Lord Jesus Christ in Kashmîr and Ladâkh

SUMMARY: Lord Jesus is not buried in Kashmir—or anywhere else in the world. However, a Hiñdu scripture, the Bhavishya Mahâ Purân (lit.: the great scripture about the future), believed to have been written by Vyas in AD 115, spoke about a Jesus-like figure. The Lord also figures in the legends of Kashmir, Pakistan, Ladakh, Nepal and Japan. Could he have spent his missing years in Asia?

A sign outside Rozabal (Khanyar) tells all visitors, in English, that the shrine inside is not the tomb of Lord Jesus Christ. Clearly the keepers of the shrine have no interest in attracting tourists by implying that it is- or might be. Nor does the tourist trade of Kashmîr. I am not sure why. In my case, I can not accept that the Lord was buried at Rozabal, because I believe that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, rose on the third day and ascended bodily to heaven.
And yet the evidence is too plentiful, too solid, to ignore. Even if we do not concede that Christ died in Srinagar, there seems to be proof of the highest grade that at least he lived in Kashmîr and Ladâkh for a while. That’s why the controversy refuses to die.
I have an elaborate theory of ‘retrospective visits’ by divine persons and prophets to lands where their religion reached several centuries later. Thus, Mauritian Hindus now claim that the Hindu deity Lord Hanuman had flown over their charming island and established a holy lake there. After Hindu soldiers started going to Ladâkh, legends arose that Hanuman jî had flown over Kargil as well, and that Draupadi jî had bathed near Drass. All Muslims hold the Biblical Solomon in high esteem. Therefore, the tallest hill in Srinagar town has retrospectively become the Koh e Suleiman (Solomon’s hill), on which his takht (throne) is said to have been kept. The Sikhs’ belief that Gurû Nanak Devji had visited Ladâkh is on firmer foundation, though.

The Islâmic position
Kashmîri Muslims and Ladâkhi Buddhists have no similar incentive to invent stories about Lord Jesus. The Muslim establishment of Kashmîr neither supports nor is hostile to the idea of Rozabal being Lord Jesus’ tomb. This could be because the Holy Quran does not accept that Jesus had died on the cross. (‘And they killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross,’ [4:157].)
On the other hand, Islâm does not oppose the doctrine of bodily ascension to heaven. There are two references in the Holy Quran to this, and both support bodily ascension:
Behold! Allah said:
“O Jesus! I will take thee
And raise thee to Myself…” (3: 55)
and
Nay, Allah raised [Jesus] up
Unto Himself; and Allah
Is Exalted in Power, Wise… (4: 158)
Thus, Islâm officially accepts that Lord Jesus was ‘taken up’. Incidentally, even the Bible uses the expression ‘taken up into heaven’ (Mark 16: 19). Thus, if Christ did not die on the cross, he could have gone to Kashmîr after the crucifixion, to live and die there. And yet, if he ascended bodily to heaven then he could at best have lived in Kashmîr, not died there.
Therefore, researchers like Aziz Kashmîri and Fida Hasnain (both Kashmîris) and Rabbi Dahan Levi (of Morocco and Paris) have dug up evidence despite indifference in Kashmîr and hostility elsewhere. The Christian establishment is not amused by claims about the existence of a tomb of Lord Jesus Christ. (Nor, as I said, am I. But after my first visit to Rozabal I was overwhelmed by a presence I can’t explain.)

The Bhavishya Maha Puran
The clincher is a passage from the Sanskrit Bhavishya Maha Puran (lit.: the great scripture about the future), believed to have been written by Vyas in AD 115. Thanks to Aziz Kashmîri I have seen the photocopy of a page from the 1910 edition of the book. My first reaction on reading the page was, ‘This can’t be true. This must be a forgery. Or at least the book wasn’t originally written in AD 115. This could be a later interpolation.’ However, there can be no reason why a Hindu Mahârâjâ should have ordered the printing of a tampered version of an ancient Hindu scripture. Certainly not to prove that Lord Jesus had lived in Kashmîr when there was no advantage in doing so.
