Chapter I

the AM-2 manuscript, the only surviving manuscript form; body and its eight notes complete (note numbering partly damaged in the file, reproduced as it stands).

Introduction

The entity characterised as christianity is designed upon a paradise that falls to man's lot as the fruit of an action codenamed faith.

In every action there lies congealed, however, an element of reaction. It is not possible to conceive of an altogether self-contained mental or physical action, of a kind insulated even from the specie. From this arises the explicit natural concept of eternity of creation that we find codified at times far anterior to christianity.1

The bottom line of action is thought. Influencing thought is the agent's past experience, the inputs from environment, the way he responds to them which again is influenced by the selfsame factors, in degrees that differ from individual to individual–and finally his genetic, racial, and scriptural inheritance. The last one, although still remaining to be at this particular epoch a conditioning influence on consciousness, is in itself transcient in nature.

(The word consciousness is the nearest equivalent of the Sanskrit word prajna, as it is employed, for example, in the upanishadic aphorism prajnanam brahma, which identifies ultimate reality as pure consciousness. Literarily. "Prajna" refers to transcendent knowledge.)

At once different from and similar to everyone, however, are the geniuses who also are products of the gene. But in them singularly an original and transcendent refinement has taken hold, in the place of the gradual, imperceptible refinement of others.

The individual acts then because all these act on him. Such a cause-effect cycle in phenomenal as well as individual history has been long apprehended by minds in the East and West 2. As Leucippus said nearly 2400 years ago: "Nothing occurs by chance, but there is a reason and a necessity for everything." The rishi (Indian seer) Kapilan was more emphatic: "For something structured, to go beyond the structure will be to destroy itself."

The christian paradise is extra-structural; for this reason alone it is destructive of the self. It deposits in the affected individual in the depths of his being an alien component. In the course of his doomed struggle to integrate it with his genetic past, which admittedly is achristian, scriptural christianity being in no wise primordial, the individual is lost or remains resistant to environmental inputs, which normally are an important contributory factor in genetic refinement at individual level. Again activated by the longing, which has come to be at this date a part of his genetic inheritance by reason of the pressure of historical christianity, he proceeds to convolute the inputs, more or less deliberately misapplying and misreading them in the conscious or unconscious struggle to reconcile them with his received faith in the protesting only son of god.

However long, positive Nescience, otherwise called christian faith, cannot turn into jnanam (Knowledge). On the contrary, it turns the affected individual into a rebel against jnanam and against himself. For, by every definition of independent nature, both scriptural and literary, man is a knowing being. The primordial Scriptures traces him straight to Manu, which is reflection itself if the word is considered merely in its literary sense. In this latter respect, the West is in agreement since she etymologises the term man to the same Manu 3.

Two determined paragons of such abuse of consciousness are John Bunyan and Francis Xavier. They possess in common with each other an ingrained phenomenal affectation in respect of the overt persona of the source-being of the bible book. While the former worked upon it with severe tormentation to himself and dependants in order to force out personal paradise, 4 the latter inflicted, under ignition of the same charge, similar consequences to alien races in addition to himself. 5

As an object of desire suddenly appearing in consciousness, the entity named paradise is perceivable in these its characteristic terms alone in the bible book. What then is the real goal of existence? To have any meaning, such goal should spin out of existence itself, whether this is regarded as personal, inter-personal, as between man and his companion, or supra-personal. Any system therefore that spins out right in front of man a creator-god from outside is destructive of the goal.

It may be good for him in his system, but not for man in his system. This is because as an auto-cogitating being, man must know by and from out of himself the goal of his existence as a being that is also self-aware. He knows too that this characteristic of self-awareness is self-explained and does not require any explanation from outside. 6

Therefore, the real goal of existence should finally return back to the same self-awareness, in a more refined form than at the beginning. Anything else would be destructive of internal certitude, which is the foundation of mental health. As far as individual existence goes, it is always a step towards this goal, whether the individual himself is aware of it or not, in some cases a small step, in others larger, and in those like Sankaracharya, the final one. 7

Further any being that spins such a god out is working in and for his system, and not for those before whom he palpably does so. Whatever he affects to say and perform against this is part of the same proprietary system. Even the slightest hint of this in his words and actions is enough to expose him. Secondly, such a being will be unique, since such a system is impossible of duplication by another being. When we say creator-god, we are also saying a uniquely affected creator-god, since otherwise the palpable system will no longer even appear credible.

