ANAGNORISIS
Stratum 4 · Reading Room
INSIGHT, Vol. IV No. 1 — the manuscript witness
Authority copy — manuscript witness, reflowed, not printed pages. Complete character-level extraction of
VinodhWhatsapp send/INSIGHT.DOC, the digital manuscript of the origin document of the whole corpus. Nothing insources/or in the received folder was modified; the file was copied to a scratchpad before any tool touched it.This file supersedes
sources/insight.txtas the wording authority for INSIGHT, under the gate's standing rule (manuscripts before txts). It is not a printed copy: it is Panakal's typescript, and it carries typescript defects of its own — see Defects below. Where manuscript and website diverge, the collation is in [[insight-manuscript-digest]] §3.What is new here: the proving apparatus. Reader I's digest of the web scrape recorded that "claims survive, proofs don't — approximately 95% of the demonstration is absent." All thirty-four main-series notes and all seven Epilogue notes are present in this file.
Structure of the source file. Panakal's typescript reproduces the printed page: each block of lettered statements is followed, on the same typescript page, by the notes that sat at the foot of that journal page, then the body resumes mid-sentence. The body therefore reads in page-image order, not in logical order, and a sentence of the corpus is routinely interrupted by two pages of apparatus. This is not extraction damage. It is what the file is, and it matches the apparatus note's own warning that "in numerous places the footnotes are not on the same page with the corpus."
Extraction method.
olefile→WordDocumentstream. FIB:nFib=193,fComplex=0, single piece atfc=2048, compressed (cp1252).ccpText=119,580·ccpFtn=14,618·ccpHdd=38. The piece table (fcClx=23836) confirms one piece covering all 134,237 characters, so no piece-table reassembly was required.plcffndRef(19 entries + sentinel) andplcffndTxt(21 CPs) were read from the1Tablestream; only two Word-footnote references (character 0x02) exist in the body, at CP 659 and CP 1706, and they carry notes 1 and 2. Every other note is typed inline. Word counts: body 19,170 · separated stream 2,340 · 21,510 total (against 8,148 words in the website scrape, navigation titles included).Rendering conventions in this file. - Text is emitted programmatically from the raw stream. No passage has been retyped by hand. - Panakal's typography is preserved exactly, including his lowercase
jesus/christianity/god, his–Ed.interpolations, his[sic], his spellings and his typing errors (Novenber,IDNETITY,auger,Piasächa,alterfor altar). Nothing is silently corrected. - The leading tab that indents each paragraph in the.docis dropped, as in the other vault authority copies. Columnar passages (the Real/Unreal table, the Isaiah SET A/SET B collation, the serpent/snake collation, the Cain/Seth genealogy) are fenced so their alignment survives. -⟦PAGE BREAK⟧= a hard page break (0x0C) in the source file; there are six. -⟦N blank lines⟧= a run of empty paragraphs, recorded rather than dropped, because the runs mark where the typescript left room for material to be dropped in. -⟦Word-footnote reference → note N⟧= character 0x02 in the body. - Panakal's doubled square brackets[[ … ]](his nested boldface-bracket convention) occur nine times and are left exactly as typed. They are not wikilinks. Obsidian's reading view will try to render them as links and will swallow the brackets — read this file in source mode.Defects of this witness — read before quoting. 1. Section B is missing statements l) and m). The manuscript carries only
k). The two statements survive in the website scrape and in the 2007–08 static site; their notes (19, 20) are present here. 2. Section C statement o) is missing a mid-clause. The manuscript runs…primal serpent27→ blank →all rebellion against Siva.29. The missing words, from both site witnesses, are "being Siva's ornament 28 and also because Lucifer is". Note 28 is present here. 3. Three footnote numerals in section A appear as°(U+00B0) where every other witness has the numerals 7, 8 and 9. A font/encoding artifact of the typescript; the three notes themselves are present. Numerals 3, 5 and 6 are simply absent from the body text (their notes are present). 4. Malayalam quotation blocks are unfilled. At six points the typescript carries a numbered run of empty lines, once with the explicit instruction"... Malayälam text to be filled". The Malayalam originals of the Synod of Diamper canons and of the Malayalam bible were never typed into this file. 5.‡(U+2021) is used throughout as the verse sign — "Isaiah, ch.14,‡ 12". Reproduced verbatim. 6.¦(U+00A6) appears six times, as the descent rule in the genealogy diagram. Reproduced verbatim.Digest, collation and findings: [[insight-manuscript-digest]]. Superseded reading of the scrape: [[insight-journal-issue]]. Static-site witness: [[insight-ins00-09]] · marker map: [[insight-footnote-marker-map]].
Part I — Body stream
ccpText = 119,580 characters · 19,170 words · page-image order.
INSIGHT
A Journal of the Sanätana Dharma
[Kochi, India]
Founded 1971
Revised by IDENTITY PUBLISHERS
KIENTAL, SWITZERLAND
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Vol. IV,No. 1 Editor: Leo Panakal Novenber 1997
Co-Editor & Manager: Vinodh Kumar
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Jesus = Lucifer =THE Devil
Vagh artha ivaa sampraptho Vagh artha prathipatheye
Jaghatha pithiro vandhe Pärvathi-Parameashwaro
–Kälidäsa, Raghuvamsam
(See at note 18 below for translation)
⟦4 blank lines⟧
Eighteen years have elapsed since the last issue of INSIGHT was published⟦Word-footnote reference → note 1⟧ Merely the subject and content of the present issue would explain and indeed justify that long period with no further copy. In the course of his renewed investigation of Hinduism and christianity during this time, the editor gained insight into the real identity of jesus, alias christ, whom the christians call god and/or son of god and by whose supposed authority, typically the Rome pope implants and promotes his alleged credo all over. The real identity of jesus is the authentic key to the bible book. Everything contained in that book, and the book itself as a whole, automatically fits in its proper place, and unveils its correct meaning, by use of this key.
Our method of analytical and synthetic examination exposes the bible book as the SELF EXPRESSION OF THE MIND OF LUCIFER–THE DEVIL SUPREME–REBELLIOUSLY AUTO REGARDING HIMSELF INITIALLY TO BE THE GOD AND SUBSEQUENTLY UPON EJECTION BY MARY TO BE THE SON OF GOD. Since the various internal features of the bible book conform to the definitive and illustrative norms of scripture,⟦Word-footnote reference → note 2⟧ the methodology of our investigation consists of analysis of the material actually encountered therein. Each passage, term or punctuation is truly and by definition underived. Therefore, they objectively correspond with definitions of those terms or punctuations by authoritative neutral sources. Also equally meaningful is the suppression4 of a text or term existing in one or more than one version and missing or replaced in another version. Suppressions–and substitutions–both have their own meaning and purpose. Since that meaning and purpose remain deeply embedded in the mind of real author of the bible book–in complete accord with his true identity as Lucifer––
––––––––––––-
the primitive man’s awe for scripture–Geroge Santayana”, p.907 for “primitive”: not derived, p. 474 for “genesis”: “[L fr.Gk. fr. gignesthai to be born] the origin or coming into being of something”, and ibid., for “genetics”: [Synonymous Cross Reference:] genesis (italics added) (see note 19, ii for “synonymous cross reference”)
3.See 2 above
4. See 6, i. below
5. See Webster's, p.1153 for “substratum”: “[ML fr.L neuter of substratus, pp of substernere to spread under ...] the material of which something is made and from which IT DERIVES ITS SPECIAL QUALITIES; a layer beneath the surface soil” (emphasis and italics added)
6.See/compare:
i.second part of genesis IV,7 in Knox with the same passage in the other bible books. Knox [the “lord” to Cain:] “Meanwhile he [Abel] is at thy [Cain’s] mercy [see below] and thou canst have thy way with him” (p.3). Catholic Truth [sic] Society (London): “It [sin] wants to rule you but you must overcome it” [p.3 (?)]. By these words quoted from Knox, the “Lord ” incites Cain–in vain since the “lord” himself is Abel’s killer (see Epilogue) and since man is no sinner (see corpus,p.)–to kill his younger brother Abel. This material decisive (see Webster's, p.291 for “decide”: to arrive at a solution that ends uncertainty or dispute about) for identification [see note below] of the lord of evil, is suppressed [genetically inhibited (see Webster's, p.1163 for “suppress” : to inhibit the genetic expression of)] in the other manuscripts. It is substituted [see here Webster's, p.1153 for “substitute”: a person or thing that takes the place of another (italics added)] in those manuscripts by expressions pointing to sin and its redeemer. THEREFORE, THE REDEEMER FROM SIN, SO PRE-ANNOUNCED, SO SELF DESIGNATED AND SO CALLED, IS HIMSELF THE SINNER. See corpus, pp.
(See Webster's p.713 for “at the mercy of”: wholly in power of: with no way to protect oneself against - italics added)
[NOTE: For “identification”, see Webster's at “identity” (p.563): SAMENESS of essential or generic character IN DIFFERENT INSTANCES; (also) SAMENESS IN ALL THAT CONSTITUTES THE OBJECTIVE REALITY OF A THING - italics and emphasis added)
ii.substitution o0f “usury” with “interest” in books ascribed to Matthew and Luke,
⟦7 blank lines⟧
and constitute the substratum of that book, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE BOOK UNLESS THIS TRUE IDNETITY IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE AND USED AS THE MASTER KEY.
–––––––––––------------
in CTS and Knox. CTS: Matthew: “Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers: and at my coming I should have received my own with usury” (p.39); Luke: “And why then didst thou not give my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have exacted it with usury?” (p.108). Knox: Matthew: ” ... all the more was it thy part to lodge my money with the bankers, so that I might have recovered it with interest when I came” (p.27); Luke: “ ... then why didst thou not put my money into the bank, so that I might have recovered it with interest when I came” (p.78) (italics added)
(See here Webster's, p.1280 for “usury”: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest, specifically: interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money; & p.597 for “interest”: a charge for borrowed money generally a percentage of the money borrowed)
For the genetic implantation [see Webster's, p.571 for “implant”: to set permanently in the consciousness or habit patterns (italics added)] of usury in mankind, by suggestion [see Webster's, p.1156 for “suggest”: to call to mind by thought or association (italics added)], see/compare:
[the book of Moses, exodus:] a) Knox bible: If thou dost lend money to some poorer neighbour among my people, thou shall not drive him hard as extortioners do, or burden him with usury (p.69) (italics added); b) Good News[sic] bible: If you lend money to any of my people who are poor, do not act like money-lender and require him to pay interest (p.84) (italics added)
[See corpus, p. for J and his “father” being JUST THE SAME PERSON]
For absence of usury gene in mankind prior to Moses, see Puthezhath Rama Menon, Sakthan Thampurän: [king of Kochi–1789-1805], pp.615-16: Rate of interest was one percent per month fixed by customary ethical norms of the land. This is why that rate is still known as “fair interest”. Compound interest too was not any more. But the English company people [British East India Co.–Ed.] used to levy more. Penal interest at 12 percent was levied by them for the first eight days of default. 24 percent for the next 20 days and 36 percent for longer default. IT WAS FROM ABROAD BY WAY OF SHIPS THAT COMPOUND INTEREST, DOUBLE INTEREST AND PENAL INTEREST [USURY] ENTERED KOCHI AND KERALA (italics and emphasis added) (translated from the Malayälam–Ed.)
[SEE CORPUS, p. FOR CHRISTIANITY PROVED AS THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL.
⟦9 blank lines⟧
–––––––––––––––-
[But here see:
[i) report of Megasthenes (4th century before J Lucifer–Ed.) : “Megasthenes noted the absence of slavery in India, the chastity of woman, and the courage of the men. They required no locks to their doors. ABOVE ALL NO INDIAN WAS EVER KNOWN TO TELL A LIE. Sober and industrious, good farmers and skillful artisans, they scarcely ever had recourse to lawsuit and lived PEACABLY under their native chiefs ... Megasthenes mentions that India was divided into 118 kingdoms” (W.W.Hunter, The Indian empire, p.217) (italics and emphasis added)
[ii) report (1838) of William Howitt: “The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and shame, in any age of the earth” (cited by Karl Marx, selected Works, Vol.II, p.134) (italics added)
[iii) Revelation of Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) on the first council of Lucifer: “No human tongue can explain the malice and fury of this first council of Lucifer and his hosts against the human race ... In it were concocted all the vices and sins of the world, from that place proceeded all lies, sects and errors. ALL INIQUITY HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THAT ABOMINABLE GATHERING, and all who do evil are in the service of the prince of that assembly.” (Cited by Cyril Marystone, Grave and Urgent Warnings from Heaven [so thought to be but in reality kingdom of torments–Ed. - see below at notes 8 & 22], Vol.I, p.141) (italics and emphasis added)]
INSIGHT
A Journal of Sanäthana Dharma*
[Kochi, India]
Founded 1971
Vol. IV, No.I contents June.1996
1.Jesus = Lucifer = THE Devil 1-30
2.Epilogue–It is the “Lord” that killed Abel 31-38
3.Appendix I - Report of an Interview 39-41
4.Appendix II - On Dissolution of the Age of Lucifer 42-44
5.Appendix III - “No More Christianity!” 45
6.Preview – christianity proved as Paisächa Viväham/ Fornication by the Devil 46-49
7.Some notes of Explanation and Guidance to the
Reader 50-54
8.Glossary 55-58
9.Bibliography 59-60
*Sänäthana Dharma: Sanskrit for Goodness Everlasting
–INSIGHT is published without legal formalities as a journal of “substantial matter” under judgement of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kochi, India. File 157 of 1994
–Donations for the sustenance of INSIGHT are kindly requested of readers
⟦3 blank lines⟧
⟦PAGE BREAK⟧
A
a)“Meekness” by definition exclusively denotes deficiency.°
b)Deficiency is a negative state.
c)This negative state, however, invites tormentation by Lucifer.°
d)The same negative state, however, invites “blessings” by Jesus,°uterine son
––––––––––------------
7.See Webster's, p.708 for “meek”: 1. enduring injury with patience and without resentment 2. deficient in spirit and courage [AND] 3. not violent or strong (italics added)
8.See Cyril Marystone, op.cit., p.140. [Lucifer to Mary of Agreda:] “I will afflict the poor, oppress the suffering and prosecute the meek.”
For objective correspondence between J’s “kingdom of heaven” and Lucifer’s kingdom of torments, see George Augustine T.A., ms.p.3:
In his vision to the Spanish nun Mary of Agreda Lucifer has explained the reward he gives his followers, which is “so much the greater torments the more faithfully they have followed me.” The victims of Lucifer are to be the poor, the oppressed and the meek–the same as those picked by Jesus.
However, Lucifer is objectively non-existent whereas Jesus is existent. Nevertheless, Lucifer’s reward of torments is real in respect of man’s consciousness because of the objective existence of the poor, the oppressed and the meek. But Jesus’ reward of kingdom of heaven is not similarly existent; therefore, it is unreal.
Real Unreal
1. Jesus 1. Lucifer
2. The poor, the oppressed, the meek
2. The poor, the oppressed, the meek
3. Kingdom of torments 3. Kingdom of heaven
On the left we have, as objectively real, Jesus, the identical sets of the poor, the oppressed, and the meek and lastly Lucifer’s kingdom of torments. On the right we have Lucifer and Jesus’ kingdom of heaven as objectively unreal. Since the poor, oppressed and the meek are common in both Lucifer and Jesus, as well as real, that which corresponds to its symbolic representation of that they stand for. So, in order to place Lucifer, the god's adversary, in man's consciousness, i.e., in order to understand Lucifer in real terms, one has to turn to Jesus, because he is real and further, in order to understand Jesus' kingdom of heaven one has to turn to Lucifer's kingdom of torments, because the torments are real and the heaven is not. Thus the identity of Jesus and Lucifer is proved. (Italics added–Ed.)
9.See CTS bible, p.5: “Blessed are the poor in spirit; ... . Blessed are the meek; ... . Blessed are they that mourn; ... .”
⟦3 blank lines⟧
of Mary10 by spiritual intercourse with the devil. 11 e) Lucifer is a rebel.12 f) Lucifer is at the same time a devil.13 g) Relating c, e and d, Jesus, therefore, is a multiple rebel.
h)It follows from g that Jesus is Lucifer doubled.
I)THEREFORE, JESUS IS THE DEVIL SUPREME.
J)And, furthermore, christianity is incarnation of the devil.
(The spiritual intercourse in d in turn transformed Mary into a female devil or
–––––––––––––
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii.
A)'Mendel's Laws Challenged', Science Express (see glossary for Science Express), 2 Aug. 1988, p.II, col.4:
[Dr.Azim Surani of Institute of Animal Physiology (Cambridge, eastern England):] “What we have found is that there is a certain category of genes, perhaps as many as one fifth of the genes that are contributed by the parental genomes, which function differently depending on whether they are inherited from the father or the mother.// One of the most dramatic example of this is that the genes that are inherited from the mother are especially important for the development of the embryo itself. Whereas, genes inherited from the father are important for the development of the placental tissues.” (italics added)
Yakshi by mutation of body tissues.14
(Since Mary later was impregnated by Joseph producing at least two, if not three, daughters,15 Joseph underwent a similar transformation and because a devil in that process.