The said passage reads, ‘There [while in a country in the mountains, Raja Shakewahin] saw [what appeared to be] a Raja of Sakas at Wien, who was fair and wore white clothes. [‘Wien’ is 18 km. from Srinagar, where the Khrew Cement Factory now is.] He asked the man who he was. His reply was that he was Yusashaphat [Yuz Aasaf], and had been born of a woman…
‘[The man also said:] “O Raja, when truth had disappeared and there was no limit [to evil practices] in the malechha [infidel] country, I appeared there and through my work the guilty and the wicked suffered, and I too suffered at their hands.”
‘The Raja asked him what his religion was. He replied, “It is to establish love and truth and to purify one’s heart and for this I am called Isa Masih.” ’ (Emphasis added.)
Aziz Kashmîri (born 1919) has in his possession a photocopy of this page, taken from the Bhavishya Maha Puran (p. 282, ch. iii, sec. II, shlok 9-31, translated by Vidyavaridi Dr. Shiv Nath Shastri). The photocopy and more details about the information contained in this chapter appear in Aziz Kashmîri’s book Christ in Kashmîr, Roshni Publications, Srinagar. Its eighth edition was published in 1998.
The Sanskrit text has four incredible references. In verse 22 we are told of ‘Ish Putram’, the Son of God. The word ‘Ish’ is suspiciously close to ‘Isa,’ the Indo- Islâmic version of the name of Iesus Nazarenus, known in some Western countries as Jesus Christ.
Two verses later, the speaker says, ‘Masiho Ahem’, I am the messiah. Verse 25 leaves nothing to the imagination. It begins with the name of ‘Isha Masee’, Jesus the Messiah. Either we have a major forgery here, or a revelation of earth shaking dimensions. If these words were indeed written in AD 115, then there can be no doubt that this fair man in white clothes, this son of God, this messiah who calls himself Isha Masee, was Lord Jesus himself. Later in the same verse we have another reference to ‘Maseeh’, this time with a terminal ‘h’. Verse 27 mentions ‘Maseeha’, the messiah, yet again.
Ish is the Hindu word for God. So that part can be a coincidence. But the concept of ‘messiahs’ is unknown to Hinduism. If the above mentioned page 282 of the AD 1910 edition is a faithful reproduction of the AD 115 original, then no further proof is needed.
And the amount of related evidence that’s available is not funny.

Early Kashmîri beliefs about Christ- like saints
That a non- Muslim saint or prophet or king (‘Sultan’) lies buried at Rozabal has always been known. The way the grave has been laid is unIslâmic. (Hazrat Yuz Aasaf’s feet face West. The Holy Kâba is West of Kashmîr.) The stone used, the architecture, the impression on stone of a pair of gigantic feet and the decorative motifs in the tomb are all pre- Islâmic: Hindu, to be precise.
But Hindus are cremated, not buried in graves. So this saint- king had to be Jewish or Christian.
The Rajatarangini (written AD 1148- 50) took the Bhavishya Maha Puran’s account further. There is no question of an interpolation in this very popular book. Too many copies of it have always existed. Besides, it has been translated repeatedly. There are two Persian versions, one ordered by Kashmîr’s own King Budshah Zain ul Abedin (15th century) and the other by the Mughal Emperor Akbar (16th century). There also are three English versions (19th and 20th centuries).
The Rajatarangini mentions Sandhimati Arya Raj, the ‘greatest of all saints,’ as having been a minister in the court of King Jayendra (61 BC- AD 24). This saint led a life of poverty, was imprisoned for a long while and ‘died at the stake’. He was resurrected, after which he ‘consented to the prayers of the citizens’ and ruled Kashmîr for 47 years.
Executing people ‘at the stake’ is not part of the Indian tradition.
The story of Sandhimati sounds almost as if it were taken right out of the Old Testament. Witness:
‘There was a rumour that the time would come when Sandhimati would reign… The king, alarmed at the probable consequences, threw Sandhimati into prison… and intended to execute [him].’ (Book II, Page 30)
Shades of Herod and the Pharoah?