He is more over working at the level of man's most precious concern, salvation, as some would call it, or alternatively, the progression of his cognition, alone possible through jnanam, of a being that is conceivable as perfection of goodness and from this one respect relatable to himself. By being we mean anything that can be conceived, or that can be made conceivable without contradicting as existing. It need not be, rather more it shouldn't be, corporeal. It need not even be absolutely distinct from the conceiver.

For this reason, the spinner-out too will be working at the level of man's sensibilities pertaining to salvation and goodness. The first he can sense only if he is himself irredeemably damned and he knows it, and the second only by being born human through a terrestrial female. 8 There will then be two consciousness working in him, firstly the consciousness of his own eternal forfeiture and secondly an overt consciousness deliberately striving to affirm itself in the acquired terms of goodness. Transcending through both by reason of his original malignancy against goodness and at the same time interconnecting the two and oozing all through will be his malevolence against man as he perceives him as the only conduit of goodness.

More than anything else, this book sets to identify the above being in his two consciousness and in the dual tenure furnished to him by his female.

Footnotes — Chapter I (as they stand in AM-2; numbering damaged — reproduced verbatim, nothing supplied)

1. See Swami Vivekananda, In Defence of Hinduism, p.20: ”As to the eternity of creation, this doctrine is the cornerstone not only of the Hindu religion, but of the Buddhists and Jains also.”

2 Vide Chrisippus (extant about 2300 years ago) quoted by J.R. Lucas, The Freedom

of the Will, p.55: ”Everything that happens is followed by something else which depends on it by causal necessity. Likewise, everything that happens is preceded by something with which it is causally connected. The universe will be disrupted and disintegrate into pieced and cease to be a unity functioning as a single system, if any uncaused movement is introduced into it.” See also Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, p.21: ”Any vital action springs from the depths of the being. All the long past of the individual and even of the race has prepared the background for that psychological moment of action. All the racial memories, influences of heredity and environment and training, thoughts and dreams and actions in their curious and tremendous mix-up, inevitably drive to that new action, which again becomes another factor influencing the future. Influencing the future, partly determining it, possibly even largely determining it, and yet surely, it is not all determinism.”

3.See Webster's, p.691.

4. Bunyan calls himself the ”chief of sinners” and feels assured of ”grace abounding” to him. But his autobiography rather shows until the very last only signs of the torments from which he could not extricate himself as the militant victim of a keen interior struggle between the real identity of the being he forcibly regards as god and his own natural notions regarding intrinsic god. Taking the cue hopelessly from the first being, he calls the struggles temptation: ”Of all the temptations that I ever met with in my life, to question the being of god, and the truth of his gospel is the worst, and worst to be born; when this temptation comes, it takes away my girdle from me, and removeth the foundation from under me.” He immediately imagines that he has ”discovered grace,” and yet concludes the work with a list of his ”seven abominations” against that being. In fact, they are crimes against himself. The work is also interesting for another reason. This is the constant attempt by Beelzebub to redeem him from Lucifer. and Bunyan’s determination to remain stonewalled by the latter. Bunyan uncritically calls these bonafide attempts ”discouragements.” ”’You are very hot for mercy,’ ” tells Beelzebub authentically, ” ‘but I will cool you; this frame shall not last always... I will cool you insensibly, by degrees, by little and little: what care I’ saith he” (Beelzebub) ‘though I be seven years in chilling your heart ... though you be burning hot at present, yet, if I can pull you from this fire, I shall have you cold before it be long.’ ” Resuming from Bunyan at another point, ”I once had this much upon my spirit, That my imprisonment might end at gallows ... now, therefore, satan” (read Beelzebub) ”suggested thus unto me: But how if when you come indeed to die, you should be in this condition; that is, as not to savour the things of god (read Lucifer), nor to have any evidence upon your soul for a better state hereafter? ... The tempter (read redeemer from Lucifer) followed me with, ‘but whither must you go when you die? What will become of you? Where will you be found in another world? What evidence have you for your heaven and glory,’ and (in Bunyan’s words) an inheritance among them that are sanctified?” Bunyan died unanticipatedly in London at the house of ”one Mr. Straddocks, a grocer,” of a ”violent fever.” He was caught by excessive rains while on his way back from a trip impatiently undertaken in behalf of a ”prodigal son” to prepare his father’s mind for taking him back in his parental home. We are informed too that as far as the purpose of the trip was concerned, he had successfully ”disposed all things to the best.”–cited from Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, pp.35, 100, 173-74.