(This explains Joseph's recent apparition in company with Mary and Jesus.16)
––––––––––––-–––––––
Mary had already witnessed the carrying and ejection of a demon child while staying for three months with her cousin and prototype Elizabeth. Luke was deliberately concealing the facts he well knew, but could hardly narrate without leaving a clue. The Jesus embryo, being bereft of placenta, was LAID by Mary in a manner of a hen laying egg. This is why the jesus egg had to be hatched in a manger;
[v.Synod of Diamper, op.cit., canon 14: Having most clearly witnessed and perceived that Syriac books filled with fell[sic] doctrines and calumnies and wrongful teachings of the fallen[sic] Nestorians and other devilish[sic] creeds have spread throughout this bishopric [of Angamali–Ed.(See glossary for Angamali)], the synod decrees: No one at all shall keep, read or have read to them the books below expounded. To wit [firstly] the book of the infancy of the saviour otherwise called the history of our lady (see below under Book data–Ed). As this has many calumnies and numerous fables, the fathers have cursed it. Against what is related by the evangelist Luke that the angel of the lord[sic] pronounced the good[sic] news to the holy virgin[sic] Mary at Nazareth, this book states the same occurred at the temple in Jerusalem, ... that st.Joseph took her to priests to test if she had committed adultery and that she underwent test by water in accordance with percepts of the law, that she delivered herself with pain and sorrow at the time of childbirth, that on account of the extreme pain she had to go to a manger in Bethlehem ... (italics added) (cited from Sathyanädam, op.cit., Idavam 2, 1881)
[The original in Malayälam:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
⟦10 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
2
3
B o o k D a t a
I.John Dart, Indian Express, Apr.9, 1978 (by arrangement with Los Angles Times), 'New Theories in Biblical Research': The apocryphal[sic] gospel of Thomas (see under ii. Below–Ed.) generally thought to be a rewrite of New Testament gospel sayings dated about AD 140 may instead be one of the earliest gospel written, says a Harvard biblical scholar.// If Helmut Koester of Harvard Divinity School is correct, the gospel of Thomas would provide important new materials for discerning the teachings of the historical Jesus.// Koester suggests that many individual sayings of Jesus are more primitive in Thomas than in similar versions in the bible and the text as a whole may have been composed at about the same time as the new testament gospel–the last third of the first century.// ... Koester said in an interview: our picture of the early transmission of Jesus and his sayings will definitely change very radically. ...// Known only by title for centuries, ... the gospel of Thomas was rejected by the emerging christian orthodoxy of the 3rd and 4th centuries. The text does not have a biographical framework nor does it mention Jesus' death or resurrection. ...// The gospel of Thomas has added to evidence that Thomas was probably a brother of Jesus named Judas (not Judas Iscariot, betrayer of Jesus), Koester says. ... (italics added)
II.T.Maurice, The Indian Sceptic Confuted, p. 69: The very Gospel of the Infancy was originally known in Asia under the title of the gospel of st.Thomas by which name it is often mentioned ... by the fathers ... (italics added); ibid., p.115: One of the most ancient and celebrated of these efforts of pious fraud[sic] ... was the Evangelium Infantae or gospel of the infancy of our blessed saviour[sic], a production probably of the first ages of christianity (italics added)
- See Webster's, p.1113 for4 “spirit”: “c. An often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible d. a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being”
See also:
i.the Hindu Malayälam lexicon Sabdathärävali by Sreekandeswaram (see glossary for Sabdathärävali and Sreekandeswaram), p.233 for “Ashtavivähangal” [Vedic octet of marriages]: eight different types of marriages acknowledged by exponents of Hindu Dharma–Brähman, Deivam, Ärsham, Präjäpathyam, Gändharvam, Asuram, Räkshasam, Paisächam. [The eight and last and the most heinous marriage, here described as paisächam [Sanskrit for fornication between devil and human female (see section D)] is that between Mary and the “holy spirit” from which issued Jesus]
[See glossary for Dharma. But here see Webster’s, p.310 for etymology of “dharma”:
⟦6 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––––––
“[Skt. Fr. Dharayati he holds; ... ]”. See also p.491, ibid., for etymology of “good”: “[Skt. gadh to hold fast]”
ii.Ursula Oxfort, Pope John's Counsel, p.2 (ms.), for use of this term “spiritual intercourse with the devil”.
For J proved as malignant (see Webster's, p.690 for “malignant”: passionately and relentlessly malevolent - italics added) spirit, see corpus,p.
12.See Webster’s, p.677 for etymology of “Lucifer”: [ME, the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, the Devil ... .]” (italics added)
13.See note 12
14.See Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.1466 for “Yakshi”: “1.female of Yakshan 2.a kind of devil that generally changes its costumes and oppresses people” (italics added)
See also Webster's, p.753 for “mutation”: “3a: a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes” (italics added); & p.1117 for “sport”: “5: an individual exhibiting a sudden deviation from type beyond the normal limits of individual variation usually as a result of mutation especially of somatic tissues”.
15.See:
i.knox bible, p.14: “ 'Is not this the carpenter's son whose mother is called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And do not his sisters, all of them, live near us?' ” (italics added)
ii.Webster's, p.1077:
“sister”: a female human having the same parents as another person (italics added)
Compare “brother”: a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another (ibid., p.140) (italics added)
See also Webster's, p.29 for “all”: “8.beng more than one person or thing”
16.See Mary's Triumph[sic] by Elena, Part I, pp.18-19: “After four months, on the 21st of May, 1957, I was praying and, again, I heard someone knocking at my door. I said, 'Come in!' It was father Pio, the virgin with the child Jesus in her arms and saint Joseph. The virgin was wearing a long and luxurious white robe, with a blue sash. Her hair was black, her face rosy and soft. The child Jesus was enchantingly beautiful, all white, with sky-blue eyes and blond curly hair. He was smiling, and I asked her with confidence if she would put him down, as I wanted to
⟦5 blank lines⟧
–––––––––––––––––––––––
to see him walk. The virgin complied with my request and told me that she would come again. Saint Joseph promised me that he, too, would return. When this multiple extraordinary vision disappeared, I continued praying.” (italics added)
On the detail of Mary's white clothes, see M.P. Veerendrakumar, 'Hospital the wonder world', Mathrubhoomi (Malayälam for motherland–Ed.), 24 July 1988. P.III, col.4 (see glossary for Mathrubhoomi): Somewhere in the hospital grounds thee happened to be a Yakshi. Consequently, not all would go that way after night fall. There is a belief about Yakshis–white clothes, long hair, ... . The Yakshi at the hospital too had all that. (Translated from the Malayälam–Ed.)
On the other details in Elena, see/compare:
i.Asia Features, 'War field with Roaming Ghosts', Malayäla Manorama, 14 June 1987, p.III, col.I: According to the recent book Ghost Stations, ghosts of air crew who perished in the last war are to be seen haunting the sites of the several old war time air fields. One man employed at the old air base at the Lincolnshire had terrifying experience. The base is now used to store grain and machinery. It happened when he was opening a sack during night shift. All of a sudden appeared an airman. He came inside THROUGH a side wall headless! the headless body walked past the workman. Towards the wall opposite. It went out THROUGH the wall. ... (italics and emphasis added) (translated from the Malayälam–Ed.);
ii. Mary's Triumph[sic–Ed.], op.cit., pp.16-17: “The 31st of December 1955. It was 3.30 in the morning, and I was already working as i had to finish a habit. In the silence of the night, I could hear the lamentation of my neighbour's dog. It seemed to be nearly a human cry, conveying a somewhat discouraging feeling. But I recovered when I heard someone knocking at the door. Without a move, I said as always, 'Come in!' i had not opened the door and, nevertheless, there was a very tall, young man standing before me. He had beautiful blue eyes and blond hair. He was more beautiful than an angel, as beautiful as Jesus. It was Him, Jesus! ... ”
iii. Jesus and Mary Speak! - Sec. II:
Mary Appears in Cairo! A) p.30: “One of the eye witness accounts was recorded by Mrs. Pearl Zaki of America:// ' ... At 4 a.m. the whole front of the church suddenly lit up in white light. Many people besides me saw the virgin as a white statue, standing in the garden in front of the church as if 10 feet tall.// She appeared once more, again standing in the garden. had a side view of her, [as she stood] with hands folded in prayer. After a few seconds, the figure appeared to bend and move spirit-like THROUGH the wall. ...”; b) p.26: “Bishop Gregorius,
⟦5 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––––––-
prelate for higher studies, Coptic Culture and Scientific research, vividly described them [apparitions - see Webster's, p.54 for “apparition”: a ghostly figure] as follows: 'Mary has appeared in many DIFFERENT FORMS since April 2, 1968. ...' ” (italics and emphasis added);
iv. Asia features, op.cit. : Scampton was an important station of Royal Air Force. It was the base of the well known 'Dam Bursters Squadron' which bombed and destroyed the huge dams in the Ruhr area of Germany. Their wing commander Guy Gibson had a pet dog named Nigger. The black Labrador died in a car accident. It was buried at the air field itself. The grave is still there. So is its ghost! Five people once saw Nigger's ghost. It ran along the runway right into the officers' mess. It did not produce any sound as it ran. Nor did it pay any attention to them. Snow had fallen on the runway. But there was no foot-prints on the snow. It was confirmed on enquires that several others too had seen the same dog's ghost before. ... (translated from the Malayälam–Ed.) (italics added)
⟦14 blank lines⟧
B
k)J has actually proclaimed17 in the bible book that he is Lucifer.18
–––––––––––––––––––––––
& iii. Webster's, p.46 for “announce”: to make known publically: proclaim (italics added) (see above at note 17, i.& ii.)
[See here etymology of “Lucifer”: “[ME, the morning star, (italics added), a fallen rebel archangel, THE D(sic)evil, fr. OE. fr. Latin, the morning star,(italics and emphasis added) fr. Lucifer light-bearing, fr. lux light + -fer -ferous–more at Light]” (Webster’s, p.677)
[Also, “Explanatory Notes”, Webster's, p.14a:
[“Etymology: The matter in boldface square brackets preceding the definition is the etymology. Meanings given in roman type within these brackets are not definitions of the entry, but the meanings of the middle English, Old English or non-English words within the brackets” (italics added)
[See also definition of “etymology”: “The history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analysing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language” 8ibid., p.390)
[Also, etymology of “etymon”: “[L fr.Gk, literal meaning of a word according to its origin, fr. 'etymos', TRUE; akin to Gk 'eteos', TRUE]” (ibid.) (italics and emphasis added)
[See also Kälidäsa, Raghuvamsam:
Vagh artha evaa sampraptho Vagh artha prathipatheye
Jaghatha pithiro vandhe Pärvathi-Parameashwaro
–Quoted from The Complete Works of Kälidäsa,
ed. Dr. Sudhamsu Chaturvedi, pp.226-27
[[Translation: So that I may well comprehend word and its meaning, I adore Pärvati-Parameswara (Parameswara: synonym of Sivan–Ed.) who are conjoined as word and its meaning and who are the mother (here see Webster’s p.745 for etymology of “mother”: “[ ... Skt mätr]”) and father of the world (italics added)]]
Therefore, when he says he is the morning star, J is uttering the etymos of his proper name. Since etymos of “etymon” is “true” and since etymos of Lucifer is “morning star”, by declaring himself to be morning star J confesses that he objectively and truly is Lucifer. Addition of “bright” is further rebellion
–––––––––––––––––––––––
against this confession. And this is how he is devil supreme–in contrast with Beelzebub who disputes his claim of sonship of “God”.
[See under asterisk below]
[Here see/compare:
[i. Knox bible: Then the tempter approached, and said to him, If thou art Son of God bid these stones turn into loaves of bread (p.3) (italics added);
[& ii. Webster's: “d(sic)evil”: the personal supreme spirit of evil often represented in Jewish and Christian belief as the tempter of mankind, the leader of all apostate angles and the ruler of hell (p.308) (italics added)]
Beelzebub is able to make such a true disputation only because he is true to his fall, unlike J Lucifer who is untrue even unto himself. More at corpus,p.
* * *
[For a prior and similar treatment of etymos by J Lucifer, see/compare:
[i. Knox bible: And I (J) tell thee (peter) this in my turn, that thou art P(sic)eter, and it is upon this rock [of etymosian fraud] that I will build my churches;(p.17);
[ii.Webster's:
[Peter: “[LL Petrus, fr.Gk. Petros, fr.petra rock]” (p.850)]
[[See here Knox bible, p.35 for cognation, in time, of upwardly spiralling deception from use of etymos: “To Simon he gave the fresh name of Peter” (italics added). See also Webster's, p.1074 for etymos-less etymology of “Simon”: [Gk Simon, fr Heb Shimon].
[[Upwardly spiralling deception from use of etymos. On which his so-called “church” is founded, and which maintains the same, proves J a malignant devil. (See corpus, p. for gene of same deception in extra human time.) He is thus Eka (unique - see Webster's, p.795 for etymology of “one”: [ ... Skt eka]) devil. It is in this sense that he is different from Beelzebub who is merely a fallen angel.
[[See Webster's, p.99 for definition of Beelzebub: “a fallen angel ...”
[[For rivalry–mälsaryam–over status between J Lucifer and Beelzebub, see corpus, p. )]]
–––––––––––––––––––––
19.See/compare:
⟦4 blank lines⟧
SET A Set B
[See Webster's, p.1053 for definition of “set”: a number of things of
the same kind that belong or are used together (italics added)]
Isaiah, ch.14,‡ 12 (italics added) Isaias, ch.14,‡ 12 (italics added)
a) Good news bible: d) Knox bible:
“King of Babylonia, bright morning “What, fallen from heaven, thou
star, you have fallen from heaven!” Lucifer, that once didst herald the
(p.680) (italics added) dawn?” (p.940) (italics added)
b) King James version: e) CTS bible:
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O “How art thou fallen from heaven, O
Lucifer, son of the morning!” (italics Lucifer, who didst rise in the
added) (p.662, undated publication, morning?” (p.940) (italics added)
Eyre and Spottiswoode, London;
p.737, The Gideons International, 1985)
c) New world translation:
“O How you have fallen from heaven,
you shining one,* son of the dawn!”
(p.786) (italics added)
––––––––––––
*See:
i.ibid., p.1392 for index of “Lucfer“.
“Lucifer, see SHINING ONE”
ii.p.1422, op.cit., for index of
“shining one”: “Shining One”: “Is.
14:12 fallen you shining one” (see
below under iii.)
NOTES:
i.Terminal titular change from “Isaiah” to “Isaias” and substitution of exclaimation point with question mark make d and e a different set from a, b and c.
ii. Index data under “Lucifer” (see under asterisk above) makes “shining one” a synonymous cross-reference of “Lucifer”. [See here Webster's, p.18a, Explanatory Notes: “A synonymous cross-reference indicates that a definition at the entry cross-referred to can be substituted as a definition for the entry or the sense or subsense in which the cross-reference appears.”
––––––––––––––––––––
(italics added)] (Vide note 18 for etymology of “Lucifer”: “light-bearing”) (see corpus, p. for Lucifer as light-bearer, originally)
iii. See Webster's, p.137 for etymosial consanguinity of “bright” and “shine”: bright: “[ME, fr. OE beirht; akin to OHG beraht bright Skt brajate it shines]” (italics added on “shines”)
* * *
Since etymos of “Lucifer” is “morning star”, and since etymos of “bright” is “it shines” and also since a and c belong to the same set, “bright morning star” in a is proved standing for “Lucifer”. Therefore “king of Babylonia” in a represents “Lucifer”.
[Cf. Cyril Marystone, op.cit., section II, 'The Names of Satan' p.135:
[“Some final remarks on Isaiah 14. The King of Babylon is not King Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C. ... Who then was THIS king of Babylon?” (italics and emphasis added)
[For source of “King of Babylonia”, compare here prefatory matter in Good(sic) news bible (p.vii): “The basic text for the old testament is the Masoretic Text printed in Biblia Hebraica (3rd edition, 1937), edited by Rudolph Kittel. In some instances the words of the printed consonantal text have been divided differently or have been read with a different set of vowels; at times a variant reading (QERE) in the margin of the Hebrew text has been followed instead of the reading in the text (KETHIV); and in other instances a variant reading supported by one or more Hebrew manuscript has been adopted.” (italics added)]
Since J proclaims himself to be “bright morning star”, testimony of Isaiah independently proves J to be Lucifer.