Matthew 27:37 says of the crucified Christ, ‘And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is the King of the Jews.” ’
The Rajatarangini says about Sandhimati, who had similarly died on a stake: ‘But when [Sandhimati’s master, Ishana] was going to perform the last ceremony [on Sandhimati], the following lines marked on his forehead by Vidhata [God] caught his eye: “Poverty so long as he lives, ten years’ imprisonment, death on a pale, and then kingdom again.” ’ (Appendix C, page v, Volume I, KOK.)
‘Kingdom again’ could refer to ‘Rex Iudaeorum’ or to Jesus’ kingdom in heaven, more likely the latter.
Or take these three aspects of the resurrection:
i)‘Necodemus also, who had at first come to him by night [after Jesus’ crucifixion], came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes…’ (John 19:39)
Ishan(a) could not sleep on the night of Sandhimati’s crucifixion. ‘At midnight… he felt the smell of burning incense…’ (KOK, Vol. I, Appendix C, page v.)
ii)Mary Magdalene ‘saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet…’ (John 20:12)
Ishan(a) ‘saw Yoginis [female yogis] coming that way with a burning light. They then got hold of [Sandhimati’s] skeleton and ran away with it…’ (KOK, Vol. I, Appendix C, page v.)
iii)After Sandhimati had risen from the dead, he went to the town. ‘The citizens… at first doubted the identity of Sandhimati, but his speech dispelled their doubts.’ ’ (KOK, Vol. I, Appendix C, page vi.)
Didn’t Thomas (‘the Twin’) have similar doubts, too?
Some historians, like Hassan (19th century), list Yuz Aasaf among the Muslim saints of Kashmîr.
Sufi, the 20th century historian, pooh- poohs the Christ in Kashmîr theory. He says that Yuz Aasaf was merely the Egyptian ambassador at the court of Budshah. Yet, far from clearing up the mystery, Dr. Sufi only adds to it. He points out that the name Yuz Aasaf, if written in the Arabic script, can be read as ‘Bodhisattva’. (There is a parallel belief that the ‘Maitreya’ of Buddhism is the same as the ‘Messiah’. So, if Yuz Aasaf was the Bodhisattva, the plot only thickens.)
The origins of the belief
Christianity was late in coming to most of north India. The British rulers of India did not encourage its spread either. However, after they annexed much of North India (around 1857) at least the religion started looming on the consciousness of the average north Indian.
The ‘Christ came to/ is buried in Kashmîr’ theory was first put forward in the mass media through a book entitled Maseeh Hindustan Mein (The Messiah in India). It was written around 1899 and published in 1908. Its author was Khalifa Noor ud Din of Jalalpur Jattan (district Gujrat, Punjâb). He was a member of the then recently established Ahmadiyya Movement. Its founder, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, sent the Khalifa to Srinagar to research the hypothesis that was, till then, limited to folk beliefs and little known manuscripts. 566 people in Kashmîr signed a statement to the effect that (they believed that) Rozabal was the tomb of Lord Jesus.
The book cited Islâmic sources to show that the Lord had travelled to Nasibain, and then through Iran and Afghânistan to Kashmîr. It claimed that the ten lost tribes of Israel migrated to and settled in Kashmîr (and Afghânistan). It also quoted Buddhist texts which indicated that the Buddha had predicted that five hundred years after his death another Buddha, called Mitya, would arise. This name has been widely interpreted by not just the Ahmadiyyas but by countless Hindu and Buddhist scholars as being the same as ‘messiah’.
Aziz Kashmîri writes, ‘[The said book] also adduces authentic proof that Jesus Christ has been mentioned by the name of Mi-Shi-Hu in books written in Tibet during the 7th century C.E. (The ‘said book’ is A record of the Buddhist religion by I. Tsing.)’