5. Francis Xavier (in India from 1542) was the first man to demand establishment of the Inquisition in India. It was responsible for the systematic murder of countless men and women in India for forswearing in one way or other essentially to the affected identity of Lucifer. Records have been also suppressed, but enough has surfaced to our times to evidence that numerous auto-da-fe were authored, in which the victims

were burned alive as criminals against Lucifer. Tangible statistic on a few of these show 4046 positive sentences in a short period, with 121 people burnt, 16 of them women, and the rest brutalised in other ways. The ”friars” led them marching with torches in their hands. Labourers in 1859 discovered a subterranean staircase below a ”Palace of the Inquisition” at its site in Goa (India) as well as human bone buried under a thick piece of lead of the shape of a whale or of a boat. ”Part of the debris can even now be seen,” wrote da Fonseca in 1878, ”on the spot where once the Palace stood, an object of terror and dismay to the common people of Goa, who trembled at the mere mention of its name.”–cited from A.K. Priolkar, The Goa Inquisition, p. 23, and Jose Nicolau da Fonseca, A Historical and Archaeological Sketch of the City of Goa, pp. 216-20. In India Through the Ages, pp. 227-28, Flora Annie Steel has given a detailed account of how Bahadur-Shah, king of Gujerat, was treacherously attacked and killed while escaping in haste from the ship where he was enticed on the pretext of political talks by viceroy Nuno de Cunha. The author follows with this passage: ”But the influence of these criminals lives still all along the western coast, where to this day a large proportion of the people are professedly roman catholic, the descendants of the converts who flocked in thousands to be baptised by Francis Xavier.”

6. See J.R. Lucas, op.cit., pp. 164-65: ”In saying that a conscious being knows something, we are saying not only that he knows it, but he knows that he knows it, and that he knows that he knows that he knows it, and so on, as long as we care to

pose the question: there is an infinity here, but it is not an infinite regress, for it is the question that peter out rather than the answers. The paradoxes of the consciousness arise because a conscious being can be aware of itself, as well as other things, and yet cannot really be construed as being divisible into parts.”

7 (The exit of Sankaracharya manifests extraordinary characteristics. The authentic records show that he transited into terminal samadhi in the midst of his pupils after having fulfilled all his undertaken efforts and after composing for them at their wish a string of verses that summarised his system. The records show that he explicitly disintegrated his consciousness from the physical body, which then was no longer visible.)

8 The earlier books affirm that even gods have to come down and ”attain to salvation” through a human body. Vide Swami Vivekananda, Raja-yoga or conquering Internal Nature, pp. 26-27. He used the salvationist term in the sense of perfection, in a frame of positive absence of sin.

Chapter II

body from the AM-2 manuscript; the apparatus is served from the corpus transcription layer (25 notes, clean numbering) because the manuscript lost most of this chapter's note numerals — its state is preserved in the archive.

Identity: The Second Definition

By identity we mean sameness in two or more instances of the essential character of a thing. By essential character we mean the character that distinguishes a being from all other beings. Since the second definition is implied in the first, we will examine the second definition before we proceed to the first. Since the being examined is unique and without a parallel in his essential character, in both cases we shall be at once examining and proving, using the being interchangeably as prototype and type at one and the same time.