(For J proved as THE enemy of human race, see corpus,p. )
20.See:
i.Webster’s, p.234 for “confession”: a written acknowledgement of guilt by a party accused of an offence (italics added)
ii. A.C. Sen, Mitra's Legal and Commercial Dictionary, p.179: A confession before trial, if given without any inducement in favour or threat of punishment, is evidence against the person charged ... (italics added)
⟦16 blank lines⟧
C
n)The being depicted suddenly appearing21 in “garden of Eden”,22 conversing with so-called Eve23 and evanescing24 is Siva25 o)“Serpent” in the bible book named “genesis” is rebellious symbolic26 representation of Siva, primal serpent27
all rebellion against Siva.29
p)Indictment of J Lucifer by Isaiah30 confirms: i. so-called serpent in “genesis” writing stands for Siva, and ii. J is Siva's adversary.31
––––––––––––––––––––-
[ii. Loc.sit., “Luke”, chapter 23, ‡ 39-43: “And one of the two thieves who hung there fell to blaspheming[sic] against him; ... But the other rebuked him; ... And Jesus said to him, ... this day thou shalt be with me in paradise” (op.cit., p.84) (italics added)
[d .For the objective character of paradise as kingdom of torments, see:
[Knox bible, genesis, chapter 5, ‡ “ ... then god took him [Enoch] to himself, and he was seen no more” (italics added)
[e. For the same objective character even in the very christian frame, see:
[Final words of Theresa of Lisieux: “she longed with all her strength for heaven even while fighting against death. But heaven was closed against her. 'When everything hinged upon heaven, how strange and contrary is this kind of experience!' Some fleeting thoughts revealed to mother Agnes seem like thunderbolts. 'Is this how one is rewarded for so greatly loving the ... god and the virgin? ...' While looking at the garden through a widow, she saw a dark hole between the trees. 'Psychically and physically I am in a similar hole. Ah! What darkness! ...'” (quoted from Autobiography of a Nun, translated by father[sic] Herman from the original in French) (translated from the Malayälam–Ed.) (pp.368-69) (italics added)
[For the objective tallying of c, d and e, see the revelations of Mary of Agreda:
[Lucifer: “I will sow discord, excite wars, and stir up nations against each other. I will raise up proud and arrogant men to EXTEND the DOMINION OF SIN; and AFTER THEY HAVE EXECUTED MY DESIGNS, I WILL BURY THEM IN THIS ETERNAL FIRE, WITH SO MUCH THE GREATER TORMENTS THE MORE FAITHFULLY THEY HAVE FOLLOWED ME. THIS IS MY KINGDOM AND THIS IS THE REWARD WHICH I WILL GIVE TO THOSE WHO FOLLOW ME.” (cited from Cyril Marystone, op.cit., p.140) (italics and emphasis added)
[See corpus,p. For Enoch as carrier of guilt/sin/repentance gene from so-called “chosen mankind” to mankind and for christianity proved as extension of sin originating from/in J Lucifer]
23.See/compare:
i. Swami Premänand Bhärati Bäba, op.cit., pp.72-73: The word Eve likewise is a
corruption of the Sanskrit word “Heva”, a primeval woman. “Heva” means life and love–mother of creation (italics added)
ii. Webster's, p.392 for eytmos-less etymology of “Eve”: [OE Efe, fr. LL Eva, fr. Heb Hawwah] (See also Webster's, pp.13, 2, 1053, 4, 1017, 616 & 699 for a similar
––––––––––––––––––––––
etymos-less origin of “Adam”, “Cain”, “Abel”, “Seth”, “Abraham”, “Sarah”, “Jesus” and “Mary”: “Adam”: [ME, fr. LL, fr Gk fr Heb Adham]; “Cain”: [Heb Qayin]; “Abel”: [LL, fr Gk fr Heb Hebhel]; “Seth”: [Heb Sheth]; “Abraham”: [LL, fr Gk Abraam, fr. Heb Abraham]; “Sarah”: [Heb Sarah]; “Mary”: [LL Maria, fr Gk (1.) MARIAM, (2.) MARIA, fr Heb Mriyam] (emphasis added)
[See here Webster's, p.1018 for etymology of “S(sic)atan”: “[ME, fr OE, fr LL, fr Gk fr HEB satan]” (emphasis added)
[See also definition of “satan”: the adversary of God and lord of evil in Judaism and christianity (ibid.) (italics added)]
24.See/compare:
i. Webster’s p.392 for “evanesce”: “[L evanescere–more at VANISH] to dissipate like vapour” (italics added), & p.1284 for “vanish”: “[ME vanisshen, fr MF evaniss–stem of evanir, fr (assumed) VL exvanire, alter. Of L evanesere to dissipate like vapour, vanish, fr. E– + vanescere to vanish, fr vanus empty] to pass quickly from sight ... ” (italics added)
ii. Malyälam-Latin-English Dictionary, p.521 for “thirobhavikuka”: ... VANESCERE (emphasis added)
iii. See:
a)Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.335 for “Easwarapanchakrithyagal” (Sanskrit for quintuplet of Easwara's acts: “(Creation, Preservation, Destruction, Evanescence, Blessing)” (see here Webster's, p.117 for “bless”: to confer prosperity or happiness upon) (see below for Easwaran)
b. ibid., for “Easwaran”: “1.Sivan ... ”
c. Hindu scripture Siva Puränam (Sanskrit for Siva lore), p.107: “It is Siva who became Brahman [see Webster's, p.132 for “Brahma”: the creator god of the Hindu sacred triad], it is Siva who became Vishnu [see Webster's, p.1229 for “Vishnu”: the preserver god of the Hindu sacred triad] ... , to redeem the victims [of J Lucifer–Ed. (See here Webster’s, p.125 for etymology of “victim”: “[ ... Skt vinakti he sets apart]”)], Siva split moorthi [here see Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.1447 for “moorthi”: ... matter] and shines as three” (italics added) (translated from the Malayälam)
iv.Webster's,p.1078 for “Siva”:“[Skt Siva] the god of destruction AND regeneration in the Hindu sacred triad” (italics and emphasis added)
⟦6 blank lines⟧
–––––––––––––––––––––––
v. Knox bible, p.2: It was he [serpent or Siva (see below)–Ed.] who said to the woman ... . WHAT IS THIS TALK OF DEATH? [Here see Webster's, p.610 for “it”: ... “often used to shift emphasis to a part of the statement other than the subject [Illustration: it was in this city that the treaty was signed]”, p.1310 for “was”: “past 1st and 3rd sing. Of BE” & p.95 fir “be”: “... [Illustration: once upon a time there was a knight]”] (italics and emphasis added)
vi. For serpent as evanescent being in the bible book, see disintegration of Isaiah set from serpent (here vide/compare: i. sets A & B at note 19, & ii. etymos of “serpent” and “snake” at note 25 below):
SEE “A” AT NOTE 19
Serpent Snake
b)King James version: a)Good news(sic) bible:
I. Now the serpent was more subtle than I. Now the snake was the most
any beast of the field ... (genesis III, cunning animal ... (ibid., p.6)
1, The Gideons International, p.3)
II. She replied, “the snake tricked
II. And the woman said, The serpent me ... ” (ibid.)
beguiled me ... (ibid., 13,op.cit.)
III. Then the lord said to the
III. And the lord said unto the serpent snake ... (ibid)
... (ibid., 14)
c) New World translation: ITALICS ADDED
I. Now the serpent proved to be the
most cautious of all the wild beasts
... (ibid., p.11)
II. to this the woman replied: The
serpent–it deceived me ... (ibid.)
III. And jehovah god proceeded to say
to the serpent ... (ibid.)
ITALICS ADDED
25.See/compare:
i.p.1, Knox bible: god [see corpus,p. For lower case for “God”] said, too, Let the land yield all different kinds of living things, cattle and creeping things and
⟦7 blank lines⟧
–––––––––––––––––––––––
and wild beasts of every sort; and so it was done. God made every sort of wild beast, and all the different kinds of cattle and creeping things; and god saw it, and found it good(genesis I,24) (italics added);
ii.p.3, ibid.: Of all the beasts which the lord god had made, there was none that could match the serpent in cunning (genesis III, 1);
iii. Webster's: p.1051:- serpent: [ME, fr. MF, fr L serpent-, serpens, fr. prp. of serpere to creep; akin to Gk herpein to creep, Skt sarpati he creeps] 1a.archaic: a noxious creature that creeps, hisses or stings b. snake 2.devil 3.a treacherous person (italics added); p.275:- cunning: dexterous or crafty in the use of special resources or in attaining an end (italics added)
a)ii. Is specific that serpent belongs to the same class of beasts the lord [of evil] claims he made
b)i. Says he found them all “good”.
THEREFORE, VITUPERATION IN ii. CONTRADICTS WITH i.
AND THEREFORE, SERPENT VITUPERATED AGAINST IN ii. DOES NOT BELONG TO THE SAME CLASS OF “CREEPING THINGS” IN i. NOR THE CLASS OF “BEASTS” IN ii.
NOTE:
I. Serpent in uncreated by “lord” in the same genesis I, 24 in Good(sic) news bible: “Then god commanded, 'Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small'–and it was done.” Note omission of etymosial symbol of “serpent”, viz., “creeping things”.
II. “Serpent” worded as “snake” in Gnb: “Now the snake was the most cunning animal that the lord god had made (genesis, III, 1) (italics added)
For distinction between “serpent” and “snake” compare extra Sanskrit etymology of “snake” with Sanskrit etymology of “serpent” (see above at iii.): Webster's, p.1090: snake: “[ ... akin to OE snoegl snail]”
THEREFORE, “SERPENT” IN KNOX BIBLE IS REBELLIOUS SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF SIVA.
For objective aggression (see Webster's, p.23 for “aggression”: hostile, injurious or destructive behaviour or outlook especially caused by frustration, & p.459 for “frustrate”: to balk or defeat in an endeavour - italics added) upon Siva by J Lucifer in human time from primeval frustration [[see here genesis III, ‡ 11: (To “Adam”:) “Why (see Webster's, p.1329 for “why”: used to express mild surprise, hesitation, approval, disapproval, or impatience - italics added), “WHO (here see Web
⟦6 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Webster's p.1328 for “who”: what or which person or persons ... - italics added) “told thee of thy nakedness?” (Knox bible, p.3), & op.cit., ‡ 13: (To “Eve”:) “WHAT (here see Webster's, p.1322 for “what”: used as an interrogative expressing inquiry about the identity, nature or value of an object or matter; ... archaic: used as an interrogative expressing inquiry about the identity of a person - italics added) “made thee do this?” (op.cit.) (italics and emphasis added)]], see:
i. Herman D'Souza, In the steps of st. [sic] Thomas, p.1: The church at Pälayur (see glossary for Pälayur–Ed.) was built with the permission of the Zamorin [Hindu king] of Calicut in 1607 by father Fenicio, s.j. [society of J Lucifer–Ed.], enclosing the wooden structure supposed to be the old Siva temple, which was converted into a church by st.[sic] Thomas [so-called apostle of J Lucifer–Ed.] and where he said holy[sic] mass. The wooden structure was demolished by Fenicio which fact he REPORTED to ROME (italics and emphasis added)
ii. Fenicio, quoted by Ferroli, The jesuits in Malabar, Vol.I, p.429: “The stone church (at Palayur) which has been begun two years previously was already finished. Inside there remained the old one made of wood; but no one dared to dismantle it for fear of DYING ON THE SPOT,I then preached a sermon to them by which I dissipated their fears. Immediately they pulled down the wooden church, remaining the new one made of stone ... ” (italics and emphasis added)
26.See Webster's, p.1172 for ”symbol”: “
“[ ... Gk symbolon, TOKEN OF IDENTITY ... ] 4. an object or act that represents a repressed complex through unconscious association”, & p.228 for “complex”: a group of repressed desires and memories that exerts a dominating influence upon the personality (italics and emphasis added)
(For serpent as dominating influence in J Lucifer, see corpus,p. )
27.See under 28
28.
I.Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.1701 for “sarpabhooshanan”: Sivan [i.e., “the serpent-adorned one”: Sivan], & p.1657 at “Sivan”: “ ... his ornaments are serpents ... ”
ii.Mäakandapuranäm, pp.1 & 4: “ sarpabhooshanan” [i.e., Siva, the serpent adorned one]
⟦15 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––
II. For above serpent being primal serpent, see:
i. Sankarächärya, Sthothra Rathnangal [Sanskrit for Hymnal Worship Pearls], p.55: Sivanämavalyashtakam [Sanskrit for Octet of Major Siva Eponyms]: “Seshavalaya” [the one with Seshan as halo] (see glossary for Sankarächärya)
ii.
a. Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.1665: “Seshan”: see Adhiseshan [i.e. primal Seshan];
b. ibid., p.267: “Adhiseshan”: (Ananthan)
c. op.cit., p.116: “Ananthan”: ... Väsuki; Sivan ...;
& d. ibid., p.1557: “Väsuki”: one of the serpent octet
III. For serpent in bible book as being primal serpent, see so-called revelation (of J Lucifer) to John, chapter 12,‡ 9: “So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent ... ” - New world translation, loc. cit., p.1331 (italics added); “ ... the great dragon, serpent of the primal age, was flung down to earth; ... flung down to earth, ... ” - Knox bible, ibid., p.268 (italics added)
[[Note stational position of serpent admitted herein as up and above earth. Compare “lord's” station rebelliously self-proclaimed to be the same at “genesis”, chapter 11, ‡ 5-7: “But now the lord came DOWN to look at the city ... ; and he said, ' ... It would be well to go DOWN and throw confusion into the speech they use there ... '” (Knox bible, p.8) (italics added)
[More at corpus, p.
[But here see lord's abode admitted to be the gravitational centre of the earth at “genesis” 19, ‡ 24:
“ ... Malayälam text to be filled”
[(Translation: Jehovah rained DOWN sulphur and fire from his abode) - The holy [sic] bible [in Malayälam], p.16 (italics and emphasis added)] (see note i. at footnote 30 below)]]
29.See “revelation” [of J Lucifer] to John, chapter 20, ‡ 2: “I saw too an 'angel' come down from 'heaven' (rebellious counterfeit terms for nether world–Ed.) He made prisoner of th dragon, serpent of the primal age (Adi Seshan/primal serpent/Sivan - see note 28 above–Ed.) WHOM WE CALL the devil, or Satan, and put him in bonds ... thrusting him DOWN to the abyss and LOCKING HIM IN THERE, AND SETTING A SEAL OVER HIM.” (Knox bible, p.247) (italics and emphasis added)
⟦8 blank lines⟧
–––––––––––––––––––––
[For the above as J Lucifer's wish fulfilment, see corpus, p.
[But here see:
[i.Webster's, p.1336 for “wish fulfilment”: “the gratification of a desire especially as gained symbolically (as a dreams, daydreams or neurotic symptoms)"; [ii. op.cit., p.1299 for “vision”: something see in a dream, trance or ecstasy;
[& iii. Good]sic] news bible, p.306 for introductory note to so-called revelation and visions presented in symbolic language ... ” (italics added)]
30.See Isaiah, chapter 14:
A)‡ 12: “What, fallen (here see note i. below) from heaven (see note 2. under B. below), thou Lucifer, that ONCE DIDST (see note ii.) herald the dawn?” (see note iii.) (Knox bible, p.640) (italics and emphasis added)
NOTES:
i. see Webster's, p.409 for “fall”: to descend freely by the force of gravity
ii see Webster's, p.794 for “once”: at some indefinite time in the past (here compare rebellious use of present tense by the same one after transformation into J Lucifer upon ejection by Mary: “I, Jesus, AM the bright morning star” - see footnotes 9 & 18 above and note iii. Below)
iii. see Webster's, p.743 for “morning star”: a BRIGHT planet ... seen in the eastern sky before or at sunrise (italics and emphasis added)
* * *
B)‡ 13:
1.“I will scale the heavens (see here note ii. Below) (such was thy [Lucifer's] thought); I will set ny throne higher than god's stars, take my seat at his own trusting-place, at the meeting of the NORHTERN HILLS; ... ”(ibid.) (see note i.)
2.“As for you, you have said in your heart, 'To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of god I shall lift my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting in the REMOTEST PARTS OF NORTH.” (New World translation, p.786) (italics and emphasis added)
NOTES:
i. For the “remotest northern hills” as abode of Sivan, see Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.660 for “Kailäsam”: a peak of Himavän; seat of Sivan ... ; p.1763 for “Himavän”: the big mountain situate at the REMOTEST PARTS of the land of Bhäratham; p.660 for
⟦6 blank lines⟧
–––––––––––––––––––––
“Kailäsaväsi” (Sanskrit for inhabitant of Kailäsam): Sivan ... ; & p.1345 for “Bhäratham”: ... India [translated form the Malayälam] (italics and emphasis added)
ii.For the north as the site of “Swargam”, see p.349, ibid., for “Utharalokam” (Sanskrit for world of the north): heavenly world (translated from the Malayälam)
31.See Webster's, p.17 for “adversary”: one that contends with, opposes or resists; p.243 for “contend”: to strive or vie in contest or rivalary or against difficulties; p.798 for “oppose”: to place opposite against something; p.977 for “resist”: to exert oneself so as to counterfeit or defeat; p.1018 for “Satan”: “[Heb satan] the adversary of god and lord of evil ... ”; & p.674 for “lord”: ... christ [J Lucifer] ... [italics added]
For J Lucifer being contention, rivalary and opposition–UNILATERAL–AGAINST SIVA, PERSONIFIED, see Isaiah, chapter 14, ‡ 13-15: “I will scale the heavens (such WAS THY THOUGHT); I will set my throne HIGHER than god's stars, take my seat at his own trysting-place ... ; I will SOAR ABOVE the level of the clouds, the RIVAL of the most High” (Knox bible, p.640) (italics and emphasis added)
[But here see:
[i. Isaiah, ibid., ‡ 15-21 on the doom: “Thine [J Lucifer's] instead to be dragged down into the WORLD BENEATH, INTO THE HEART OF THE ABYSS. Who that sees thee there, but will peer DOWN at thee and read thy STORY (see Webster's, p.1139 for “story”: archaic: history ... ): “Can this be the MAN [Lucifer transformed into mammalhood/J Lucifer from Mary] “who once shook the world, and made thrones totter; who turned earth into a desert, its cities into ruins; never granted prisoner release? For those other kings, honourable burial, each in his own palace; thee the GRAVE ITSELF REJECTS, like a withered root, like a thing unclean. Rots thy corpus unrecognised, beneath yonder coverlet of men slain, that went down to the deep pit together; no fellowship hast thou with those others, no share in their sepulchre, thou who didst lead thy country to ruin, thou, who didst bring destruction on thy people. The posterity of the wicked shall be nameless for ever; FOR THE GUILT THEY HAVE INHERITED, HIS SONS TOO MUST BE SLAIN, they must not live to make the land their own and people the world with cities” (italics and emphasis added)
⟦14 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––––
ii. John Henry Newman quoted by Hutton Gibson, Paul VI's Legacy: Catholicism?, pp.48-49: “god works by human means. As he employs men and inspires them, and yet they die, so doubtless, he might employ a body or society of men, which at length, after its course of two thousand years might come to an end. ... Doubtless, christianity might be such; it might be destined to expire; ... and at length to die; ... ” (italics added)
(end of A, B, C)
(to be continued at D, E, F)
–––––––––––––––––––––––––
⟦3 blank lines⟧
See following pages for:
1.Epilogue: It is the “lord” that killed Abel
2.Appendix I - Report of an interview
3.Appendix II - On Dissolution of the Age of Lucifer
4.Appendix III - “No More Christianity!”