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, a barrister from Lahore, based in England, elaborated on the theme in the 1940s. He claimed to have evidence that Jesus visited Takshashila (Taxila, now in Pâkistân), accompanied by ‘Judas Thomas’. Apparently Mary (presumably Mother Mary), who was with them, died and was buried at Murree (also in Pâkistân). There’s a tomb at Murree, known as the Shrine of Mai (mother) Mari, who is supposed to be Mother Mary’s. It is now being claimed that Muree itself has been named after Mother Mary. Mari does sound like Mary, but surely the Mother would have been called Mariam, which isn’t quite the same.
(Hassnain and Levi add that the other famous Biblical Mary, Magdalene, was buried at Kashgar in Central Asia.)
The Khwaja added that Lord Jesus then reached Kashmîr where he lived and proselytised for 125 years, and where he died and was buried.
In 1953, Aziz Kashmîri published an article citing historical records that indicated that Prophet Moses was buried in a tomb on a reddish mountain near Moab on Nebo Ball (Booth) in Bâñdîporâ.
In 1967, a group of top ranking Kashmîri clerics and leading journalists, including Aziz Kashmîri, went over to Rozabal. They recorded what the people of the neighbourhood, Khanyar, believed about the origins of the shrine. The people, to the last man, were of the view that a Prophet called Yuz Aasaf lay buried in the tomb and that he had come to Kashmîr during the reign of Raja Gopanand.
Thus, it will be seen, the theory was propounded, and has been kept alive, by the Ahmadiyya movement throughout the Indian sub- continent. In Kashmîr its main votaries are Aziz Kashmîri, his family and their family- run newspaper, Roshni. At the academic level Prof Hasnain and, later, Rabbi Dahan Levi have taken it forward.
The West has always abounded in revisionist theories about the Bible. Aziz Kashmîri informs us that one J.M. Robert wrote a book called ‘Antiquity Unveiled’ (Oriental Publishing Co., Philadelphia, USA) in 1912. The book claims that insofar as there is a historical Jesus, it is Appollonius of Tayana.
Kashmîri adds that W. Raymond Drake, who wrote ‘Spacemen in the Ancient East’ in 1970, seemed inclined to accept the ‘Jesus was really Appollonius of Tayana’ theory. Drake was probably the first western writer to refer to the belief that Jesus had ‘survived the cross and lived in Rome, then died in India’.
So, outside obscure manuscripts, the whole controversy is as recent as that.

Could Christ have come to Kashmîr?
‘And We made the son of Mary and his mother as [PD1] a Sign: We gave them both shelter of[PD2] high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs.’ The Holy Quran (23: 50)

Aziz Kashmîri has used a commentary on the Holy Quran in which the words “(and due to greenery)” appear after the word ‘ground’ in the above verse. For Maulana Muhammad Ali and Aziz Kashmîri the place referred to in verse 23: 50 is obvious: Kashmîr.
I have used the official version published by ‘the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques’ (i.e. the King of Saudi Arabia). This version, in a footnote, discourages any speculation about this place. It says, ‘There is no need to look far for the place where the mother and child were given secure shelter. It is described in xix. 22-26… There was a fruitful palm- tree… and she and her child rested there until it was time for her to go to her people with her child.’
Kashmîr has no palm- trees (though I have seen some in neighbouring Jammu, on a high ground, with a spring nearby). Secondly, while Ali and Kashmîri assume that the mother and child travelled to this place after ‘the event of the Cross’, the version I have consulted implies that we are looking at the days immediately after the birth of our Lord.
Verse 23: 50 lends itself to either interpretation and does not mention palm trees.
Kashmîri cites the Ibn Kathir (vol.ii, p.246) to the effect that ‘according to a saying of the Holy Prophet [peace be upon him], Jesus lived 120 years’. He then cites oral testimony saying that the people of Kashmîr believe that Yuz Aasaf, the prophet buried at Rozabal, had come to Kashmîr from the West 2000 years ago.