The essential character of Lucifer is rebellion. Since this rebellion is unique, the concept cannot be comprehended independently of the being that is its uni-type.1 Consciousness has missed the concept in its original sense because the being that singularly embodies the definition has made himself a component in the same consciousness under his affected identity, which is again an articulation of the same rebellion. On the other hand, Vedic India has inadvertently missed the concept through its transcendence of the christian sin, which is solely encapsulated in Lucifer, who is the source-being of christianity.

The cumulative Sin, understood as transgression of the biblically mooted law of the christian god, is exclusive to christianity. The Sanskrit scriptures, which are primordial and anterior to christianity, while sensing "sin" objectively as papakarmam (actual a-dharmic acts between man and man), 2 do not recognise the subjective and inherited sin of christianity. Unlike the christian sin, the objective papakarmam merits destruction; it does not await redemption as in christianity. This perpetual christian notion of contingent redemption from sin would also keep sin alive in perpetuity. The source-being of christianity has specifically introduced such an irredeemable sin in consciousness. 3

At two levels are papakarmams destroyed. At the level of consciousness, it is destroyed by jnanam. 4 At the secondary level, it is destroyed by Sivan. 5

The accounts given by alien observers beginning from Megasthenes 6 and including litterateures 7 and Latin missionisers 8. evidence an uninterrupted continuum of viceless rectitude in the societies of India. On the other hand, the same authorities, whenever they refer to christianity in this context, unconsciously admit to an ingress in that consciousness, form the affectedly redeeming component, of vices unknown there before. 9. Why, even the ethnic Latin christianity in the country is documented as having imbibed the same unknown vices, so much indeed as to cause them to be denounced officially by the Hindu kings on the score of the dharmic Hindu traditional laws of ethics. 10. The similarly derived ethnic eastern christianity is not thus arrayed. 11.

Inevitably, therefore, we will meet Lucifer, when he obligatorily comes in. Once again, he cannot help doing so, since otherwise he will be true to the affecting protestations, which will amount to an acceptance of reality, from being an acceptance of the reality of the affectation. Since rebellion is his inherent swa-bhavam (innate nature), such a mode will result in organic disintegration of his beinghood.

Lucifer came thus long after the protestations. The manifesto he laid out at the meeting we call the rebellion against the protestations. 12. Since it is a double rebellion this time, a rebellion against rebellion, and since at the other side, the protestations are couched in intelligible human terms acquired from the female, the manifesto is the necessary foil on which to examine the protestations. What then is the autograph on the protestations and what are their watermarks?

The first is "kingdom." Since it is a quantity unknown heretofore in the sense he presses into the word, it fills as his entailed tattoo mark. Rebel that he is, he strictly set this one apart by particularization from two other kingdoms that he devised himself, the territorial kingdom of heaven and the paternal kingdom of god. Also, he has "canonised" it by legal covenant. This is where it is: "I make a covenant with you just as my father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom."–Luke 22:29. The documentary covenant is inclusive as regards the kingdom and exclusive as regards the territorial and paternal kingdoms. Therefore, the first one is the designated kingdom and the two others its sheaths. The kingdom is the knife and heaven and god its covering sheaths.

In the early part of the book, a part prior to the acquisition of the terrestrial human female, the locale of this heaven of his has been characteristically specified to and through Moses: "The lord rained down sulphur and fire from his abode." 13. Since the critical term abode is universally suppressed in other versions of the same passage, that term is the realistic ingredient and others the rebellion against the reality of the ingredient. To say it historically, his real abode is where sulphur and fire are; by and in rebellion, he labels it heaven. More realistically, the being's consciousness is all fuming phenomenally to eternity; the same, expressed in analogically actualised terms, becomes burning sulphur.

Since again we encounter a double rebellion in one of those passages (embodying the suppression), one in which heaven is inserted and brimstone and fire are yet expressly retained as its (heaven's) characteristic effluents, once again specifying that this very locale (having brimstone and fire) is his dwelling place, 14. the brimstone and fire is the factor common in all various passages–or more generally, the universal index running uniformly in the whirlpool of cyclical rebellion, and running at the same time in spite of it, just on account of cyclicalism. Therefore, it is the reality, the other and human concepts added to it differently in different versions being the illusion by the reality is rebelliously covered.