5.Preview of D, E, F: christianity proved as Paisächa Vivaham/
Fornication by the devil
6.Some Notes of Explanation and Guidance to the Reader
7.Glossary
8.Bibliography
⟦13 blank lines⟧
Epilogue
It is the “Lord that killed Abel
a)Abel was strangled 1 by the “lord”, the same being that became J Lucifer.
B)Cain did not summon Abel to the fields.2 Nor has Cain touched him.3
c)Abel was killed by the “lord”/J Lucifer at a site located between the alter of sacrifice and his house.4
––––––––––––––––––––
1.For the “lord” as Abel's killer, by strangulation, see:
A)
i. Knox bible, p.3, ‡ 6: [“lord” to Cain:] “What does this anger mean, ... ” & Webster's: p.1205 for “this”: being the person, thing or idea that is present or near in place, time or thought or that has just been mentioned, p.43 for etymos of “anger”: “[... Latin angere to STRANGLE, Gk. Anchein ]”, & p.706 for “mean”: “[ ... akin to OHG meinen to have in mind, Oslav meniti to mention] 1.to have in the mind as a purpose 2.to serve or intend to convey, show or indicate 3,to direct to a particular individual” (italics and emphasis added)
ii.For Cain's original gene as being “rage”, and not “anger”, see:
Knox bible, ibid., ‡ 5: “Cain was much enraged.”
See here Webster's, p.946 for etymos of “rage”: [ME, fr. MF, fr. LL rabia, fr L rabies rage, madness, fr. rabere to be mad; akin to Skt. Rabhas VIOLENCE] (emphasis added)
For “anger” as intrinsic and exclusive to Lucifer, see the Hindu scripture Adhyätma Rämäyanam by Thunjathu Ezhuthachan, p.133:
“No doubt it is Krodham [Sanskrit for anger–Ed.] that became Yaman” [Sanskrit for god of death/Lucifer–Ed.] (italics added) (See glossary for Adhyätma Rämäyanam and Ezhuthachan)
For “rage” [moral indignation, i.e., resentment over anything unjust - see here Webster's, p.976 for “resentment”: felling of indignant displeasure ... at something regarded as wrong, insult or injury] as intrinsic and exclusive to man, see the Hindu scripture Devi Mähätmyam, p.52 : “Killing an evil minded individual is a meritorious deed if it can make for the well being of many” (italics added) (see glossary for Devi Mähätmyam)
B)For the “lord” as igniting the rage gene in Cain, see below for unfolding of Luciferian patterns (of wrongs):
i. The junior (Abel) ranked DOUBLY over the senior (Cain). See Cain ranked below
d)J Lucifer symbolically showed the body of Abel to Cain 5–causing him to interchange the real murderer with himself in his unconscious.6
THIS IS HOW GUILT ENTERED THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS OF MAN.7
––––––––––––––––––
Abel by genetic inversion of alphabet. (See here Webster's, p.603 for “inversion”: a breaking off of a chromosome section and its subsequent reattachment in inverted position)
For the genetic order prior to inversion by Lucifer, see the Hindu scripture Rämäyanam. The senior (Rämä) has the prior [Sanskrit] alphabet–ra–and the junior, Lakshmanan, the subsequent alphabet–la. (Here see "alphabet table”, Webster's, p.32 for “ra Quotation:]” ” as prior to “la”)
ii. Cain's occupation contrasted with, and downgraded from, Abel's:
See knox bible, p.3, ‡ 2: Abel became a shepherd, while Cain tilled the ground (italics added). See here Webster's, p.1325 for “while”: “whereas [Illustration: easy for an expert while it is difficult for a novice]” (italics added)
iii. “On Abel, and on his offering the lord [of evil] looked with favour, but not upon Cain, or his offering, so that Cain was much enraged, ... ” (Knox bible, ibid., ‡ 5)
Here see Webster's, pp.828-29 for “partiality”: inclined to favour, one party more than the other (italics added), and pp.1102 & 1199 for “so that”: used as a function word to introduce a subordinate clause expressing purpose or desired result (italics added)
C)Since both rage and anger gene meet at point of murder, rage gene is mutation into anger.
See J Lucifer mutating rage gene into anger: “What does this anger mean” (italics added) (Knox bible, ibid., ‡ 6 - cited at A above) (see below at Note ii. For “mutation”)
Now see J Lucifer striving further to bring anger gene to a head by inciting fratricide of Abel (the favourite–see at Note i. below): “Meanwhile he [Abel] is at thy [Cain's] mercy, and thou canst have thy way with him” (Knox bible, ibid., ‡ 7)
For anger as the gene of fratricide, see Adhyätma Rämäyanam, ibid.:
“From anger one kills father, mother, brother, friends and acquaintances” (italics added) (see below at Note iii.)
[NOTE:
[i. Revelations of Mary of Agreda, cited by Cyril Marystone, op.cit., p.140: “Lucifer said [to Mary of Agreda:] ' ... I will bury them [my favourites] in this eternal fir
⟦12 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––––––
fire, with so much the greater torments the more faithfully they have followed me. ... '” - italics added
[ii.
[A)Mutation: “a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up the genes” - Webster's. P.753 (italics added)
[b) Codon: “a triplet of nucleotides that is part of the genetic code and that specifies a particular amino acid in a protein or starts or stops protein synthesis” -op.cit., p.214 (italics added)
[c)Protein: “any of numerous naturally occurring extremely complex combination of amino acids that ... are essential constituents of all living cells, and are synthesised from raw materials by plants but assimilated as separate amino acids by animals” - ibid., p.919 (italics added)
[d)Etymos of “synthesis”: “[ ... to put together ... ]” - ibid., p.1175
[iii. See Cain/Seth genealogies below for J Lucifer synthesising anger gene spliced into Cain/Man [by mutating “naturally occurring” rage gene - see above at A-ii. & c] to “put together” war - rape genes and necrosis of music:
Genealogy
Cain Seth
Adam Adam
Cain Seth
Enoch Enosh
Irad Kenan
Mehujael Mahalael
Methushael Jared
Lamech Enoch
| Methuselah
| Lamech
X |
(Females) ¦
¦ Noah
–––––––––––––––––––––––– (Gene of admission ¦ ¦ of guilt/sin)
Adah* Zillah* [More at corpus,p. ]
¦ ¦
Rape Music Necrosis War
(Jabal) (Jubal) (Tubal Cain)
––––––––––
*Whole womankind here paraded by the mind
––––––––––––––––––––––––
of Lucifer as mother of invitation to rape,
war and necrosis of music
[More at corpus,pp. ]
2.See footnotes on genesis 4, ‡ 8 (“Then Cain said to his brother, Let us go out together”):
Footnotes
i.knox bible (p.3): “The words 'let us go out together' are wanting in the Hebrew text” (italics added)
ii. Good(sic) news bible (p.12): “After that Cain said to his brother: ['Let us go over to the field.']”
Op.cit., p.6: “[] Brackets enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text.']” (italics added)
3.See:
i. “genesis”, 4, ‡ 8: “So it came to about that while thy were in the fields Cain proceeded to assault Abel his brother and kill him” (ibid.) (italics added)
ii.Webster's, p.66 for “assault”: “an apparently violent attempt or a wilful offer with force or violence to do hurt to another without the actual doing of the hurt threatened (as if lifting the fist in a threatening manner)* (italics added)
4,for the killing of Abel by J Lucifer, see:
i. Place of murder known to mary Jesus:
Luke 11, ‡ 51: “ ... from the blood of Abel [down to the blood of Zechariah] who was slain between the alter and the house” (New world translation, p.1132) (italics added)
ii. Place of murder known only to mary Jesus:
“genesis” 4, ‡ 9: Later on jehovah said to Cain: “Where is Abel your brother?” and he said: “I do not know. Am I my brother's guardian?” (ibid., p.12) (italics added)
iii. Place of murder rebelliously falsified by Mary jesus:
Knox bible, Luke 11, ‡ 51: “ ... from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias, who was killed between the alter and the temple” (cf .i. above) (p.69) (italics added)
–––––––––––––––––––––––––
(Here see Webster's for distinction between house and temple:
(p.549 for “house”: a building that serves as living quarters for one of a few families; p.1191 for “temple”: an edifice for religious exercises, as one of three national sanctuaries in ancient Jerusalem - italics added)
iv. Cain actually, and at the same time rebelliously, admitted by J Lucifer as innocent of killing Abel:
a)
–Dublin bible, op.cit., p.7: “And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him” (genesis, chapter 4, ‡ 8, sentence 2); Gideons bible, p.4: “ ... and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him” (ibid.) [italics and emphasis added on comma following “Abel” and “brother”]
–For incidence of above comma as admission of Cain's impeccability and of the “lord's” culpability for murder of Abel, see Webster's, p.1515 for its definition/illustration: “Comma: 1.SEPERATES main clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (as and, but, or, nor, or for) ... ” - [Illustration:] “She knew very little about him, and he volunteered nothing” (emphasis added)
b)For rebellion against the above admission of Cain's impeccability, see suppression of above comma:
–Knox bible, loc. cit., pp.3-4: “ ... and while they were in the open, Cain turned upon his brother Abel and killed him”
–Good[sic] news bible, ibid., p.7: “ ... When they were out in the fields, Cain turned on his brother and killed him”
–New world translation, ibid., p.12: “So it came about that while they were in the field Cain proceed to assault Abel his brother and kill him”
v. Mary Jesus as fraudulent liar the same as his so-called father:
i. a)Matthew 23, ‡ 35: “ ... to the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias ...” (Knox bible, p.25) (italics added)
b)For the above as factual lie, see:
2 Chronicles 24, ‡ 20: Then the spirit of god took control of Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. ... ‡ 21: King Joash joined in a conspiracy against Zechariah and the king's orders the people stoned Zechariah [to death] in the temple courtyard [Good(sic) news bible, p.451] (italics added)
⟦7 blank lines⟧
–––––––––––––––––––––
For the above lie by Mary Jesus admitted as lie in/by Knox, see footnote at p.25, Knox bible:
Footnote: “Barachias will have been the name of some ancestor of Zacharias, son of Joiada; there can be no reference to the persons mentioned in Is.8,2 and Zach. 1,1” [namely, respectively, “Zacharias, son of barachias”, and “Zacharias, son of Barachias, son of Addo”] (italics added)
Here see Hutton Gibson, op.cit., p.31:
“Logically, christ is either exactly what he claimed and proved[?]–god–or the worst faker and liar ever seen. There is no middle ground.” (italics added)
ii.For his “father” also being the same fraudulent liar, see “genesis”: 2,‡ 16: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die” (New world translation, pp.10-11); ibid.: 3, ‡ 22: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually TAKE fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,–”* (op.cit., p.12); & ibid.: 5, ‡ 4: “And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years” (ibid., p.13) (italics and emphasis added)
–––––––––––––
“One of us”: Therefore, the so-affirmed “only god” admits here that he is one of many, one of a multitude. That necessarily means he is a devan–a god–and not the “God” as he rebelliously self proclaim, out of unilateral mälsaryam (rivalry) with Sivan who by definition is “Eka Devan–uni-devan.
See corpus, p. for enmity against man as Lucifer's drive supreme. Paramountcy of this drive here compulsively overrides even the räga (demoniac passion) of mälsaryam–, such that he here self contradictingly admits he is one among many.
Note on Etymology of “Us”:
“Us”: objective case of WE (Webster's, p.1279)
“We”: “[ME, fr. OE we, akin to OHG wir we, Skt wayam]” (ibid., p.1316)
**“Tree of life”: Singular ban on fruit of tree of knowledge under pain of death necessarily means all other fruits should be freely available to man for the taking, without knowledge being a pre-requisite for such taking. Driven by
⟦10 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––––––––
Bhoothadaya–supreme compassion, the fount of all his eight excellences (Ashtaguna's)–Sivan redeems Eve from illusion of fear of death which Lucifer had implanted in man. She now is fearless, has a look and finds for herself that the fruit was good to eat, good to look at and good for knowledge. After they ate, Lucifer verbally auto cogitates in Sanskrit that Knowledge which he had closed to man as deadly was actually a pre-requiste for acquiring the fruit of the tree of life–specifiedly, the knowledge that the fruit must be grasped from the tree, not picked up from the ground as Lucifer had demoniacally forsworn.
Note:
Where does John find the fruit of the tree of life at the end of the bible book. He finds the fruit still aborne, the tree not having shed any. “On either side of the river, mid-way along the city street, grows the tree that gives life, bearing its fruit twelvefold, one yield for each month. And the leaves of the tree bring health to all nations.”
Therefore, had man obeyed Lucifer, that would have been the suicide of the specie. He would have been unknowing as well as animmortal, distinguished from beast alone by awareness of death imminent!
See corpus, pp. For:
i.the phenomenon of Buddha in context of awareness of death imminent
ii. the future of man as knowing and immortal being with his foundation made upon positive disobedience to Lucifer
* * *
For the distinction between Zacharias, son of Joiada, and Zacharias, son of Barachias, here see Titus ms., p.21:
There exist two persons in the old testament with the name of Zacharias. One is a son of Joiada, who was a priest in Jerusalem temple. The other Zacharias is author of one of the books in the old testament. The book is named after him.
After Joiada's death Zacharias his son is killed in the temple courtyard by worshippers who stoned him on orders of the king. He offended them by criticising them for not worshipping the jehovah [alias Lucifer–Ed.]
The other Zacharias is identified at the beginning of his book as a son of barachias, who is again a son o Addo. This Zacharias was never killed.
The lie of Jesus consists in the statement that the murdered Zacharias was son of Barachias. J utters this lie out of compulsion of his Luciferian personality as r
⟦4 blank lines⟧
––––––––––––––––––––––––
rebel against reality. This compulsion drives him first of all to declare that he is Abel's killer. This is stage one–declaration of reality. The next drive is rebellion against this declaration. So he selects another killing. Again he rebels against this compulsive selection. This is why he lies about Zacharias' parentage. This is stage three.
The Jesus emerging from Mary is thus proved a relentless rebel. His identity lies repeatedly covered all the time. This is why it is at once so hard and so simple to penetrate.
5.See:
i. “genesis” 4, ‡ 10: “The blood of thy brother has found a voice that cries out to me from the ground, ... from this ground, that has opened to drink in thy brother's blood, shed by thy [MINE] hand” (Knox bible, p.4) (italics added)
ii.Webster's, p.1141 for “strangle”: “to choke to death by compressing the throat with something (as a hand or a rope)” (italics added)
6.See:
i. “genesis” 4, ‡ 13: “Then Cain said to the lord (of evil), Guilt like mine is too great to find forgiveness” (Knox bible, ibid.) (italics added)
ii.Webster's, p.506 for “guilt”: feelings of culpability especially for imagined offences (italics added)
For the imaginary guilt in Cain made real, see Good[sic] news bible, p.7 for “genesis” 4, ‡ 13: “And Cain said to the lord, 'This punishment is too hard for me to bear'”, & Webster's p.938 for “punish”: to inflict a penalty for the commission of an offence (italics added)
7.For guilt as absent in mankind prior to Moses, see Swami Vivekananda, Aphorisms, p.14: “Nowhere in the Vedas is it stated that man is sinner” (translated from the Malyälam) (see glossary for Vivekananda)
For the osmosis of guilt in mankind by/from “chosen mankind”, see ancient [probably of the 9th century after J Lucifer–Ed.] inscription on cross at Mylapore (south India): “My lord christ, have mercy upon Afras, son of chaharbukft the Syrian, who cut this” (cited by Archdale A. King, Rites of Eastern Christendom, Vol.II, p.469) (italics added)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––
⟦14 blank lines⟧
⟦PAGE BREAK⟧
Appendix I
Report of an Interview
[In the past nine years the editor has engaged in Sambhäshanam (Sanskrit for mutual conversation) with many people on the subject of Gnänam–phenomenal knowledge–and on the real identity of J. People from many countries of East and West have met him for this purpose. They belong to and represent many different persuasions and streams–writers, lawyers, journalists, film personalities, bible preachers, university students, travellers, Brahmins, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Some have remained in the editor's Ashram for long or brief periods. Others were visitors of a few hours or longer. The conversation while always impersonal were never didactic or formal but were always both contributive and receptive at the same time.
[The following report was prepared by the editor from some of the questions and answers that have figured in these conversations. There are also one or two points that have not directly come up in the conversations but are included by the editor because of its topicality or because they are otherwise important. Of course, the conversations were far more detailed and lengthy than would appear from this report. What is given here is merely an outline of some of the most important and topical points covered in these conversations that took long hours over many weeks and months. The report is conceived and framed in the mode of a newspaper interview. It is being published for the first time.]
Decisive new findings have emerged on the true identity of Jesus who has been regarded by millions to be the son of god.
Leo Panakal claimed that the findings auger well for man although it would break the cornerstone of the christian faith.
He said his conclusions were objective and scientific. They also correctly answered the questions as to who in reality was Jesus.
“Jesus is in reality the devil supreme covered by a nearly perfect cloak of goodness,” he said.
