they sailed northward to the Middle East. Sarah (Sarsvati) embarked from the port of Kalyan. At one time, Kalyan was located closer to the coast, but is now located more than 50 miles inland. Sarasvati is the patron saint of Kalyan. The patron saint of Sophir or Sauvira was Parasu Rama (possibly a name of our biblical Abraham/Brahma).
And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan... (Joshua 24:2-3.)
Indian Author Paramesh Choudhury, author of The India We Have Lost, claims that Krishna and his family probably fled to Iraq. But I'm certain that they went to Jerusalem. The word Jerusalem is derived from Sanskrit: Yadu-Ishalayam, meaning "The Holy Rock of the Yadu Tribe." Lord Krishna was a Yadu. The Moslems still revere this huge rock under the Dome of the Rock on Jerusalem Temple Mount.

 Temple [top] Mount and Dome of the Rock. [bottom] Abraham's tomb.Until now, I have been wondering why Krishna's name did not appear in Jerusalem after his arrival there. Yet, the name of the king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek, the mentor of Abraham, did. I once thought that Melchizedek was the name of a certain person. I made this mistake by thinking that a prince and a son of a Kassite king, Melik-Sadaksina, was a supernaturally endowed prince, magician and spiritual giant. I thought he had accompanied Krishna, Abraham, and Sarah to the Middle East. Later on, I came to realize that the Sanskrit wordSadhaka applies to anyone who is an adept, a magician, one possessed of supernatural powers gained by worshipping a deity or by uttering magical chants.
I have additionally shown in this article that the New Testament words for Jesus all refer to Lord Krishna and his holy names. The early Christians were convinced that Melchizedek was just a prior incarnation of Jesus Christ, The remains of the Nag Hammadi manuscript entitledMelchizedek seem to confirm this. Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem and mentor of his son Abraham, was none other than ancient India's God Krishna. The early Christians thought that Jesus was a reincarnation of Krishna, for who else had the name Yesu Kristna, Isa, Krishna, etc.?
St. Paul states in the New Testament book of Hebrews:

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. (6:20.) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him...(7:1); For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him. (7:;10);...what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec...(7:11); Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec (7:17);.

Melchisedek (Krishna)In closing this article, I want to mention the dissatisfaction I have always had with fanatical religious sectarians who yell that only they are right and that everybody else is wrong. They often insult, deprecate, mock, and reject those with whom they disagree, hoping to shut the formers' mouths. In many cases, these religious squabbles over suspected "differences" cause widespread bloodshed and misery in the world. I am a Roman Catholic and proud of it. But it grieves me when I hear priests, nuns and laity preach that anyone who isn't a Catholic is hell-bound.
The word "Catholic" itself derives from the Sanskrit Ketu-Loka, meaning "Universal Leader." But how can a religion be "universal" if it is exclusive, locking out nations like India who not only gave Catholics their own bible, but even the Christ they worship? I have shown how nearly parallel our bible and the Hindu holy books concur in almost every way-linguistically, culturally, spiritually, etc. Even the incestuous relationship between Brahma and Sarasvati squares with that of Abraham and Sarah. India more than qualifies to be the real holy land of all mankind. The main differences between Christians and Hindus arise from the fact that the Hindu form of Christianity stayed behind in India, and that the western Christianity we know was exported abroad. Naturally, geographical separation has caused some variations in the two similar teachings, as well as culturally. Additionally, we have to keep in mind that for many hundreds of years, these stories were passed down orally, from father to son. Changes, embellishments, and varying opinions crept through the woodwork.
It is a strange anomaly that our Christian sects want to convert the Hindus to the same religious teachings the latter gave to the world and still practice!
I have amply demonstrated that all of us, no matter what our respective religions and nationalities, are grandchildren of India, Will this knowledge help keep us from tearing ourselves and the world apart?
Addendum:
If, until now, you are still unconvinced that Melchizedek was Lord Krishna, and that Jesus was an incarnation of Krishna (Melchizedek) as Paul himself explained, I have no other recourse but to give you solid proof directly from the mouths of the Hindus themselves! This should put an end to the question. It is a verifiable fact that one of the names of Krishna was Sadhaka. Being a king, Krishna would have been addressed as Malika (King) Sadhaka). If you are still doubtful, go to the web and type in Krishna Sadhaka. You'll instantly get all the proof you'll; ever need. Note: This article is a chapter from Gene's upcoming book, now in preparation: Searching for God -- Now a Valid Science! It will be released in autumn, 2007.