Contextually, this illusional cover, rebelliously and malevolently acquired from the interaction with human female, is progressively intensified in different parts of the monolithic book. 15. Finally, in the book ascribed to Jude, his lineal brother, 16 it is made historical and universal, the first by articulating a judicial "sentence of eternal fire" 17 and the second by titular extension of the same into universal application. 18 The "book" has more or less 720 words!

Historical christianity represented in Peter has been deliberately exerting from Day One to force this terroristic illusion on man in the garb of reality. Taking its cue from jesus, the incarnate rebel and Lucifer recaptioned, it deliberately calls the deed gospel. Thereby, it also seeks to estop man's moksha (liberation) positively. 19

This phenomenal illusion is sensed by the Vedic rishis as Koodam (illusion). Consequently, they address as Koodasthanithyam the moksha (eternal plenitude of consciousness) 20. that becomes perceptible when this illusion is overthrown with correct knowledge of the identity of the being that is the author of the illusion.

After having gratuitously incorporated man into the covenant between himself and his illusionary father by deliberate affirmation on the frame of scripture, he processes further. He first affirms by unilateral proclamation onto man's scriptural consciousness that the father is "your father," 21. then in the next step positively ousts from the same consciousness the sense of man's biological father, 22. and finally imposes upon man the kingdom in the covenant as an "inheritance" from the benighted, outlandish, ersatz father. 23.

We saw that the physically perceptible common ingredient in the kingdom is eternal fire. His lineal brother and associate Jude had made this clear enough. (See n.17)

The distribution of an individual upon death befalls mechanically, depending upon the kind of scriptural being that occupies his consciousness at terminal moment. The scriptural congruity with the being acts as the determining mechanism in the individual's motion in this direction. 24 Further, such an egress is forever irreversible, through permanent assimilation with the desired being. 25.

Jude's fires create eternal fumes of mental anguish. They are purported to impel the bedevilled human in the direction of his masked messmate, thus to complete his final assimilation with him in the same fires. 26.

The Sanskrit scriptures even when recoiling from Lucifer do comprehend the same fumes under the term aamayam (fumes of existential sadness). 27.

At a different level, psychoanalysts compare victims of certain kinds of neurosis to a neglected pond lying stagnant with grimy water and dirt of every kind that has festered at its bottom for years. The anguished sighs of aamayam breaking forth unbeknown from these sufferers are likened to the bubbles that carry foul gases from the bottom of the pond at intervals and burst slowly at the surface.

Footnotes — Chapter II (from the corpus transcription; the manuscript's numerals are damaged)