“The true nature of the bible book is that it is the self revelation of Lucifer in the act of rebelliously auto regarding himself to be the god or perfection of goodness.
“Jesus' stated wish for the end of the world is in reality the Luciferian cover he applies on his own total annihilation. He wishfully counts his own Sarvanasham (Sanskrit for total self-destruction) to be the end of the world and the destruction of mankind.”
P said this was the high point of the demoniacness of Lucifer. He said Lucifer has proclaimed elsewhere that he was man's supreme enemy.
P said his conclusions were based on the bible. The bible inevitably has the same feature as Lucifer. One version will carry the demoniac reality and other versions of the same text the rebellious cover of the reality. Although mutually differing over words or passages that have to do decisively with the identity, all bible books are equally authentic, each one being a true self expression of Lucifer.
P said the above system as such was also subject to rebellion which overrides everything, rebellion being Lucifer's dominant gene as also the gene that differentiates him from Beelzebub. The true identity of Lucifer as Jesus and its rebellious cover lie spread along and overlapping many different bibles. A book containing a certain aspect of the true identity may itself carry the rebellious cover of another aspect at another place. Another book may start with the rebellious cover of yet another aspect of the identity. In this case the reality part of that aspect may be confined to a single book out of all the rest.
P also said Jesus has rebelliously affirmed on the very last page of the bible book that he is in fact the Lucifer.
P said Abel was in reality murdered by Jesus alias Lucifer. That first murder was transfixed on man by employing guilt. The sin found in christianity alone is a genetic transference of guilt. Guilt is in reality all about imagined offence. Guilt and sin are mutually interchangeable. P said the bible has positively interchanged guilt and sin at genesis 4,7 in words of its real author Lucifer.
P also said guilt and sin are both irredeemable for the reason of that their existence is subjective. P said christianity has changed the gene of man by implanting an irredeemable guilt in the genetic environment of the race. The Rome pope is continuing this, he added.
Genesis 4,7 has another passage in which Lucifer incites Cain vainly to kill his brother. P said the passage is suppressed in every other book and substituted with another one of Lucifer in which appear sin and its redeemer for the first time.
Sin really originates at this point in this manner from Lucifer alias Jesus, P said. The true original sinner is he that originated sin, he added.
P said incarnation is in reality the rebellious label used by christianity as cloak for its fulfilment of the abstract Vedic concept of fornication between devil and a human female. Such fornication would produce fundamental changes in the somatic tissues of the female, turning here into a living Yakshi (female devil). Mary is the only one person in this category. Joseph who subsequently cohabited with her and produced offspring turned into a devil by transfusion of those tissue changes.
P said father and son are one and the same person since both have demoniacness in common.
P said the being speaking to Eve in the form rebelliously portrayed in the bible book as serpent is in reality Sivan who is conceptualised personification of supreme Gnänam, supreme goodness and supreme redemption of man from Lucifer.
P also spoke on music and finally on the release of man upon the termination of christianity. He said the phenomenal gene of music, towards whose condition all art ever aspires, is engineered in the bible book from Cain, who in the christian frame is the first murderer, rather than from Seth, Adam's third son born after Abel's murder, from whom the so-called redeemer gene is engineered. He said by thus engineering the necrosis of music Lucifer was closing to man its cathartic potency. P said both the necrosis and the catharsis of phenomenal music are together reflected ever so clearly in the music of singer K.L.Saigal, making it, in the result, at once so sad and yet so consoling.
P said in this context that the cathartic potency of phenomenal music was comparable to the redemptive potency of phenomenal Gnänam, which Lucifer had earlier closed to man and which Sivan opened out of his desireless auto compassion.
P said christianity has come to an end with the true identity of Jesus which has now become part of man's positive knowledge. Man's release from guilt is a source of new energy for him. Whatever man has achieved hitherto is in spite of christianity and in a struggle against guilt. Man will open 2000 A.D. with a stock of strength ha acquire all by himself in that process along with the new energy ha is about to acquire from true Gnänam. Christianity will disappear from the collective memory of the race. But its memory will continue to cause shudder to the great as a pseudo religion responsible for the most frightful epoch of history.
P said that the involuntary termination of christianity, Hinduism of the present form will bow out in mangalam (Sanskrit for benevolence and one of the five auto qualities of Sivan) as it would have fulfilled its purpose of redeeming man from Lucifer and the pseudo religion of christianity. Of the two scriptural religions of Judaism and Islam, Islam will survive into the 21st century essentially unscathed.
⟦PAGE BREAK⟧
Appendix I
On Dissolution of the Age of Lucifer
⟦3 blank lines⟧
[Raja Yudhishtira, emperor of Bharatvarsha, during his sojourn among the Rishis of Kamyak forest, with a view to ascertain the future state of the world, asked the immortal saint Märkandeya and he answered:]
“In the Satya Yuga [age of goodness–Ed.] virtue being devoid of the least touch of greed, deception and other evil qualities of the mind, was like a full four-footed bull. In the Treta, it lost one and in the Dwäpar two feet. In the Dark Age [age of Lucifer–Ed.] it will be only one-footed, the other three feet being destroyed by vice.
“The longevity, heroism, intelligence, strength and mind-force of mankind are gradually decreasing age by age; they will decrease still more in the Kali [age of anger/Lucifer–Ed.]. The kings, Brahmins, Vaisyas and Sudras will practise false piety and this false piety will be turned into a means of cheating others. Love of truth will decline in men; decline of Love of truth will cause shortness of life; shortness of life will prevent proper cultivation of wisdom. Little wisdom will beget ignorance, ignorance will beget greed, greed, anger; anger, delusion. And swayed by greed, anger, delusion and sensuality, they will be envious of and antagonistic to each other.
“The twice-born castes will become void of truth and holy meditation. The mean Chandäläs will behave like Kshatriyäs and kshatriyäs will imitate the ways of Chandäläs. Husbands will become extremely hen-pecked; feed upon fish, flesh and milk of goat and sheep. Man will aggress upon man and develop an irreglious, atheistic and thievish nature.
“People will not discriminate about the eatableness or uneatableness of any food. Brahmins will cease performing spiritual practises, will denounce the Vedas, and being deluded by false discussion give up holy ceremonials and engage themselves in mean actions. Father and son will feel no compunction in killing each other, but will rather feel delighted at the deed and call it an act of god.
“The whole world will become Mlecha [repugnant–Ed.] and void of religious performance and ceremonials, gladness and festivities. Almost all people will be miserly, defame their friends and defraud and steal money of poor unprotected widows. They will possess little strength and no energy, yet be greedy and filled with material, sensual attachments; will gladly listen to the advice of well-known bad persons and accept charity by false pretences.
“Conceited and illiterate kings will challenge one another to fight, will try to kill one another, and will be like thorns on the sides of their subjects. Setting at naught their duty of protecting people, they will, swayed by greed and pride, be ever anxious to rob and punish them, and, prompted by their cruel heart, they will snatch away the property and wives of honest and pious men.
“None will ask a father for his daughter to marry and no father will offer his daughter in marriage. The daughters will choose and marry their own choice without consulting anybody or going through any ceremonials.
“Brother will cheat brother. Even learned persons will lose love of truth and be addicted to telling lies; the old will act like boys, boys like old people. Cowards will brag of their bravery and brave men will act like cowards. All will eat the same kind of food and be filled with selfishness and delusion. No one will trust another.
“Brahmins, kshatriyäs and Vaisyäs will cease to restrain and rule the Sudras and even each other. All castes will be levelled and become one–unclean and barbarous. Fathers will not pardon sons, nor sons pardon their fathers. Wives will cease from attending upon their husbands; men and women will be self-willed and envious of each other. People will not perform any good works or ceremonies to satisfy the gods. They will not listen to each other; there will be no guru or pupil, all will be filled with darkness of ignorance. At kali-end their longevity will be 16 years; most will die immediately after that age is reached. Women will give birth to children at the age of seven or eight. No husband will be satisfied with his wife, no wife will be satisfied with her husband. They will have very little wealth. Envy will be predominant in every mind, hunger ever burning in every stomach. Cross-roads and streets will be thronged by wantons and libertines. Women, forsaking shame, will bear spite and grudge for their husbands. Men will be all of unclean habits, manners and customs, eat anything and everything and will be terrible in every way and action. They will cheat all in buying and selling goods, out of sheer greed.
“None will care to acquire spiritual wisdom, yet will be busy in performing spiritual ceremonies for form's sake and be naturally addicted to crooked acts. They will show the faults of each other. People will live in constant fear of losing their lives as victims of their own greed and envy. The Sudras will kill Brahmins and rob them of their property, and the Brahmins being thus oppressed will cry out in agony and out of fear will roam unprotected on the face of the earth. Some of them will take refuge in lonely spots on river banks, on mountain and in dangerous places to save their lives; others being oppressed by the grinding taxes of unjust kings will lose all patience and taking to the service of Sudras will perform forbidden acts.
“The generality of the people will become fierce and of murderous propensities. The Sudras will become spiritual preceptors and the Brahmins will listen to them, believing their wrong precepts to be demonstrated facts. The low will be high and high low; all conditions will be reversed. All , all people will forsake god and worship mammon. The Sudras will cease from serving Brahmins. The earth will no longer be adorned by the temples of god. All mankind will be impious and develop frightful characters. Meat will be their food, liquor their drink. The object of life will be to increase flesh and blood. The rain clouds towards the close of Käli will pour down rain out of season so that, overwhelmed by incessant untimely rain, people will subsists on fruits and roots. Pupils will not care for the lessons of their teachers, temporal or other, and will act against their wishes. The poverty-stricken gurus will curse their disiples. There will not be the least trace of respect left in the world. The relations of friends and kiths and kins will depend upon obligation of money.
“At the close of the cycle flowers will grow upon flowers, fruits upon fruits and, owing to the rains not falling in season, there will but grow scanty crops, so that famine-stricken populations of the earth will cry out in hunger and roam upon her surface. Fragrant things will lose their odour, sweet juices will lose their sweetness, seeds will not germinate properly. Women will transfer their love from husbands to servants. All women, including wives of heroes, will prefer somebody else to their husbands for lovers. Pious men will be in mean stations, short-lived and poor; vicious men will occupy high positions, have long life and prosperity. There will be constant breaking out of fires all over the land. Tired and hungry way-fares will ask for food and refuge from house-holders in vain, and out of despair rest and sleep upon the road. Crows and other birds, snakes and beasts will make unearthly noises.”
–From the Editor's Notebook,
series II, Vol.3, pp.65-71
⟦3 blank lines⟧
⟦4 blank lines⟧
Appendix III
“No More Christianity!”
[The following lines are excerpted from an editorial with the above title carried frontally in the very last number of INSIGHT issued its past constitution as “a journal of orthodox doctrine”.
[That kind of past is described as “prärabda Karmam” in Sanskrit–“the past of a gene that has begun to bear fruit”. That past phase has fructified in present as the Nischala Tathwam (reality unchangeable) of the true identity of Mary Jesus, and the Aavirbhävam (emergence) of Sivan into the total consciousness as a wholly positive being and the radiatory source of all goodness.
[The lines below are gleaned from that necessary past.]
On the one hand, we have the evidence supplied by one of our valued contributors. He has notified us that Rev. Fr. Oesterrichter, a priest who was one of the prituses at Vatican II, has made a statement in the Morning News of Dallas, USA (May 7, 1977) to the effect that–to quote the words of our contributor–“he still considered himself a Jew rather than a Christian.”
Secondly, we have a report of the “installation” of Bishop James S.Rausch as bishop of the diocese of Phoenix, Arizona. Let us quote from the report: “One picture [in a publication dedicated to the “installation”] shows Bishop Rausch piously meditating and on the opposite page, we see all the bishops (weird symbols on their clothing) 'concelebrating' the 'installation' Mass. At the front of the table cloth we see written in bold letters 'I BELIEVE IN THE SUN' with a picture of the sun and more weird symbols around the bottom.”
The published statement of Fr. O. that Christianity was a historical mistake is further corroborated by the slogan displayed at the installation advocating worship of nature, instead of faith in the Son.
–INSIGHT, Vol.III-No.1, July 1977
⟦20 blank lines⟧
⟦PAGE BREAK⟧
Preview of D,E,F
D
Christianity proved as paisacha Viväham/Fornication by the Devil
Abraham's wife Sara was actually impregnated 32 by god alias Lucifer.
That impregnation constitutes Piasächa Viväham (fornication by the Devil).33
FURTHERMORE, IT CONSTITUTES THE ARCHETYPE OF MARY'S IMPREGNATION BY SO-CALLED “HOLY SPIRIT”.34
32.See Webster's, p.572 for “impregnate”: ... to introduce sperm cells into
33.
I.For the Vedic definition of Paisächa Viväham, see Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.1267 for “Paisächam Viväham”: 2One of the octet of marriages. Reducing a female to wifehood by FORCE when she is unconscious” (translated from the Malayälam) (italics and emphasis added)
NOTES:
–For use of force as the distinctive element of Paisächa Viväham, see/compare:
1.“incubus”: an evil spirit that lies on persons in their sleep; especially: one that has sexual intercourse with women while they are sleeping (Webster's, p.578) (italics added)
2.“Succubus”: “[ME, fr. ML, alter. Of LL succuba prostitute, fr. L succubare to lie under, fr. Sub. + cubare to lie recline–more at HIP] a demon assuming female form* to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep” (ibid., p.1155) (italics and emphasis added)
–For succubus carried out by J Lucifer at “genesis”, chapter 19 (Knox bible, pp.14-15),* see corpus, p.
*For J Lucifer assuming Lot's daughter' form, see footnote at p.15, Knox bible: “The Hebrew text MAY ALSO BE RENDERED 'his sons-in-law, who had married his other daughters'” (italics and emphasis added). See also corpus to above at genesis 19,14: “So lot went out, and spoke to the suitors who were betrothed t his daughters; ... ” (italics added)
* * *
II:For god alias Lucifer fornicating female by force when she is unconscious, see:
a)“genesis”, chapter 18, ‡ 9-15:
When they [Lucifer plus Gabriel and Michael–Ed.] finished eating, THEY asked, Where is thy wife Sara? She is here, he answered, in the tent. I will come back said HE (note use of “he”, signifying Lucifer masculine by gender–Ed.) who WAS see
The so-called “incarnation” [of J Lucifer, the devil supreme, as the “ONLY SON” of the god] in christianity is rebellious labelling of, and cover for, its real nature as Paisächa Viväham and its conversion of Paisächa Viväham into a reality.
speaking to him, next year without fail [here note the three persons signified in “they” become one single person in “he”, proving them bodiless. See here Webster's, p.1113 for “spirit”: an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible (italics added) - more at corpus, p. –Ed.]; and, live she till then, thy wife Sara shall have a son. Sara, behind the tent door, overheard it and laughed; both were old, and past their prime, so that Sara was no longer subject to the lot of womanhood. What, she said, laughing to herself at the thought, am I to have dalliance with this lord of mine, grown old as I too have grown old? Whereupon the lord said to Abraham, Why does Sara laugh, and ask whether she is indeed to become a mother in her old age? Can any task be too difficult for the lord? At this time of year, the time I have appointed, I will come back to THEE; live SHE till then, Sara will have a son. [For “thee” as denoting Sara, see below under b)–Ed.] And when Sara, OVERCOME with TERROR, denied the CHARGE of laughing, Ah, he said, but THOU DIDST laugh* (italics and emphasis added) (knox bible, pp.13.14) (See Notes and asterisk below)
NOTES:
1.Webster's, p.811 for “overcome”: overpower, & p.812 for “overpower”: to overcome by superior force (italics added)
2.ibid., p.1195 for “terror”: a state of intense fear (italics added)
3.ibid., p.332-33 for “do”: “used [for] expressing emphasis [Illustration: I do say]” & p.369 for “emphasis”: force or intensity of expression that gives special impressiveness or importance to something (italics added)
4.ibid., for “ah”: used to express delight, relief ... (italics added)
5.ibid., p.186 for “charge”: “a violent rush forward (as to kill)” (italics added)
6.ibid., p.1200 for “thee”: objective case of THOU, & p.1205 for “thou”: the one addressed (italics added)
*genesis 21, ‡ 5: “Abraham was a hundred years old when Issac was born” [Good news bible, p.23]. Loc.sit., ‡ 6: “Sarah said, 'God has brought me JOY and LAUGHTER'” (emphasis added) (ibid.). See footnote at p.23: “The name Issac in Hebrew means 'he laughs.?”
b)ibid., chapter 21, ‡ 1-3:-
Knox bible, p.16:
“And now, true to his understanding, the lord visited Sara and fulfilled his pr
⟦4 blank lines⟧
promise; old as she was, she conceived and bore son at the very time god had foretold. To this son whom Sara had borne HIM [lord alias god alias J Lucifer–Ed.], (see Note i. below) Abraham gave the name of Issac,* ... “ (italics and emphasis added)
New world translation, p.29:
“And jehovah turned his attention to Sarah just as he had said, and jehovah now DID (see note ii. Below) to Sarah just he had spoken. AND Sarah became pregnant and then bore a son ... Abraham called the name of his[sic] son who had been born to him, WHOM SARAH HAD BORNE TO HIM [jehovah alias Lucifer–Ed.], Issac.” (italics and emphasis added)
[NOTE:
[I.For inclusion of comma after “him” as demonstrating:
[a) copulation of Sara by god alias J Lucifer, & b)Abraham as mere naming functionary (note here etymology of “function” from Sanskrit “bhunkte”: he enjoys (italics added) - Webster's, p.461), see:
[ibid., p.1515 for “comma“: “1.seperates main clauses ... ”, and p.785 for “objective complement”, for instance of omission of “comma”: “a noun, adjective or pronoun used in the predicate as complement to a verb and as qualifier of its direct object (chairman in 'we elected him chairman' is an objective complement)” (italics added)
[ii.For “did” as deed of sexual intercourse, see Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.826:
[“do”: to copulate; to have sexual intercourse with (translated from the Malayälam–Ed.)]
