Similar?
Are there teachings similar to the teaching expressed in the sayings of Jesus recorded by Thomas (1—2)?
Or at least parallel passages, fragments, ideas in other teachings?
Very similar to 1—2 is Kashmir Shaivism.
However, it should be borne in mind that 1—2 is one document, that is, the records of Thomas, whereas Kashmir Shaivism is a multitude of documents, many of which contain distorting influences of other systems (especially Buddhism). Accordingly, when comparing the records of Thomas with any of them, similarities and differences may appear and disappear. Similarities concern, first of all, those directions of Kashmir Shaivism, where the emphasis is on working with the concepts of "Spanda" and "Pratyabhijñā".
The main similarities and differences between 1—2 and Kashmir Shaivism are briefly discussed here.
In some other teachings there are undoubtedly parallels and similar ideas.
However, these are either small parts of a hypothetical original integral teaching, scattered like precious stones that have spilled out of a casket and become covered with grass, or, on the contrary, only emerging signs of a diamond deposit that must be mined and collected in a casket in order to form an integral teaching from them.
The presence of individual parallels and ideas similar to 1—2 in no way makes the texts containing them, so to speak, related to 1—2. Moreover, from the point of view of 1—2, these texts often contain simply unacceptable contradictions, incompatible with the integrity and unidirectionality inherent in 1—2.
Parallels and similar ideas are found:
- in some of the directions of Buddhism;
- in some Upanishads;
- in some places in the Bhagavad Gita;
- in George Berkeley.
Is it possible to find connections between any of these teachings and teaching of 1—2 on a historical level? For example, the ways of transferring ideas of 1—2 to India or vice versa?
One can only try to find such connections in the case of Kashmir Shaivism. But for a period of approximately 500 years - from the 4th to the 8th century - there is no information about either the echoes of the teachings of Jesus-Thomas or the predecessors of Kashmir Shaivism.
And is it even necessary to seek such connections? After all, direct influence or borrowing of ideas is not necessary. These may simply be similar, but not simultaneous, periods in man development in different territories.
On the other hand, it cannot be said that any teaching was the first. Because, for example, although the teaching of Jesus-Thomas arose earlier than Kashmir Shaivism, it was immediately distorted and practically ceased to exist. That is, it can be said that the teaching of Jesus-Thomas received a chance to truly emerge only after the discovery of papyrus sheets near Nag Hammadi in 1945. It turns out that the teachings of Jesus-Thomas arose earlier in writing, but in a practical sense, Kashmir Shaivism was the first to begin working.
The main thing is not which teaching arose first, but that now, in the present, we have both teachings.
Or at least parallel passages, fragments, ideas in other teachings?
Kashmir Shaivism
Very similar to 1—2 is Kashmir Shaivism.
However, it should be borne in mind that 1—2 is one document, that is, the records of Thomas, whereas Kashmir Shaivism is a multitude of documents, many of which contain distorting influences of other systems (especially Buddhism). Accordingly, when comparing the records of Thomas with any of them, similarities and differences may appear and disappear. Similarities concern, first of all, those directions of Kashmir Shaivism, where the emphasis is on working with the concepts of "Spanda" and "Pratyabhijñā".
The main similarities and differences between 1—2 and Kashmir Shaivism are briefly discussed here.
Other systems
In some other teachings there are undoubtedly parallels and similar ideas.
However, these are either small parts of a hypothetical original integral teaching, scattered like precious stones that have spilled out of a casket and become covered with grass, or, on the contrary, only emerging signs of a diamond deposit that must be mined and collected in a casket in order to form an integral teaching from them.
The presence of individual parallels and ideas similar to 1—2 in no way makes the texts containing them, so to speak, related to 1—2. Moreover, from the point of view of 1—2, these texts often contain simply unacceptable contradictions, incompatible with the integrity and unidirectionality inherent in 1—2.
Parallels and similar ideas are found:
- in some of the directions of Buddhism;
- in some Upanishads;
- in some places in the Bhagavad Gita;
- in George Berkeley.
Is it possible to find connections between any of these teachings and teaching of 1—2 on a historical level? For example, the ways of transferring ideas of 1—2 to India or vice versa?
One can only try to find such connections in the case of Kashmir Shaivism. But for a period of approximately 500 years - from the 4th to the 8th century - there is no information about either the echoes of the teachings of Jesus-Thomas or the predecessors of Kashmir Shaivism.
And is it even necessary to seek such connections? After all, direct influence or borrowing of ideas is not necessary. These may simply be similar, but not simultaneous, periods in man development in different territories.
On the other hand, it cannot be said that any teaching was the first. Because, for example, although the teaching of Jesus-Thomas arose earlier than Kashmir Shaivism, it was immediately distorted and practically ceased to exist. That is, it can be said that the teaching of Jesus-Thomas received a chance to truly emerge only after the discovery of papyrus sheets near Nag Hammadi in 1945. It turns out that the teachings of Jesus-Thomas arose earlier in writing, but in a practical sense, Kashmir Shaivism was the first to begin working.
The main thing is not which teaching arose first, but that now, in the present, we have both teachings.