1. In the sense relevant to the issue in process, the term "rebellion" has not been defined so far in literature. These works sense the term broadly under political insurgency, deriving it from the Latin term for revolt, rebellio. cf., Collins Dictionary, p.1218
2. The criterion of action is dharma. Lapse from dharma is a-dharma, which is translated as papam. Papam is not to be retranslated as sin
3. See Matthew 12:32: "Whoever speaks against the holy ghost, it will not be forgiven him, not in this system of things nor in that to come." This was the short answer to his questioners who comprehensively, but not exactly, identified him as Beelzebub
4. See Badarayanan, IV Adhyaya, I Pada, Verse 13: "On the attainment of Brahman (jnanam) there take place the non-clinging and the destruction of later and earlier sins; this being declared by Scripture." This is the translation of George Thibaut at p.353, Part II, Vedanta Sutras (Vol. XXXVIII, The Sacred Books of the East
5. One of the attributes of Sivan apprehended in Scripture is papanasanan (destroyer of papam). The scriptural concept is also accurately reflected in ancient literary works. See Niranthu Rama Panikkar, Sivarathrimahatmyam (Eminence of Siva-Night), p. 79: "In those who but pronounce his name even for once, Sivan, who has adorned himself with the frightening serpent and who is substantiation of the bliss of ultimate knowledge, instantly destroys papam-animated grief, removes Fear and confers eternal plenitude." The poetical work belongs to 15th century
6. See W.W. Hunter, The Indian Empire, p. 217: "Megasthenes noted the absence of slavery in India, the chastity of the 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 a lawsuit and lived peaceably under their native chiefs."
7. See Flora Annie Steel, India by Mortimer Menpes, p. 183: "The standard of national morality is far higher in India than it is in England."
8. See Francois Bernier, Travels and Sojourn in the Moghul Empire, quoted by Flora Annie Steel, India through the Ages, p. 202. She writes that Bernier shows graphically how the "cancer of the so-called (christain) civilisation" was eating into the body politic of India. "The kingdom of Arracan," wrote Bernier, "has contained during many years several Portuguese settlers, a great number of christian slaves or half-caste Portuguese and other Europeans collected from various parts of the world. That kingdom was a place of refuge for fugitives from Goa, Ceylon, Cochin, Malacca and no persons had better served than those who had deserted their monasteries, married two or three wives or committed other great crimes. It was not suprising that these renegades pursued no other trade than that of rapine and piracy. They scoured the neighbouring seas in light galleys and, often penetrating forty or fifty leagues up the country, surprised and carried away the entire population of villages on market days, and at time when the inhabitants were assembled for the celebration of a marriage, or some other festival. The treatment of the slaves thus made was most cruel. By a mutual understanding the pirates would await the arrival of the Portuguese ships who bought whole cargoes at a cheap rate; and it is lamentable to reflect that other Europeans have pursued the same flagitious commerce with the pirates of Arracan, who boast that they convert more Hindus to christianity in a twelve-month than all the missionaries in India do in twelve years." "Not a pleasing picture," adds Flora Annie Steel, "though it whets the curiosity to know more, for instance, of the career of Fra Joan, the Augustinian monk who, having by means unknown possessed himself of the island of Sundiva, reigned there King-of-the-pirates for many years."
9. The original documents on this are preserved at the government archives at Ernakulam in Cochin. There are several letters written around 1800 by the king to the British officials arraigning his Latin subjects, mostly for crimes against women. The British had captured the town of Cochin in 1795 from the Dutch. The Latin population claimed they were subjects by religion of the western powers, so established, as they said, from the time of the Portuguese colonisation in 1500-1663. In practice this claim was used by them as mandate for terrorising the Hindu populations. In a letter of Nov.4, 1800, to the British residing officer Oliphant, the king cites "the theft of an Araya woman" by a gang of Latins. (Arayas are hereditary Hindu fishermen of the seas; they inhabit the sea coasts. Fishermen of the rivers are a different caste, called Vaala; they live in a hinterland near lakes
10. The first christianity in India was Nestorian. It prominently survived in Kerala until after Latin christianity was imposed by the Portuguese clerics of the Rome pope. However, a remnant of the early Nestorians still subsists there in a region comparatively free of contamination by the Portuguese. Those early christians also, excepting a segment that reverted to the Rome pope after repudiation in 1653 by the entirety, are Hindu in outlook and in many customs
11. See infra, pp.29-30 for extended quotes from the manifesto arrayed to Mary of Agreda
12. Genesis 19:24–Sathyavedapusthakam
13. cf., deuteronomy 29:23; Jeremiah 50:40; Ezekiel 16:49; Hosea 11:8; Amos 4:11; Luke 17:29; Jude 7
14. See Matthew 13:55. See also Chaplain, My Treasure, pp. 3-4, giving Jude’s descent in the maternal line from Mary’s family and paternal descent in the first degree from Joseph’s biological brother. The writer informs it is reasonable to hold from this circumstance that Jude was a messmate and close associate of Mary’s uterine son and that the two "must have known each other very ardently
15. See Jude 7-8: "They bear, for our warning, their sentence of eternal fire. And so it is with these as it was with those others."–Knox bible. The second sentence is suppressed in the other catholic books, as also generally in protestant books. See also pp.31-32, Ancient Mother I
17. Moksham is defined as Nityanandanubhoothi. Sankaracharya has explained it as a state in which eternal bliss is experienced without any perception whatsoever of the sense-objects. cf., M. Rangacharya, Sarva-Siddhanta-Sangraha of Sankaracharya, pp.29
18. See Sankaracharya, quoted in Max Müller, ibid., Part I, pp. 28-34: "Release differs from all the fruits of action, and is an eternally and essentially disembodied state. This moksha is eternal in the true sense, kutashthanitya. Final release results from the successive removal of wrong knowledge. The aim of the sastra is to discard all distinctions created by Nescience. Release is not something to be purified. It is impossible that it should stand in any, even the slightest, relation to any action, excepting knowledge
19. Luke 12:32: "Your father has determined to give you his kingdom
20. Matthew 23:9: "Do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your father, the heavenly one
21. Matt 25:34: "Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world
22. See Prasnopanishad, III, 10: "Together with whatever thought he had at the time of death, he enters into Prana. Prana, in association with Udana and along with the Self, leads him to the world desired by him
23. See Bhagvad Gita, VIII, 6: "Remembering whatever form of being he in the end leaves the body, into that same form he ever passes, assimilated to its being
24. See in this connection John Bunyan, ibid., p.23: "A sense of death and of the day of judgement abode continually in my view. I should often also think on Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is said, he had given him all the kingdoms of the earth. Yes, I thought, if this great man had all portion in this world, one hour in hell fire would make him forget all." See also Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints, Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity, pp.64-65. He notes in the historical christianity burgeoning in Europe in the fourth century new "anxieties about sin and the last judgement" in a milieu "sternly organised" around phobia of death. "The dark cloud of ascetic piety" of the time yet painted a silver lining, "the perpetual hope of amnesty." In the late-fourth century catacomb of Hermes, continues Peter Brown, the soul of the dead man stands, "his hands raised in fervent prayer, at the foot of the dread judgement seat
25. The etymos of the Sanskrit word aamayah is directly related to slaying. The full text of the verse analysed: Durjjanah sajjano bhooyaath/Sajjana shantim aapnuyaath// Shantho muchyetha bandhebhyo/ Mukthaascha anyaan vimochayeth// Sarve bhavanthu sukhinoh/Sarve santhu niraamayah// Sarve bhadraani pasyanthu/Maa kaschith dukhabhaag bhaveth// (Let durjjana become righteous/ Let the righteous become serene//Let the serene become freed of bonds/Let those freed free others// Let there be wellbeing for everyone/Let anguish come to an end// Let auspiciousness be found everywhere/Let there be no one suffering sadness.–cited from T.P.Balakrishnan Nair, Kalady and Sri Sankaracharya p.27

