Beddru is Beddou is Buddha
The World's 16 Crucified Saviors?
[see short video at this location]
In the past several
years, the Jesus-mythicist school has been embroiled in a
Kersey Graves-induced Beddru-ha-ha that has left
insolent Christian apologists cackling and howling in a most unprofessional and
unseemly manner. Joining in this cacophony has been the woefully uninformed
response from the unbelieving world. Woefully uninformed, I say, because to my
knowledge no one of the past 130 years or so since Kersey Graves
wrote The World's 16 Crucified Saviors has ever looked as in depth as I
have into the sources of the many assertions made by Graves. Despite
this lazy lack of investigation and study of a salient subject that surely
merits nothing less than a CSI-style forensic examination, the naysayers have nevertheless written contrived and
capricious commentary which reveals that they are indeed less than expert on
the subject, in a variety of ways, but especially as concerns Graves himself
and the reasons for his claims. In fact, it is obvious that several of these hypo-critics
have not even read
In my own book Suns of God: Krishna,
Buddha and Christ Unveiled, I spill a significant amount of ink showing
that Kersey Graves has been much maligned without foundation
(to be redundant), as I demonstrated repeatedly where Graves got his
information. Many of Graves's most disputed
contentions can be found in the works of Godfrey Higgins, Edward Moor and Sir William Jones. Without repeating the findings I
published in Suns
of God and in the 9-page "Foreword" I wrote for the AUP
edition of The World's 16 Crucified Saviors, I will say that I feel
I effectively dispelled the erroneous, untoward and libelous notion that
Kersey Graves fabricated any of these most germane assertions. I can now add
yet another unfounded aspersion to the list. As I have written before, the
one thing that would have spared
In the meantime, let
us return to the back-slapping Beddru-ha-ha that has
the normally apoplectic apologists in stitches, mistakenly believing that this
one purported gaffe in itself will allow them to dismiss
More than twenty claims of this kind -- claims of beings invested with divine honor (deified) -- have come forward and presented themselves at the bar of the world with their credentials, to contest the verdict of Christendom, in having proclaimed Jesus Christ, "the only son, and sent of God:" twenty Messiahs, Saviors, and Sons of God, according to history or tradition, have, in past times, descended from heaven, and taken upon themselves the form of men, clothing themselves with human flesh, and furnishing incontestable evidence of a divine origin, by various miracles, marvelous works, and superlative virtues; and finally these twenty Jesus Christs (accepting their character for the name) laid the foundation for the salvation of the world, and ascended back to heaven.
This conclusion that
"Beddru" is a typo - which I am quite sure
is true - is based on the fact that the word "Beddru"
only appears once in the book, on page 30, while the word "Beddou," which I am equally certain was
But without recapitulating further, we will recite some new historic facts not embraced in any of the preceding chapters of this work, and tending to demonstrate still further the universal analogy of all religions, past and present, in their claims for a miraculous power for their Gods and incarnate Saviors. The "New York Correspondent," published in 1828, furnishes us the following brief history of an ancient Chinese God, known as Beddou: ≠≠
Eastern writers agree in placing the birth of Beddou
1027 B.C. The doctrines of this Deity prevailed over
Thus, we possess
a cited source of Kersey Graves's Beddou claim that some industrious person may be able
to track down. It is well known that "Fot"
is the Chinese name for Buddha, and the god's springing from
the right side of his virgin queen mother is likewise understood as
the story of Gautama Buddha. It is probable
that this information is found in the writings of Abbe
Huc, who traveled to
This passage is translated thus:
For A is the representation of Indra himself crucified, bearing on his forehead, hands and feet the signs Telech.
To my knowledge, Georgius's revealing book in Latin was never translated into any other language, which, in view of the preceding passage and others, is not surprising.
"Beddru" is Buddha
In any event, it is
obvious that "Beddru" is supposed to say
"Beddou." What is also evident is that
In actuality, Buddha's "name" is a title that does not represent a single individual, and there were, according to Buddhist tradition, countless Buddhas prior to the purported advent of Gautama, he himself having myriad previous incarnations. Because of this fact of plurality, it is impossible and virtually pointless to attempt to create a "biography" of a "real person" named Buddha. Even the godman's title itself changes from country to country, era to era and writer to writer. As Doane observes:
"It is said that
there have been several Buddhas. We speak of Gautama. Buddha is variously pronounced and expressed Boudh, Bod, Bot,
But, Bud, Badd, Buddou, Bouttu, Bota, Budso,
Pot, Pout, Pots, Poti and Pouti.