*See “genesis”, chapter17, ‡ 19 for the “lord” binding Abraham to name his (lord's) son [by archetypal Paisächa Viväham–Ed.] “Issac”: ... god said [to Abraham]: “ ... Your wife Sarah will bear ... a son and you will name him Issac.”
* * *
[See corpus, pp. For Issac as archetype of (historical) Jesus alias Lucifer, Sara as archetype of (historical) Mary and Abraham as archetype of (historical) Joseph.
[But here see–for link between type and archetype:
[i.Historical mutation of “J” from “I” in “Ben Jonson” (see Webster's, p.1383) and “Ben Ionson” (see p.xxix, Shakespeare, The Complete Works) (italics added)
[ii.“ ... spiritual reading and MEDITATION on the holy(sic) scriptures were Mary's dearest occupation during her life in the temple” (italics and emphasis
added) (cited from The Ever-Blessed[by Lucifer–Ed.] Virgin(sic) by J.B. Hirscher, p.25)
[iii.Luke, chapter 3, ‡ 23: Jesus being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, ... (italics added) (New world translation, p.1117) (Here compare Abraham functioning as namer of Issac–Ed.)]
34.See corpus, p.
But here see Gabriel to Mary: “holy(sic) spirit will come upon you, ... ” (New world translation, p.1113) (italics added)
See Webster's, p.1276 for “upon”: on, & p.794 for “on”: “used as a function word to indicate a position over and in contact with (Illustration: the book is on the table)” (italics added)
⟦PAGE BREAK⟧
Some Notes of Explanation and Guidance to the Reader
General
The equation J = L = THE Devil represents in mathematical terms an objective reality. Ultimately, it will be seen that all human, scientific and historical questions of a phenomenal nature resolve and tally in this equation.
The present pages–and those to follow in subsequent issues of INSIGHT–prove the validity of this equation. It is proved objectively, positively and logically in the terms that totally, mutually and individually satisfy the intellect. However, in this process we ourselves will stand in the position of a mute defendant. Therefore, we will not make prominent use of any of our own sources or documents. We shall instead principally use the sources and documents of the plaintiff himself and still obtain a verdict of positive conviction against him. In cases where we cite a text that is extraneous to the plaintiff, it will be seen that such citation is employed only for the task of developing something proven, as distinct from proving it. (See below for example)
The bible book is the primary document on test in the above mentioned process. The intents and purposes of that book are expressed by it in words of human language. These words possess meanings which are defined in independent books devoted specially to that field of knowledge. We use the definitions made by these books for bringing out the precise meaning of the word or words in question. An example is the word 'rage' used to express Cain's response to the action of the god in respect of his sacrifice. In the next passage the god uses the word 'this', which means 'what has just been mentioned', viz., 'rage', but instead of following 'this' with 'rage' the god says 'anger' which is quite different from 'rage'. It is thus proved that intention of god was malevolent–a sudden mutation of 'rage' into 'anger'.
In further developing this to show just why the god makes this mutation we have used an external source, in this case a Hindu text derived from the Vedas. But it needs to be emphasised that the fact of malevolence stands proven even independently of that text because while 'rage' is just any violence, 'anger' is strangulation to death. Incidentally, this was exactly how Abel was killed by the god and the guilt transposed on man–symbolised at this point by Cain–by display of the body!
To go back a little. We said we would make use of definitions furnished in dictionaries. In actual practice, however, it will be seen that we use throughout a single book, the Webster's New Collegiate, and a single edition of that work, viz., the edition of 1979. In regard to definitions of Vedic terms, we likewise draw from one book only, viz., the Sabdathärävali. We would like to inform readers that we did not choose these particular books from one or more of the class of dictionaries that were available to us. Rather, they were the only ones available at the time we began the process of putting the equation and its proving on paper.
The Policy
In the formulations and execution of this work we have mainly followed the guidelines of objectivity, focusing and exclusion of interpretation. The bible book is taken into consideration as an objectively existing reality. Its text is analysed objectively, comprehensively focusing on the nature of the mind of its author. In the case of individual passages the focus is on the momentary point at issue. The rest of the passage is omitted as irrelevant for the time being, the omission being marked by placing dots.
The third guideline we have followed is objective elucidation of the bible book. This is different from interpretation. Elucidation is exposition of the correct meaning. It is free for this reason of subjective interpretation.
The Plan
In proving the equation we have followed a plan of stating its component or contributory elements at the beginning of the three sections herein, titled alphabetically as A, B & C. (A fourth section with the continuing alphabetical title of D is advanced from a future instalment because of its importance). The first four pages are introductory to all the rest.
Both the introduction and the concise statements at the beginning of the sections are set differently from the rest of the work by use of a typeface different from all those used elsewhere.
Although appearing as footnotes the parts of the work presented in that mode are equally primary with the statements to which they are appended. They are important parts of the proving apparatus and should be so considered and treated. They should not be considered as adjuncts thereto. For this reason they have been set in types of the same point size as the body matter and with the same linear blank.
It will be seen that in numerous places the footnotes are not on the same page with the corpus. In some cases,note 6 for example, they are ahead of the body proper, in some behind, as in the case of notes 11 to 16, note 11 being actually several pages behind. We realise that this will cast a strain on readability but trust readers will understand it as unavoidable in the circumstance of our above mentioned plan of proving and the limitation imposed by journal size and certain other factors. Nevertheless we have tried to reduce the strain as far as possible by setting the footnote numerals boldface both in the body and at the notes themselves.
We shall now proceed to give some specific points of guidance to the reader for more intensely following our text.
The Formula 'More at corpus, p. '
Quite often in the footnotes you will see the phrase 'More at corpus,p. ' or 'See corpus,p. ' with the space for page number unfilled. We shall first speak about use of this formula and then explain why the page number is currently omitted.
We employ this formula when an important question surfaces related with the question at hand which however cannot be considered at length at that particular point either because the momentary context is on something different or because the question is important enough to be dealt with separately in detail. You will find one or two good examples of this in the present issue at note 6. The question that arises from part i. of that note, the redeemer-sinner equation, is fundamental. Therefore, the question is indicated then and there and then expressly reserved for fuller notice at some later page.
Another example is at part ii. Of the same note. The question there, the origin of the christian evil, is equally important. We have noticed it then and there with three citations, one of them pre-historical, with the exhaustive notice deferred however to a future page.
You will now see why it is not possible to give the pagination alongside the formula as of now. The process of exhausting our prime equation will take many many issues of INSIGHT. Ultimately the contents of all of them together will be encompassed in book form–as distinct from journal–comprising one or several volumes. The current pagination blanks will be finally filled then and there . In the meantime, forthcoming issues will carry a special section which will indicate the page numbers now omitted, as and when the questions now held over at those points are resumed or concluded.
⟦5 blank lines⟧
Brackets
You will find brackets used in two different modes, the normal mode and the boldface mode. The normal mode is used when the matter is set within the brackets is etymological and when it is so printed within brackets by Webster's. The same mode is also used for standard interpolations including editorial notes and interjections like 'sic'.
The boldface mode is used in all other situations, but most importantly for direct interpolations into he text, for definitional data directly cited from Webster's, Sabdathärävali and other such works and for uni-word interpolations in the midst of a string of definitions from the same works. Where simple parenthesis is used in any of the above-mentioned cases, they also will be set in boldface. You will find several examples of the first two of these cases at part i. of note 6. As for uni-word interpolations, a good example is the word “and” set within boldface bracket at note 7. The particular word is interpolated at that point to signify that the definition immediately following exhausts all definitions of the word under consideration, in this case 'meek'.
Quotation Marks
Citations from Webster's appear in these pages in two different modes as to quotation marks. All normal definitional citations are directly reproduced without being quoted within quotation marks. In all other featuring any other kind of matter in the reproduced material like illustration, etymology, etc., the whole of such matter including the definition is set within quotation marks.
You will find all these various features in note 2. The first part of the citations on line 1 (journal page 1) of the note, is directly copied without quotation marks as it is entirely definitional. The second part appearing on lines 2-3 (p. 2) is set within quotation marks as it is not definitional but illustrative. (Incidentally, being the first case of its kind in the issue, the illustrative quotation there is separated from the definition and the words 'illustrative quotation' spelled out. Further, to show that they are an interpolation, those words are set in boldface square brackets.) To go back now. Again on line 3 of our note (line 2 on p 2) the definition of the word 'primitive' is reproduced sans quotation marks. The next definition is under 'genesis'. This comes within quotation marks since etymology is also given. He fourth word in the note is cited for its synonymous cross reference which is directly reproduced but again the words 'synonymous cross reference' are spelled out for being the first of its kind in the issue, and again set in boldface square brackets.
You will notice that in all these cases the entry words cited are invariably set in quotation marks. This will be so throughout the journal in all cases of citation of entry words from any lexicon in any language.
Italics and Capitals
Except for titles of sources quoted from, the italic mode is used in the text invariably to create or express meanings at certain key textual points where the normal roman type mode will not produce all that meaning. It thus functions as an important tool in the proving apparatus and is to be so viewed whenever seen in the text. It is used most often in quotations from outside, and rarely also in own text in the same function.
Capitals are used most often in the latter kind of script in the same function, and rarely also in texts quoted.
Page 8 features many of these various uses of italics and capitalisation.
Sometimes the italic is used in the same proving function on the final letter of a word or proper name. You will find an example of the first kind of use in the character 's' of the word 'parents' at note 15, ii (p 13). The same mode used in the same function in the case of a proper noun can be seen at note 19 (p 19) in the final character of the spelling of 'Isaiah'.
Sometimes also the italic is used in the above function of creation of meaning on the ultimate punctuation mark of a word. You will find several examples of this type of italicisation used on exclamation and interrogation marks in the two sets printed on page 19.
Sometimes again a single connecting word is capitalised in quoted or own material as a means to draw singular attention to the concepts that follows. You will see an example of this of capitalisation on page 23 where the word 'and' is used in this sense on the last line to draw attention to the concept following, as it opens out to an abundance of phenomenal new knowledge on Siva. Another example can be seen on p 38 where the word 'mine' is interpolated in boldface brackets in the same sense.
Contributions
You will find featured on three pages (5, 10 & 37) excerpts from the writings of some others. A change of style from the proving mode to a somewhat more simple literary mode was desirable at those points, the questions under consideration there being without quite the same precedent anywhere or (as at p 37) so clever on the part of J Lucifer as to make a supplementary note advisable. The texts are excerpted from actual or partial manuscripts as yet unpublished. One of them is to be published soon.
The editor's own use of change of style you will find them on p 36-37.
Glossary and Bibliography
Only such data as is relevant to the equation is included in the glossary as a rule. Entries have been limited to unfamiliar terms and topics figuring in the text and warranting somewhat fuller treatment for a greater understanding of the situations therein.
The bibliography is exhaustive in every respect except in one or two instances where all the required data was not readily available. The entry had to be omitted for the time being in that singular case. In another instance the date of the work is incomplete by one figure which was missing in the text we used many years ago.
Conclusion
These notes are not exhaustive. The idea was to make you briefed beforehand on some modes of presentation or expression that automatically formed while we were on these pages and in which they are couched. Any point not covered herein or anything not yet clear enough we will clarify directly with those readers if they would but get in touch.
As to the larger reality of the identities contained herein, readers who require further data are welcome for conversation with us at any time.
Glossary
Adhyätma Rämäyanam
See under 'Ezhuthachan'
Angamali
Hindu principality situate to the east of Cranganur. When the Malabar christians fled from their old settlement of Cranganur, they split into three groups. One group settled at the northern Hindu kingdom of Kaduthuruthy and another at Angamali where they were given asylum and land by the Nair chieftain Mangättachan. The remaining third group continued at Cranganur.
Angamali became a principal centre of those people. When the portuguese arrived, it was already a Nestorian bishopric. It continued to be so unti9l 1597 when Abraham, the last Nestorian bishop from Mesopotamia, died. The territory and juridiction were then usurped by the Rome pope.
Devi Mähätmyam
Sanskrit scripture narrating the victory of the primal female or Devi against Asuras, Vedic counterparts of the fallen angels led by Lucifer. The book is part of a larger work named Märkandeyapuränam carrying the name of Märkandeyan who is responsible for redeeming man from fear of death. Märkandeyan is therefore a constant obsession in the mind of J Lucifer. J Lucifer's refrain, 'Verily, Verily, I say ...' is bodily pitchforked rebelliously from concluding lines of Märkandeyan's Sanskrit prescription against fear of death.
Dharma
The perennially underlying substratum behind all phenomena. The word is untranslatable but the sense is understandable from the etymosial relationship with goodness. The sage Vyäsan, author of Mahäbhäratham, is the exponent of the concept of Dharma. Vyäsan declares Dharma is to be the redeemer of man and man to be the redeemer of Dharma–'Dharmo rakshathi rakshitha' (Dharma redeems those who redeem Dharma). At the end of the work Vyäsan declares Dharma to be the unfailing source of mental health.
Dharma is sanäthana–everlasting.
Says Vyäsan: 'Dharma is that by which everything endures the substratum of all. Through Dharma one can get Artha (wealth), Kämam (fulfilment of desires) and Moksham (liberation). Through desire for material benefits or out of fear or greed, do not give up Dharma, nay even to save your life. Dharma is eternal happiness.'
Diamper
Portuguese misnomer for the ancient settlement of Udayamperoor. The village is situate in the vicinity of Kochi next to the town of Thrippoonithura where the king of Kochi used to reside.
It is one of the locations where the Malabar christians–so called from the ancient name of Kerala–resettled upon dispersement (922 A.D.) from the ancient port of Cranganur which was their first settlement.
In 1599 the portuguese picked Udayamperoor for assembling the so-called synod of Diamper. At that meeting of many days powerfully organised and controlled by the Portuguese 'archbishop’ Menezes, the Malabar christians were prevailed upon to accept the Rome pope. They were hitherto Hindus following the Persian Nestorian christianity which strongly disavowed both the Rome pope and Mary.
The ancient scriptures and other books of the Malabar christians were imprecated and ceremonially inflamed to ashes as the last business of the meeting. They were mostly Persian.
However, after 54 years the christians rallied. Every single adult male individual, 25000 altogether, converged in 1633 to the town of Mattanchery in Kochi in the hinterland of the portuguese settlement there. Long ropes were tied to an ancient Persian cross sans Lucifer that stood important thoroughfare there. Each one grasped the rope and slowly intoned aloud a formula in Malayälam binding them and their progeny never to obey the Rome pope any more. The formula was intoned by iteration phrase by phrase upon being initially pronounced by their race leader Ittythommen kathanär. He then picked up a twig from the ground and broke it into two pieces to signify the break with Rome pope.
The Rome pope immediately selected Lucifer priests of an altogether different kind and territory who reached the same people about ten years later. By fraud surpassing even Menezes these Italians again prevailed upon about half their number to accept an overt union with the Rome pope once more. But at least two times since then the same people again broke away. And each time they were again brought back under threat of the imminent eternal furnace!
⟦3 blank lines⟧
Ezhuthachan
Thunjathu Ramänujan Ezhuthachan author of Adhyätma Rämäyanam and father of present–day Malayälam, lived in the 16th century. Adhyätma Rämäyanam is sourced to a Telugu work that he translated and emended at the suggestion of the king of Chembakassery. He speaks therein if the three existential sorrows of man and of them the sorrow of 'Adhyätmam' that the book is intended to redeem. The book is so named for this reason. 'Adhyätmam' means existential sorrow and Räman mental health. It was Ezhuthachan by this work who instilled positive knowledge in the ethnic Hindu races of Kerala. His home is in the town of Tirur near Calicut. One particular day every year at the Vedic moment fixed for initiation of knowledge (Vidyärambham) children are brought to that land. They are taught to write the first letter of the Sanskrit and Malayälam alphabet on the sand there.
Idavam
The 10th month of the ethnic Malayälam calendar which is now in its 1171th year. This was the calendar universally followed in Kerala until about 45 years ago when the Gregorian Luciferian calendar begun only in 1582 took its place. It has 12 months each lasting from 29 to 32 days. New year's day is Chingam 1.
The calendar is annually reckoned and published by the Brahmin scholar Känippayyoor Närayanan Namboodiripäd. The book has a whole page on environmental protection of animals and trees as enjoined in the texts of Manu. Each person is to protect and rear in those texts a specific kind of tree or animal to obtain long life and prosperity. Many of those animals and plants, however, are now gone extinct because of the christian depredation.
Kälidäsa
Sanskrit poet and dramatist dated 2000 years back in Hindu dating and 1500 in dating by the West. He mentally experience all the experience of Anurägam of youth without having himself experienced it. His works Säkuntalam is a result of this experience. He has refined the source story to release the hero Dushyanthan from the slur of desertion of an Ashramite girl. Another work Meghasandesam is his own mental experience of the pangs of male-female separation.
Maläyäla Manorama
Malayälam daily newspaper. Very popular especially among christians. Started in 1888 at Kottayam. Now has printing offices and editions also at Kochi and Calicut. Publishes a news weekly in English and several periodicals in Malayälam.