Chapters III–VI — the printed witness (pp. 26–100)

the printed book: copy Theol Varia 8083 of the revised Kiental edition, Universitätsbibliothek Bern, scanned by the custodian 2026-08-25 and transcribed at diplomatic grade the same evening; body and the complete printed apparatus, page by page; divergences from the digital witnesses are marked in place.

Printed p. 26 (scan01) — CHAPTER III OPENS

Body

Chapter III

Identity:

The First Definition

Let us trace backwardly the kingdom bereft now of its illusory modes. He uniquely brandishes it monopolistically as a reward from "your father who is in heaven." Arch rebel that he is, it is proffered confidingly in one place,^1 mockingly in another,^2 and fulsomely and finally by Paul, his champion and dissertator.^3

We should therefore be capable of finding our way by using this proprietary chip of reward and also by looking out for the signpost of the kingdom bereft of heaven and god. If it leads to a unitary source-being of both the kingdom and the reward, then that being is the invariable all along the way. Since reward is still common in both, it is an additional transcending invariable integrating that being with jesus,^4 his embodied manifestation under a new caption acquired through the medium of his human [¶ 2 continues on p. 27]

Footnotes

1. See Matthew 6:1: "Be sure you do not perform your acts of piety before men, for them to watch; if you do that, you have no title to a reward from your father who is in heaven."