The Siamese make the final t or d quiescent, and sound the word
In discussing "the same god, who reigns under different names in the nations of the East," Volney remarks:
"The Chinese adore him in Fot, the Japanese in Budso, the Ceylonese in Bedhou, the people of Laos in Chekia, of Pegu in Phta, of Siam in Sommona-Kodom, of Thibet in Budd and in La."
He then notes:
name of this god is Baits.... The Arabs pronounce it Baidh,
giving to the dh an emphatic sound which makes it approach to dz. Kempfer...writes it Budso, which
must be pronounced Boudso, whence is derived the name
of Budsoist.... Clement of
In his studies of
Buddhism, published in the 1850's in a number of books, including A Manual
of Budhism, the pious Christian R. Spence Hardy
used some 465 texts from Ceylon/Sri Lanka, in the original Sanskrit, Pali, etc. These texts were collected during Hardy's many years as a missionary in
"The name of the founder of Budhism has been spelled by European authors in the following modes, and probably in many others that have not come under my notice: Fo, Fod, Foe, Fohe, Fohi, Fho, Fuh, Futh, Pot, Pott, Poot, Poota, Pootah, Poth, Poti, Pout, Phuta, Wud, Bod, Bot, Bud, But, Buth, Budh, Buddh, Bood, Boodh, Boudh, Bhood, Baoth, Bauth, Budo, Buto, Budud, Booda, Bodda, Budda, Butta, Budha, Buddha, Budhu, Buddhu, Budho, Buddho, Buddow, Bodhow, Budhoo, Budso, Budha, Boudha, Boudhu, Boudhoo, Bouddha, Bouddhu, Boutta, and Bouddho."
These copious variants are not only transliterations limited to Western writers; indeed, not a few of them are the result of the culture in which the ideology was developed. Moreover, this "founder" of which Hardy speaks is not a person at all but a mishmash of myths and sayings that go back centuries and millennia prior to the alleged advent of "the Buddha," i.e., Siddhartha, Gautama, Sakyamuni or other name.
Furthermore, in his Stromata (I, XV), early Church father Clement of
Alexandria (150?-212?) refers to "the Buddha" as "Boutta" and says that the Indians revere him as a god.
There can be no question that in referring to "Beddou" Graves - and The New York Correspondent, which he quotes - is talking about plain old Gautama Buddha aka Siddhartha aka Sakyamuni, et al. So this mystery, which has perplexed so many, is quite simply resolved: "Beddru" is a typo for "Beddou," which is a variation of "Buddha."
Moreover, even though
Graves himself does not cite this variant "Beddou"
specifically among the crucified in his short discussion of the article in The
New York Correspondent, he does list "the Buddha" as one of the 16 cross-borne saviors, and
it is evident that he thought of the two as the same individual. The basis for
In his Anacalypsis, Godfrey Higgins discusses Buddha being
taken as a criminal and crucified after picking a flower in a royal garden.
This story sounds genuinely ancient, and it appears that Higgins knew
about ancient Sanskrit texts that contained this or a similar tale possessing its most germane aspect: To wit, that Buddha was represented
as having been crucified. In fact, independently of
In the original Buddhist source, one Gautama, a predecessor of S‚kyamuni, has been impaled, or "crucified."
Dr. Lindtner further states:
The Sanskrit manuscripts prove without a shadow of doubt:
One would think that such stunning revelations would be fascinating and exciting to those who are passionate about this important subject. Unfortunately, the most vocal camps are those who are incapable of appreciating such astounding information because of mind-dulling "religious" conditioning and those who are equally hypnotized by their ability to digest and regurgitate encyclopedia entries as "comprehensive studies."
In the end, once again
unfairly disparaged Kersey Graves may be absolved of the specious and
fallacious charges of "fabrication" or worse that have been slung his
way for over a century by misinformed and ill-advised individuals in both the
believing and non-believing circles, ironically uniting them in their commonly
held, unscientific analyses. Perhaps in this unanticipated and unusual
union in dissent of normally warring factions, the freethinker
For more information, please see Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.