Regarding the tomb itself, Kashmîri quotes from a 10th or 11th century Arabic book, Shaikh Al- Said- us- Sadiq’s Ikmal- ud- Din. The book says, ‘But before his death [Yuz Aasaf] sent for a disciple of his, Babad by name, who used to serve him and was well versed in all matters.’ (Apparently, Babad was St. Thomas.) Yuz Aasaf then ‘directed Babad to raise a tomb over him (at the very place he died). He then stretched his legs towards the West and turned his head towards the East and died. May God bless him.’
We learn that Babad erected a tomb ‘in the style of Israelites and kept the window in the same manner. [He] inscribed the mark of [Jesus’] feet on [a] stone’. The original walls and roof are gone. What remains, especially the engraved stone, is similar in style to Hindu temples like Mârtañd, Shankarâchârya and Awantiporâ.
That St. Thomas had come to India, where Hindu fanatics killed him in Chennai, is history. Was he the same as Babad? And was Yuz Aasaf the same as Lord Jesus[PD3]?
What do we know about H. Yuz Aasaf ?
I, too, have sounded the same people. I have also seen their opinions expressed in two different centuries: the 19th and considerably before, perhaps the 16th. Yes, they do accept that Yuz Aasaf was from the West and was a ‘prophet’ and a king. But nowhere have they put a date as old as the beginning of the Christian era. (Yuz, of course, is similar to several non- English pronunciations of the name ‘Jesus’. It is one of the Persian names of Jesus, seen as ‘the collector, the gatherer’. And Aasaf? It means ‘a leper who had been cured by Lord Jesus and who had then rejoined the world of the healthy’.)
The Muslims do not use the word ‘prophet’ lightly. Islâm accepts Hazrat Muhammad, peace be on him, as the ‘seal of the prophets’. Almost all Muslims interpret this as meaning that while there were several prophets before Hazrat Muhammad, there will be none after him. Therefore, Hazrat Yuz Aasaf must obviously have come before.
The oldest extant historical record about Yuz Aasaf are the words of Syed Naseer ud din Baihaqi of Khanyar, a 15th century saint. He is buried next to Hazrat Yuz Aasaf. A Persian verse written by him indicates that H. Yuz Aasaf had died several centuries before and was a ‘prophet’ and a ‘sultan’. ‘Vâqeyât e Kashmîr,’ an early history of Kashmîr, says that God appointed Yuz Aasaf the ‘prophet of Kashmîr’. So Yuz went over to Kashmîr and ‘invited the people to [accept] the truth.’ However, a contemporâry of ‘Budshah’ (King Zain ul Abedin) says in ‘Vaqâye e Kashmîr’ that ‘Yuz Asap,’ a descendant of Prophet Moses, was the Egyptian envoy at Budshah’s court. Since no details have been given about ‘Yuz Asap,’ he needn’t be the same as H. Yuz Aasaf.
The 19th century historian Hassan believes that the two are the same. He says that there used to be a slab on the wall of the temple on Solomon/ Shankarâchârya hill. Its inscription talked of an Egyptian youth who came to Kashmîr and claimed to be a prophet. Hassan claims that when the Sikhs ruled over Kashmîr, one of them got the writing on that slab erased.
Aziz Kashmîri quotes Mulla Nadiri (15th century), the first historian of Kashmîr who happened to be Muslim, as saying about the same wall, ‘During [Raja Gopadatta’s] reign… the dome of the temple on top of the mound of Sulaiman cracked. [The Raja] deputed one of his ministers named Sulaiman, who had come from Persia, to repair it. The Hindus objected that he was… of another religion. During this time Hazrat Yuz Asaf from Baitul Muqaddas [Jerusalem] [came] to the holy Valley, proclaimed his prophethood… it was because of this prophet’s instructions that Sulaiman, whom the Hindus call Sandeman, completed the repairs of the dome in the year fifty and four. [Regardless of which of the two main Hindu calendars was followed, this would be in the first century of the Christian era. Raja Gopaditya’s era has been variously estimated at the 6th and 1st centuries AD. Gopananda’s reign was almost certainly between AD 79 and 109.] Further, on one of the stones of the flank walls encasing the stairs he inscribed, “In these times Yuz Asaf proclaimed his prophethood” and inscribed on the other stone of the stairs that he was Yusu, Prophet of Children of Israel.’