Mäthrubhoomi
Malayälam daily newspaper with good standing especially among Hindus. Is about 71 years old. Has printing offices and editions at Calicut, Kochi and Trivandrum. The firm publishes a number of other periodicals including a weekly noted for quality of content. It has a book publishing unit which has translated many outstanding Sanskrit scriptures and many others from world literature including the unabridged Les Miserables of Victor Hugo.
Medom
9th month of the Malayälam calendar. (See under “Idavam” above)
Pälayur
Ancient Namboodiris Brahmin settlement in Kerala situate a little north of the ancient port of Cranganur. Baseless legends have formed in the racial memory of the christianity there by reason of its drive it equalise with the Namboodiris. Those legends are responsible for the pseudo history regarding Thomas, one of the 12 immediate followers of J Lucifer, having come to Kerala and reverted Namboodiris. The same legends say the Namboodiris deserted the Illam of Pälayur Thomas having polluted it with a miracle from Lucifer.
Sabdathärävali
See under “Sreekandeswaram”
Sankarächärya
The all-knowing Namboodiri Brahmin of Kerala who correctly interpreted the Vedas. That interpretation and his further thought systems that even transcend the Vedas make the intellectual foundation of Hinduism, from which now the Lucifer is identified. Experience is primary in the system. He proves that when the Vedas contradict with experience, experience should be the rule and not scripture. Himself a Smärtha Brahmin, he still declared that the Vedas should be disregarded the moment it contradicts with Anubhava. He thus foresaw the beneficial exit of Hinduism after it identifies Lucifer.
For that statement Sankarächärya was ostracised by the other Brahmins of Kerala. He returned to his home from the north to attend on his mother who was dying. When she died no Brahmin would assist in the rituals, so that he cut the body himself into pieces, carried the pieces to a reserved corner of the Illam (name of Namboodiri homestead in Kerala) and cremated them all. He then left Kerala for good. He disappeared from existence at the age of 32.
Sankarächärya is responsible for the marriage laws of his namboodiri race which have kept it absolutely free from hybridisation, such that they have remained positively the purest Brahmins, purer than the Brahmins elsewhere in India who do have those laws.
Sankarächärya lived in the 9th century.
Sathyanädam
The word means 'echo of truth'. Actually it is a fortnightly in Malayälam, later a weekly, that functioned vigorously as the mouthpiece of Lucifer in Kerala for about 65 years from 1876 after which it gradually became defunct. The journal carried in 1881 a text of the proceedings of the so-called synod of Diamper in a series of instalments in successive issues. The paper was started and run by Lucifer's so-called archdiocese of Verapoly.
⟦3 blank lines⟧
Science Express
Weekly mini-newspaper in English featuring advances in the world science and technology and theoretical information. It is published in the form of an adjunct to the daily Indian Express.
Sreekandeswaram
Sreekandeswaram is the acronym of Sreekandeswaram G. Padmanäbha Pillai, author of Sabdathärävali, authoritative lexicon in Malayälam, the Dravidian sport language that is most derived from Sanskrit. The work is sourced to Sanskrit works and Malayälam works derived from Sanskrit. It was first published in 1923 and later successively expanded to its present form of thousands of entries in nearly 1800 burly pages.
Sreekandeswaram is a Nair by race. The Nairs are the ethnic nobility of Kerala and owners by right of the land. Their antiquity is coterminous with the land. Even before the ethnic Brahmins of Kerala–known exclusively as Namboodiris–arrived there, the Nairs were Hindus worshipping ancestors and the incipient Sivan in his symbol of serpent. They became Vedic Hindus under the impact of Brahmin knowledge which they naturally accepted.
Sreekandeswaram lived from 1864 to 1946.
Vivekananda
Powerful Vedic orator and author of modern times. Was an initiated sannyäsi and chief disciple of the Vedic mystic Ramakrishna. Born in 1862. Was spokesman for Vedic knowledge and India immortal at world parliament of religions held in Chicago at the close of the last century.
⟦18 blank lines⟧
⟦PAGE BREAK⟧
Bibliography
Bible, Eyre and Spottiswoode Limited, London, pp.1152
Bible, The Gideons International, 1985, pp.1291
Bible (Malayälam), The bible society of India, Bangalore, 1981, pp.1168
CTS[catholic truth society] bible, London
Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, New York, 1967, pp.191
D'Souza, Hermann, In the Steps of st.Thomas, madras-Mylapore, India, 1972 (Third Edition), pp.74
Dublin bible, James Duffy, Dublin, 1863, pp.736+215
Ezhuthachan, Adhyätma Rämäyanam, National Book Stall, Kottayam, India, 1980, pp.617
Ferroli, D., The Jesuits in Malabar, Vol.I, Bangalore Press, Bangalore, India, 1939, pp.519
George Augustine T.A., ms.
Gibson, Hutton, Paul VI's Legacy: Catholicism?, Leo Panakal Publishers, Cochin, India, 1979, pp.164
Good[sic] news bible, Bangalore, India, 1977, pp.1290
Hirscher, J.B., The Ever-Blessed[sic] Virgin[sic], pp.144
Hunter W.W., The Indian Empire (3rd edition), W.H.Allen & Co., London, 18-2, pp.824
Indian express, Cochin, India
Jesus and Mary Speak!, S.Madhalai Muthu, Bangalore, India, pp.31
Kälidäsa, The Complete Works, Part II, ed.Dr. Sudhamsu Chaturvedi, Trichur, India, 1976, pp.580
Karl Marx, Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow (Progress Publishers)
King, Archdale A., The Rites of Eastern Christendom, Vol.II, Catholic Book Agency, Rome, 1942, pp.668
Knox bible, Burns & Oates Ltd., London, 1945-1949, pp.1202
Leo Panakal, INSIGHT, Vol.III, No.1, Cochin, India, pp.8
Malayäla Manorama, Cochin, India
Malayälam Bible, Pälä, India, 1983, pp.1048+199+320
Malayälam-Latin-English Dictionary, manjummel, India
Märkandapuränam, Säntha Book Stall, Guruvayoor, India, pp.16
Marystone, Cyril, Grave and Urgent Warnings from Heaven[sic], Vol.I, 1978, pp.418
Mary's Triumph, S. Madhalai Muthu, op.cit., pp.55
Mäthrubhoomi, Cochin, India
Maurice T., The Indian Sceptic Confuted, W. Bulmer & Co., London, 1812, pp.140
Menon, Raghava R., K.L.Saigal, the Pilgrim of the Swara, Clarion Books, New Delhi
Navamälika (Autobiography of Teresa of Lisieux), trans. Herman,o.c.d., Carmel Publishing Centre, Trivandrum, India, 1982, pp.400
New World translation of the holy[sic] scriptures, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, pp.1462
Puthezhath Rama Menon, Sakthan Thampurän, Ernakulam (Cochin), India, 1940, pp.755
Sankarächärya, Sthothra Rathnangal, Säntha Book Stall, Guruvayoor, India, pp.88
Sathyanädam, Cochin, India
Science Express, Cochin, India
Shakespeare, The Complete Works, Collins, London, 1951, pp.xxxii+1376
Siva Puränam, Säntha Book Stall, Guruvayoor, India, pp.184
Sreekandeswaram G. Padmanäbha Pillai, Sabdathäravali (12th Edition), National Book Stall, Trivandrum, India, 1987, pp.1772
Swämi Abhedänanda, The Complete Works, Vol.V, Ramakrishna Vedanta Matt, Calcutta
Swämi Premänand Bhärathi Bäba, Sree Krishna, the Lord of Love, William Rider & Son, London, 1904, pp.309 & 206
Titus, ms.
Ursula Oxford, Pope John's Council, ms.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G & C Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., 1979, pp.32a+1532
Part II — Separated footnote stream
ccpFtn = 14,618 characters · 2,340 words. These are the passages Word
held as true footnotes rather than as inline typescript. They are not a
different class of matter: they are notes 1, 2, the tail of the note-8/9
complex, note 10 (with the Diamper canon and the placenta material), a
fragment of note 15, note 17, note 18 parts i–ii, note 21 and note 22.
Note 18 is split across the two streams — its two Revelation proof-texts
are here, its etymological demonstration is in Part I.
⟦Word-footnote reference → note 1⟧.INSIGHT, July 1977 [then self-designated as journal of orthodox doctrine (sic)– Ed.], Vol.III, No.I, “No More Christianity!” (see Appendix III for excerpts)
⟦Word-footnote reference → note 2⟧ See Webster's, p.1031 for “scripture”: the sacred writings of a religion ... [Illustrative Quotation:]”
[Note that J here rebels against the sequential order in Lucifer's manifesto. “Persecution of meek” is the third and last item in Lucifer’s manifesto. In J it is the second, in CTS. In other bible books it is the same as in Lucifer, item three. This simultaneous consistency and inconsistency with Lucifer makes J a relentlessly malignant rebel. He is Lucifer raised to power of infinity–the absolute generator of evil working from within the cloak of surpassing goodness (“Love you enemies”), derived by way of his mother and wife Mary (both together in one single body–see corpus, p. ) in a mammalian genetic transformation. This is the personality transformation that he achieved from the process of abiding in–for a full human term–, and getting himself ejected from, the body of the human female Mary. [See Webster's, p.1231 for “transformation”: “4.genetic modification of a cell, and especially of a bacterium by introduction of DNA from a genetically different source” (italics added)]]
10.See/compare:
i.Synod of Diamper [A.D. 1599–Ed.] (see glossary for Diamper), session 3, cannon 6: “The synod reveals: ... remaining still inviolate[sic] before, during and after delivery Mary gave birth to the incarnate son[sic] of the true god[sic] born without birth pains or other sorrows and without the placenta ever being formed (see ii.below) and without her being subject to purification and other disorders that do occur in other woman and furthermore, both during and after delivery there was no necessary for assistance of any midwife or for any other assistance, for this reason that at the hour and moment pre-determined by holy trinity[sic] the eternal word[sic] emerging with supreme joy and blissful knowledge of the virgin[sic] Mary proceeded from the holy[sic] uterus without any rupture whatsoever of hymen [cited from Sathyanädam, (ME) Medom 1, 1881, 'Synod of Diamper'–see glossary for Sathyanädam and Medom] (italics added)
[The original in Malayälam:
1
2
3
4
a substitute lung, the placenta extracts OXYGEN and deposits it in the blood of the embryo. (Italics and emphasis added)[see Webster's, p.1243 for “tropoblast”: a layer of ectoderm that forms the outer surface of the blastodermic vesicle of many mammals and functions in the nutrition and implantation of the embryo, & p.357 for “ectoderm”: the outermost of the three primary germ layers of an embryo (italics added)]
⟦8 blank lines⟧
SINCE J BY DEFINITION [see Webster's, p.295 for “definition”: an act of defining specifically: the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma (italics added)] At i. ABOVE IS DEVOID OF PLACENTA BY REASON OF FATHERLESS IMPLANTATION, J EMBRYO IN MARY IS PSEUDO EMBRYO [[ibid., p.922 for “pseudo”: “[ME, fr. pseudo-] being apparently rather than actually as stated [Illustrative Quotation:] (distinction between true and pseudo humanism–K.F. Reinhardt)” (italics added)]] FROM ii a) & b) ABOVE. RESULTANTLY, HIS BODY EJECTED BY MARY AFTER COMPLETION OF TERM IS PSEUDO BODY.
(See corpus,p. For treatment of:
(I. That embryo as being in reality an egg. But here see/compare:
(i.writing of Luke [see Webster's: p.678 for “Luke”: a Gentile physician and companion of the apostle Paul traditionally identified as the author of the third gospel in the New Testament and of the Book of Acts; p.475 for “gentile”: of or relating to christians as distinguished from the Jews; & p.12 for “Acts”: a book in the New Testament narrating the beginnings of the church (italics added)] on ejection of J egg by Mary: She brought forth a son, her first-born, whom she wrapped in swaddling-clothes, and [whom SHE HAD (see below under Footnote–Ed.)] laid in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. (Italics added) (Knox bible), p.5/Luke, chapter 2, ‡ 7) (see addendum below);
(ii.Webster's: BEAR [(Illustration:) brought forth fruit]: to give birth to: PRODUCE; & p.96 for “bear”: to be equipped or furnished with : ... to give birth to: to produce as yield - italics and emphasis added)
SEE CORPUS,p. FOR MORE ULTRS REBELLIOUS COMPOSING TECHNIQUE [see Webster's: p.229 for “compose”: to form by putting together; & p.488 for “technique”: a method of accomplishing a desired aim (italics added)] OF LUKE.
But here see exemplification:
Knox bible, p.54: Mary returned home when she had been with her [Elizabeth] about three months; meanwhile, Elizabeth's time had come for her child bearing and she bore a son (Luke, chapter I, ‡ 56, 57) (italics added) (see below for footnote, ibid.)
Cf: CTS bible, p.75: ‡ 56: And Mary abode with her about three months. ‡ 57: Now Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come; and she brought forth a son (italics added)
Note omission of ';' and 'meanwhile'. [Here see Webster's, p.1518 for“ semicolon”:
1.links main clauses not joined by ... 2.links main clauses joined by ... (AND
15
3.links clauses ... ; & p.706 for “meanwhile”: during the intervening time (italics added)]
[Footnote:
[Knox bible, p.54: It is not certain whether the blessed virgin (sic) returned home before or after her cousin's delivery, since, by Greek usage, THE VERBS IN VERSE 57 MIGHT HAVE A PLU-PERFECT SENSE, “she had brought forth a son”, [see corpus,p. For why Luke conceals Mary witnessing ejection of J Lucifer's navel-ous prototype (see Webster's, p.920 for “prototype”: an individual that exhibits the essential features of a latter type - italics added) “John”]]
* * * *
(II.[ ... for treatment of] anatomy of resultant body
(& III.further consequential nature of his “suffering”) [see corpus,p. For John and Issac being respectively corporeal prototype and extra-corporeal archetype (see Webster's, p.68 for “archetype”: “the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies: IDEA: an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C.G.Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual” - italics and emphasis added) of J Lucifer]
A d d e n d u m
Knox bible: Luke, chapter 2, ‡ 1,2: It happened that a decree went out at this time from the emperor Augustus, enjoining that the whole world should be registered; this register was the first one made during the time when Cyrenius was the governor of Syria.
[[See here:
[i.ibid., footnote: there is here an ambiguity in the Greek, and some have thought the sense to be, “this was the register which was made before Cyrenius was governer of Syria”;
[ii.Swami Abhedänanda:
a) The popular belief is that christ(sic) was born ... in the reign of king Herod (see here Webster's, p.1380 for “Herod”: 73?-4 B.C. - italics added), when Cyrenius was governer of Syria and when (according to Luke) Caesar Augustus decreed the taxation of the whole world, but history tells us differently. History says that Cyrenius was not appointed to this until long after the death of Herod, during whose reign (according to Matthew) Jesus was born. And, again, the taxing mentioned in Luke didn't take place until 10 years after the time mentioned and therefore Eusebius places the date of the birth of Jesus in A.D., ten years after the time accepted by ordinary people (italics added) (Complete works, Vol.V, pp.131-32)
b)Renan says the census effected by Quirinius to which legend attributes the journey from Bethlehem is at least 10 years later than the year in which according to Luke and Matthew Jesus was born. Whether christ was born under the reign of Herod is a great question. According to Josephus, the census of Quirinius didn't take place until after the disposition of Archalaus, i.e., ten years after the death of Herod. Renan says that proves that the journey to Bethlehem is not historical. (Op.cit., Vol.III, p.29);
[iii. Webster's, p.1383 for “Jesus”: “4-8? B.C.-A.D.? 29 ... the source of the christian religion and saviour in the christian faith” (italics added);
[iv.George Augustine T.A., op.cit., pp.30-32:
The account of the birth of Jesus is given only by Luke. A reader at the present time would still find no abnormality from a casual reading of the account except the fact that the birth took place in a manger. Ultimately, however, he will find that the manger is the sole true indicative–therefore a true symbol–pf the real nature of the birth. The ambiguity is actually imposed on the reader by a composing technique devised by the author. Being a physician, Luke was aware if the freak delivery by Mary.
The circumstances that caused Mary to seek a manger are set forth in some detail. They sound so natural that need of a manger is not easily capable of derogation. Even though, at first sight, the passage narrating the birth circumstances does not positively indicate any abnormal feature, it does not contradict the doctrine of the synod of Diamper either (see above at i.–Ed.). But it does contradict the conventional birth theory of Jesus at two points. Both figure in the same sentence.
Luke I, 57 describing the birth of John, Jesus' prototype, is analogous to II,7 which narrates Jesus' birth. The sentence begins in the past tense and ends in the past perfect. Thus the chronologically later episode of Mary's departure is placed in the first clause and the earlier episode of John's birth in the final clause. Knox removes the ambiguity in the footnote. But we find he has not done so in the analogous subsequent account of Jesus' birth.
When we examine the birth account of Jesus in its aspect of analogy with the birth account of John and proceed to apply the plu-perfect tense to the verb 'laid' as knox has done in the prior account for a valid linguistic reason, we get a similar sentence in which the initial incident is mentioned in the last clause. The fact then emerges of Jesus having been hatched in a manger, removing the ambiguity.
The second premise (in Luke II,7) consists of the reason why Mary took to a manger. It is for want of rooms in the inns. That exigency was caused by a census that was then under way. Obviously, everyone had to flock to his original settlement. Actually, however, the census did not take place until 6 A.D. Writing at a later date and under possession by the devil, Luke fabricated the account making use of true history subsequent to the event narrated that would make the birth of Jesus in a manger plausible.