What is eerie about this text, if authentic, is that it takes us back to Sandhimati [Sandeman]. The difference is that now it is Yuz Asaf, a contemporâry of Sandhimati, who has the attributes of Christ. Personally, I am intrigued by the fact that Sandhimati- Arya Raj had a Gurû called Isan (ee-sân) who had saved him from crucifixion. ‘When he came to see his disciple Sandiman, the whole city marched to welcome him and no one remained in his house.’ (See also the chapter on ‘Srinagar City’.) The name Isan resembles ‘Isa,’ the Indo- Islâmic variant of Jesus’ name. Isan is also the name of the Hindu God Shiv(a), whose wife is called, among other things, by the very Biblical name Sarah (pron. sâ-râ).
Kashmîri, however, delivers the clincher. He quotes Nadiri as saying, ‘I have seen in a book of Hindus that this prophet [Yuz Aasaf] was really Hazrat Isa [Jesus] Ruh Allah…’
At least this explains why the hillock known today as the Shankarâchârya hill, and in older days as the Gopadri hill or Jest (Jyesth) Laddar, is called the Throne of Solomon by Muslims. The Solomon of the hill is obviously not the Solomon of the Bible.
However, some of the teachings attributed to Yuz Aasaf are identical to those of Lord Jesus. Aziz Kashmîri says that Yuz Aasaf called his gospel the Bushra, which is the Arabic word for a Christian ‘gospel’. Kashmîri adds that even Yuz Aasaf would relate the parable of the seed- sower.
Since the 20th century it has been made out that the Kashmîris had always believed that Jesus (and Moses) were buried in Kashmîr, that the Kashmîris always thought that they had descended from the Jews etc. However, the encyclopædic Hassan does not mention any of this. He merely says that the Shias believed that H. Yuz Aasaf was a descendant of Imam Jâfar Sadiq. We are now told that ancient and mediæval manuscripts had specifically mentioned Isa Maseeh [Jesus, the Messiah]. This was never known at the popular, mass level though.
However, Hassan hastens to add that enlightened persons say that ‘the light of prophethood’ radiates from the grave of H. Yuz Aasaf.
I agree. Jesus or not, all evidence indicates that a prophet lies buried at Rozabal.

In Ladâkh, Nepal and China
I remember reading about a village in Japan, the inhabitants of which are Caucasoid, tall and, often, brown- haired. They claim to be the descendants of Lord Jesus. Their story could be totally untrue. But the same belief pops up in Murree and Lahore (both in Pâkistân), then Kashmîr, Ladâkh, Benares, Nepal and China. Add these dots together and you get a clearly defined and credible ‘Jesus- route’ from Palestine to China and Japan. No one in lands either north or south of that route claims that Jesus passed through or settled in their country.
Around 1887 a Russian traveller called Nicholas Notovich created a stir by claiming that ‘In his fourteenth year, young Issa [Jesus], the Blessed One, came to [the Ladâkh] side of the [Sind, River Indus] and settled among Aryans, in the country beloved of God.’ Apparently, Jesus had ‘discourses with the Sudras’ which infuriated ‘the white priests’ who decided to kill Issa. Jesus got to know of this and fled to Nepal. (Aziz Kashmîri, quoting from Notovitch’s Life of Saint Issa and from Nineteenth Century.)
Notovitch claims to have found this information in the library of the Hemis monastery in Ladâkh. One keeps hearing about this manuscript, which is said to have since disappeared from public view around 1922. According to Notovitch’s Mother of All Conspiracy Theories the Vatican got them whisked off. Hassnain and Levi write, ‘In 1894, the Church [apparently the Church of England this time] deputed a neo- convert, Ahmad Shâh to Ladâkh in the disguise of a hakim… to refute the findings of Nicolas Notovitch… It is probable that out of the [sic] great fear of the then British Government in India, the Buddhist lama [of Hemis] concealed the scrolls or handed over some fragments to Ahmad Shâh.’
Apparently, Lord Jesus spent the ‘missing years,’ from age thirteen to twenty- nine in the East, mainly India, the Brâhmins of Benares knew him as Saint Issa and accepted him as their Buddha.
Fida M. Hassnain and Dahan Levi have quoted at length from Notovitch. They show how Lord Jesus studied Buddhism, Jainism and other eastern religions during his six years in Sind, Benares, Kapilavastu, Rajagiri, the Punjâb, Rajputana, Orissa and other parts of India. They go on to assert that ‘the holy book of [R]evelation was the Tibetan Gospel.’
Aziz Kashmîri says that he saw at Hemis a sketch ‘of a Lama who, quite unlike other lamas, [had] a beard… [One of the Lamas at Hemis said that this was a portrait of] Yashosh, the lama who was raised two thousand years ago… Yashosh corresponds with Ashosh [see ‘Aish Muqâm’ in the chapter on ‘Ânañtnâg’].’ Yashosh is also similar to Yashoo, one of the Indian names of Jesus.
Hassnain and Levi have photographed what they claim is an ancient Ladâkhi mural which has crucifixes drawn on it.
Kashmîri says that Nelson Bruknaer has written in The Second Life of Jesus Christ that he found Buddhist manuscripts at Hemis and Samvas (near Lhasa, Tibet). These indicated that the coming of the Bagwa Bodhisattva Avalokitesvar (the white, enlightened great merciful [being] who sees everything) had been prophesied 500 years before the birth of Jesus. Apparently these manuscripts talk of this incarnation as one who ‘came from a foreign land,’ as one who ‘was born of a Virgin,’ who ‘spoke in parables,’ who spoke of ‘Amit Abha, God the Father’ and who had ‘wheel- like marks on his hand and feet’.
Bruknaer is further quoted as saying that ‘In Japan, [the] teachings [of this prophet regarding] the Father God (Amit Abha) [are] now called “Namu Amida Butsu”.’
Kashmîri says that, in 1922, Swami Abehananda, a disciple of Srî Ramakrishna, translated 124 verses from the Hemis manuscript into Bengali. So, though the original Hemis manuscript has not been seen since, the Bengali translation of a portion of the manuscript might still be available.
This author has little time for conspiracy theories, especially those that portray the Vatican as a sinister- and omnipresent- body determined to snuff out all dissent. However, Kashmîr had at least heard of the Christ through Islâm. Hemis is incredibly isolated from the rest of the world. So if there’s even a mention of ‘Issa’ in an ancient, or even mediæval, manuscript found at Hemis or Samvas, it would indicate that the Lord had visited Ladâkh or at least Tibet.

Conclusion:
If the manuscripts of the Bhavishya Maha Puran and Mullah Nadiri’s Târeekh e Kashmîr have not been tampered with and if the Hemis manuscript exists, then there can be no doubt but that Lord Jesus had lived for at least a while in Kashmîr and Ladâkh.
Too many copies of the Rajatarangini exist in several languages for any interpolations to have been made in recent centuries. The Rajatarangini refers unambiguously to a Christ- like seer who was crucified by a Herod- like king, and who lived in and ruled over Kashmîr, possibly in the 1st century AD. In any case, there’s an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence, which indicates that Jesus might have come to Kashmîr.
I believe that Lord Jesus ascended bodily to heaven. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept that his tomb could exist anywhere in the world. However, by quoting the Bhavishya Maha Puran, scholars like Aziz Kashmîri have made out a very strong case that Hazrat Yuz Aasaf, who lies buried in Rozabal, might have been Lord Jesus Christ himself.
(See also the post 'Mosesin Kashmîr')


Note of caution: The quotes from Nâdiri’s book are clinchers about Jesus, if true. But no one has seen a copy of this book in the last four hundred years. The only remnants that we have of Nâdiri’s work are excerpts and quotations from it in Syed Ali’s history, which was written in 1579.