Historians point out that there is no evidence of such a census held in Judea at the time mentioned. Cyrenius only became governor of Syria after the death of Herod. So, the last clause of the birth sentence not being factually true, the manger was sought by Mary as it was suitable place for such a kind of delivery.
⟦12 blank lines⟧
17.See:
i .Webster's, p.910 for “proclaim”: to declare publicly, typically insistently, proudly or defiantly and in either speech or writing (italics added);
ii. Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.233 for “Ashtarägangal” [Vedic octet of demoniac passions]: Kämam [sexuality (for the distinction between “sexuality” and “sex”, see note below)], Krodham (anger), Lobham (covetousness), Moham (greed), Madham (delusion), Mälsaryam (competitiveness), Dambham (vaingloriousness), Asuya (envy) (italics added)
[N.B.: For octet of demoniac passions becoming [by way of Lucifer/christianity/being also the sorrows of man, see ibid., p.231 for “Ashthkashtangel” (Vedic octet of the sorrows of man): Kämam, krodham, lobham, Moham, Madham, Mälsaryam, Dambham, Asuya]
[NOTE:
[a. see Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.1240 for “Purushärtham” (Sanskrit for goals (see Webster's, p.488 for “goal”: the end toward which effort is directed) of existence): Dharmam (goodness), Artham (wealth), Kämam (sex), Moksham (liberation)
[b. see Webster's: p.1054 for “sex”: the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioural characteristics of living beings that subserve reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females; & p.1055 for “sexuality”: expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive - italics added]
18.See:
i. CTS bible, p.349: And he [J] said to me [the writer]: “... I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. ... I, Jesus, have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star” (italics added);
ii. Good [sic] news bible, p.323: “I, jesus, have sent my angel to announce these things to you in the churches. I am descended from the family of David; I am the bright morning star.” (italics added);
⟦16 blank lines⟧
21 .Note chapter change for introduction of new character in serpent. [For serpent as new character se also under i. at note 25 below]
22See/compare:
i. Swami Premänand Bhärati Bäba, Sree Krishna, the Lord of Love, p.71: The word Eden even is a corruption of the Sanskrit word “Adhan” (home); op.cit., p.291: Sanskrit words are sound-shells which hold within them essentials of the attributes they represent and the objects they signify (italics added);
ii.Webster's, p.1016 for etymos of “Sanskrit”: [Skt samskrta, lit. PERFECTED] (emphasis added);
& iii. Ibid., p.358 for etymos-less etymology of “Eden”: [LL fr. Heb Edhen]
[For I. the interchangeablity of “Eden” with J's “paradise”/kingdom of heaven”, and II. The objective tally of “paradise” with kingdom of torments, see:
[I.
[A. genesis, chapter 2,‡ 8: “And the lord god had planted a paradise of pleasure from the very beginning” (Dublin bible, 1857, p.6) (italics added)
[b. ibid., chapter 3, ‡ 8:“And when they heard the voice of the lord god walking in paradise ...” (op.cit., p.7) (italics added)
[II.
[A. Ecclesiasticus, chapter 44, ‡ 16: “Enoch there was, that did god's will, and was taken away to paradise, repentance his gift to mankind” (Knox bible, p.623) (italics added) (see here Webster's, p.1179 for “take”: to get possession of ... by killing or capturing, & p.78 for “away”: out of existence: to an end) (italics added)
[b. For rebellion against the very paradise above( at a.), see below for its dropping:
[Malayälam bible, p.106, for Ecclesiasticus, ibid.: “Enoch pleased god; and he was taken away.” (translated from the Malayälam–Ed.)
[c. For the same rebellion even in the very christian frame, see:
[i. “Matthew”, chapter 27, ‡ 44: “Even the thieves who were crucified with him uttered the same taunts” [against him] (Knox bible, p.31) (italic added)
⟦13 blank lines⟧
Part III — Header stream
ccpHdd = 38 characters. Page-number fields only; no running head text.
⟦FIELD-BEGIN⟧PAGE ⟦FIELD-END⟧
⟦FIELD-BEGIN⟧PAGE ⟦FIELD-SEP⟧12⟦FIELD-END⟧
Part IV — Apparatus index
Where each note lives in this file, what it contains, and which statement it anchors. Anchor positions are independently confirmed against the static site's marker map ([[insight-footnote-marker-map]]) — see [[insight-manuscript-digest]] §6. "Part I" = body stream, "Part II" = separated footnote stream.
Main series, notes 1–34
| # | in | contents | anchors |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | II | The previous issue, named and dated: "INSIGHT, July 1977 [then self-designated as journal of orthodox doctrine (sic)– Ed.], Vol.III, No.I, “No More Christianity!” (see Appendix III for excerpts)" | "Eighteen years have elapsed since the last issue of INSIGHT was published" |
| 2 | II + I | Webster's p.1031 "scripture" (definitional, unquoted) → [Illustrative Quotation:] Santayana on "the primitive man's awe for scripture" → p.907 "primitive": not derived → p.474 "genesis" → "genetics" = [Synonymous Cross Reference:] genesis. The lexical machinery under Axiom 2. | "conform to the definitive and illustrative norms of scripture" |
| 3 | I | "See 2 above" | "truly and by definition underived" (numeral absent from body) |
| 4 | I | "See 6, i. below" | "the suppression of a text or term" |
| 5 | I | Webster's p.1153 "substratum": "the material of which something is made and from which IT DERIVES ITS SPECIAL QUALITIES" | "constitute the substratum of that book" (numeral absent) |
| 6 | I | The redeemer–sinner equation. Genesis 4:7 Knox ("Meanwhile he is at thy mercy…") against CTS ("It [sin] wants to rule you…"); Webster's "decide", "suppress" (to inhibit the genetic expression of), "substitute"; "THEREFORE, THE REDEEMER FROM SIN, SO PRE-ANNOUNCED, SO SELF DESIGNATED AND SO CALLED, IS HIMSELF THE SINNER." Part ii: usury→interest substitution across Matthew/Luke in CTS and Knox; the usury-implantation argument; Puthezhath Rama Menon on pre-colonial Kerala interest; the Megasthenes / Howitt / Mary-of-Agreda triad on the origin of christian evil. | "USED AS THE MASTER KEY" (numeral absent) |
| 7 | I | Webster's p.708 "meek": 1 · 2 · [AND] 3 — the boldface-bracketed and the apparatus note describes, present in place | A a) "denotes deficiency" |
| 8 | I | Marystone p.140, Lucifer's manifesto to Mary of Agreda ("I will afflict the poor, oppress the suffering and prosecute the meek"); contributed page 5 — George Augustine T.A., ms. p.3, with the Real/Unreal table | A c) "tormentation by Lucifer" |
| 9 | I | CTS bible p.5, the Beatitudes | A d) "blessings by Jesus" |
| 10 | II | Synod of Diamper, session 3, canon 6 ("without the placenta ever being formed"), cited from Sathyanädam, Medom 1, 1881; Science Express, 2 Aug 1988 — Dr. Azim Surani on genomic imprinting; Webster's trophoblast/ectoderm; "J EMBRYO IN MARY IS PSEUDO EMBRYO … HIS BODY … IS PSEUDO BODY"; Luke's plu-perfect and the manger; the Quirinius-census Addendum (Abhedänanda, Renan, Webster's dates); contributed page 10 — George Augustine T.A., ms. pp.30–32 | A d) "uterine son of Mary" |
| 11 | I | Webster's p.1113 "spirit"; Sabdathärävali p.233 Ashtavivähangal, the Vedic octet of marriages ending in Paisächam; Webster's etymologies of "dharma" and "good"; Ursula Oxfort, Pope John's Counsel, p.2 (ms.) for the phrase "spiritual intercourse with the devil" | A d) "by spiritual intercourse with the devil" |
| 12 | I | Webster's p.677, etymology of "Lucifer": "[ME, the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, the Devil …]" | A e) "Lucifer is a rebel" |
| 13 | I | "See note 12" | A f) "at the same time a devil" |
| 14 | I | Sabdathärävali p.1466 "Yakshi"; Webster's "mutation", "sport" | first bullet, "mutation of body tissues" |
| 15 | I | Knox p.14 (brethren and sisters); Webster's "sister" (the same parents) vs "brother" (one parent in common); "all" = being more than one. The argument the italicised terminal s of "parents" carries | second bullet, "at least two, if not three, daughters" |
| 16 | I | Mary's Triumph by Elena pp.18–19 (the 1957 apparition of Joseph); Mathrubhoomi, 24 July 1988 on the Yakshi in white; Malayäla Manorama, 14 June 1987, "War field with Roaming Ghosts"; Jesus and Mary Speak! on the 1968 Cairo apparitions | third bullet, "Joseph's recent apparition" |
| 17 | II | Webster's p.910 "proclaim"; Sabdathärävali p.233 Ashtarägangal, the octet of demoniac passions, and p.231 Ashthkashtangel [sic], the identical octet as the sorrows of man; Purushärtham | B k) "has actually proclaimed" |
| 18 | II (i–ii) + I | The central proof-text. Revelation 22:16 in CTS p.349 and Good News p.323 — "I, Jesus … the bright and morning star"; Webster's "announce"; the full "Lucifer" etymology; Webster's Explanatory Notes on what an etymology is; "etymon" = literal meaning … fr. etymos, TRUE; the Kälidäsa verse with its source (The Complete Works of Kälidäsa, ed. Dr. Sudhamsu Chaturvedi, pp.226-27) and Panakal's own translation; the identification step; "Addition of 'bright' is further rebellion against this confession"; the Beelzebub contrast; the Peter/petra etymos-fraud parallel; "Eka devil" | B k) "that he is Lucifer" |
| 19 | I | The Isaiah 14:12 collation — SET A / SET B, five versions (Good News, King James, New World, Knox, CTS) with page numbers; NOTES i–iii: the terminal "Isaiah"→"Isaias" change and the exclamation→question mark; the New World index "Lucifer, see SHINING ONE"; Webster's on synonymous cross-references; the "bright"/"shine" etymosial consanguinity; Marystone on "who then was THIS king of Babylon?"; the Good News preface on its Masoretic base | B l) — statement absent from this witness |
| 20 | I | Webster's p.234 "confession"; A.C. Sen, Mitra's Legal and Commercial Dictionary, p.179, on confession before trial as evidence | B m) — statement absent from this witness |
| 21 | II | "Note chapter change for introduction of new character in serpent" | C n) "suddenly appearing" |
| 22 | II | Premänand Bhärati on "Eden" ← Adhan; Webster's "Sanskrit" = PERFECTED; "Eden" etymos-less; paradise = kingdom of torments (Dublin bible; Ecclesiasticus 44:16 Knox against the Malayalam bible p.106, where "to paradise" is dropped); Matthew 27:44 | C n) "garden of Eden" |
| 23 | I | Premänand Bhärati on "Eve" ← Heva; Webster's etymos-less etymologies of Adam, Cain, Abel, Seth, Abraham, Sarah, Jesus, Mary — and Satan | C n) "so-called Eve" |
| 24 | I | Webster's "evanesce"/"vanish"; the Malayälam-Latin-English thirobhavikuka → VANESCERE; Easwarapanchakrithyagal; Siva Puränam p.107; Webster's p.1078 "Siva": "the god of destruction AND regeneration" — the capitalised connective the apparatus note places on p. 23, present in place; the serpent/snake disintegration table | C n) "evanescing" |
| 25 | I | Knox genesis I,24 and III,1; Webster's "serpent" (Skt sarpati) and "cunning"; the contradiction argument; "snake" ← OE snoegl snail, no Sanskrit; "THEREFORE, 'SERPENT' IN KNOX BIBLE IS REBELLIOUS SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF SIVA"; the Pälayur temple demolition (D'Souza p.1; Fenicio in Ferroli I.429) | C n) "is Siva" |
| 26 | I | Webster's p.1172 "symbol": "[Gk symbolon, TOKEN OF IDENTITY] … an object or act that represents a repressed complex"; "complex" | C o) "rebellious symbolic" |
| 27 | I | "See under 28" | C o) "primal serpent" |
| 28 | I | Sabdathärävali sarpabhooshanan = Sivan; Märkandapuranäm; Sankarächärya's Sivanämavalyashtakam, "Seshavalaya"; the chain Seshan → Adhiseshan → Ananthan → Väsuki; Revelation 12:9 in New World ("the original serpent") and Knox ("serpent of the primal age"); the stational argument from genesis 11:5–7; genesis 19:24 in the Malayalam bible (quotation block left unfilled) | C o) "being Siva's ornament" — clause absent from this witness |
| 29 | I | Revelation 20:2 Knox, with the –Ed. glosses identifying "heaven" as a counterfeit term for the nether world and the bound dragon as Adi Seshan/Sivan; the wish-fulfilment reading (Webster's "wish fulfilment", "vision"; the Good News introductory note on symbolic language) | C o) "all rebellion against Siva" |
| 30 | I | Isaiah 14:12 (Knox) with notes i–iii: "fall" = to descend freely by the force of gravity; "once" against jesus's present tense — "I, Jesus, AM the bright morning star"; Webster's p.743 "morning star": "a BRIGHT planet … seen in the eastern sky before or at sunrise". Then Isaiah 14:13 in Knox and New World; Kailäsam / Himavän / the "REMOTEST PARTS OF NORTH" as Sivan's seat; Utharalokam | C p) "Indictment of J Lucifer by Isaiah" |
| 31 | I | Webster's "adversary", "contend", "oppose", "resist", "Satan", "lord"; Isaiah 14:13–15 as unilateral rivalry; the doom passage 14:15–21 ("the GRAVE ITSELF REJECTS"); John Henry Newman, via Hutton Gibson pp.48–49, on christianity possibly being "destined to expire" | C p) ii. "J is Siva's adversary" |
| 32 | I | Webster's p.572 "impregnate" | Preview D, "was actually impregnated" |
| 33 | I | Sabdathärävali p.1267 Paisächam Viväham — "Reducing a female to wifehood by FORCE when she is unconscious"; incubus and succubus; Genesis 18:9–15 Knox with six lexical notes (overcome=overpower, terror, emphatic "do", "ah", "charge"=a violent rush forward, "thee"); Genesis 21:1–3 in Knox and New World with the comma argument; Sabdathärävali "do" = to copulate; genesis 17:19 | Preview D, "constitutes Paisächa Viväham" |
| 34 | I | Gabriel to Mary in New World; Webster's "upon" → "on": "a position over and in contact with" | Preview D, "BY SO-CALLED 'HOLY SPIRIT'" |
Epilogue series, notes 1–7
| # | in | contents | anchors |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I | The strangulation demonstration. Knox genesis 4:6 "What does this anger mean"; Webster's "this" (that has just been mentioned), the etymos of "anger" (L. angere to STRANGLE), "mean"; Cain's original gene as "rage" (4:5) with the etymos of rage (Skt rabhas VIOLENCE); Adhyätma Rämäyanam — "it is Krodham that became Yaman"; Devi Mähätmyam on justified killing; the "unfolding of Luciferian patterns" (alphabet inversion Cain/Abel against Rämä/Lakshmanan, occupation downgrade, partiality); the rage→anger mutation and the incitement at 4:7; Webster's mutation/codon/protein/synthesis; the Cain–Seth genealogy diagram, ending in Rape (Jabal) · Music Necrosis (Jubal) · War (Tubal Cain), with "Whole womankind here paraded by the mind of Lucifer as mother of invitation to rape, war and necrosis of music" | Epilogue a) "Abel was strangled" |
| 2 | I | Knox p.3 footnote: "The words 'let us go out together' are wanting in the Hebrew text"; the Good News bracket convention for inserted words | Epilogue b) "did not summon Abel to the fields" |
| 3 | I | genesis 4:8 New World "proceeded to assault"; Webster's "assault" = "an apparently violent attempt … without the actual doing of the hurt threatened" | Epilogue b) "Nor has Cain touched him" |
| 4 | I | Luke 11:51 New World ("between the altar and the house") against Knox ("between the altar and the temple"); Webster's house/temple; the comma argument — Dublin and Gideons keep the comma that separates the clauses, Knox and Good News suppress it; Matthew 23:35 "Zacharias the son of Barachias" shown false against 2 Chronicles 24:20–21, with Knox's own footnote conceding it; Hutton Gibson p.31; the "one of us" note (the god admits he is one of many); the tree-of-life note (Sivan redeems Eve from the implanted fear of death); contributed page 37 — Titus ms., p.21, the two-Zacharias demonstration and the three-stage rebellion reading | Epilogue c) "between the alter of sacrifice and his house" |
| 5 | I | genesis 4:10 Knox — "shed by thy [MINE] hand", the boldface-bracket interpolation the apparatus note places on p. 38, present in place; Webster's "strangle" | Epilogue d) "showed the body of Abel to Cain" |
| 6 | I | genesis 4:13 Knox ("Guilt like mine is too great to find forgiveness"); Webster's p.506 "guilt": "feelings of culpability especially for imagined offences"; Good News's substitution of "This punishment is too hard for me to bear" | Epilogue d) "in his unconscious" |
| 7 | I | Vivekananda, Aphorisms p.14: "Nowhere in the Vedas is it stated that man is sinner"; the 9th-century Mylapore cross inscription as the osmosis vector | "THIS IS HOW GUILT ENTERED THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS OF MAN." |
Related
[[insight-manuscript-digest]] · [[insight-journal-issue]] · [[vinodh-whatsapp-intake]] · [[insight-masthead]] · [[insight-ins00-09]] · [[insight-footnote-marker-map]] · [[wayback-recovery-report]] · [[preview-ancient-mother]] · [[key-to-the-bible]] · [[the-truth]] · [[augustine-memorial-2011]]