2. ibid., New World Translation: "Take good care not to practice your righteousness in front of men in order to be observed by them; otherwise you will have no reward with your father who is in the heavens."

3. See I corinthians 3:8: "Now he that plants and he that waters are one, but each person will receive his own reward according to his own labour."

4. The nomenclature jesus does not conform to the norms of a nominative proper name. cf., Insight, Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 48, for its link with archetype Isaac.

Printed p. 27 (scan02)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/27

Body

[¶ 2 concluded:] female. Finally, we should also expect to find an impingement of the two beings at historical level, consistent with his forms prior to, and subsequently from, embodiment.

[ADJUDICATION — the Parthenogenesis sentence. Printed text ends "…and subsequently from, embodiment." — there is NO "through Parthenogenesis". Print agrees with the corpus txt against AM-2. Formal confirmation of intake §3.1.]

Objectively perceiving him realistically as Lucifer then, Mary of Agreda inscribed all that he disinterred before her in the vision he caused in her in his beinghood and form prior to his embodiment as jesus. This woman was a nun. Through the inherent power of constant meditation on the same being in his embodied identity, she was capacitated—unperceived and unperceivable by her in any of its authentic notes—to transcend the illusion in those moments of the vision, and tactilely commune with the real being behind the illusion. Existence of such transcending meditation is acknowledged in its positive sense by the Vedic rishis.^5

It is our position that the christian devotee, in the desire for reward that dominates him, deliberately institutes in his consciousness as the object of his meditation the being that is the subject of his faith. Since this being is in reality the identical being as Lucifer, the intensity of the devotee's meditation by a subjective faith in the objective and conscious projection of the affected identity is the measure of her own or his own identification with him. Beings like Mary of Agreda are again "distinguished" from the rest by an overpowering intensity, which is capable of reaching beyond the false and antithetical identity by classically travelling along the protested identity. It is thus that such an individual can capture the being emptied of the illusion that blankets the reality at other times. The consciousness of the seer then is disconnected from normal perceptions and transported to the time and site of the being perceived.

Mary of Agreda went backwards in our time^6 to the first [¶ 5 continues on p. 28]

Footnotes

5. See Badarayanan, quoted in Max Muller, ibid., p. lxxvi: "The devotee engaged in meditation on Brahman is to view it as constituting his own Self."

6. On the consideration that time is relative and commonly enlarging from a uniform primary unit for gods as well as humans, such a phenomenon is realistic. The minutest time unit in the Sanskrit scriptures, which constitute the articulation [n. 6 continues on p. 28 →]

Printed p. 28 (scan03)

Running head: 28/The Ancient Mother II: Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 5 concluded:] council of Lucifer and directly witnessed the proceedings as a fraternal observer. The phenomenon immeasurably surpasses in its complexion all hitherto observed manifestations of spirit possession.^7 But its strains can be detected all the same in the writings of the avowed christian mystics of the time.^8

The being self-named as jesus comes upon history with a talk that he gives from the top of a hill. This talk includes three dictums. We hold that the being that launched forth with this [¶ 6 continues on p. 29]

Footnotes

[n. 6, ← continued from p. 27:] of Brahmav, consists of paramanu (ultimate atom). However, the absolutely smallest passage of time is only made up of two paramanus. This prenominal unit is called dvainukam. The succeeding unit is thruti, period comprising lapse of three dvainukams. Following thruti is thaalparya, lapse of 100 thrutis, then nimesham (30 thaalparyas), then kashta (18 nimeshas), then kala (30 kashtas), then kshanam (30 kalas), then muhurtham (12 kshanams), then ahorathram (30 muhurthams), then masam (30 ahorathrams), then rithu (2 masams), then ayanam (3 rithus), and then manushyavarsham (human year), which is the period of time occupied by two ayanams, or 18,895,680,000,000 pairs of paramanus, or 37,791,360,000,000 split-units of the same. The next unit after manushyavarsham is devavarsham (god-year), which is the period occupied by 360 human years. This is the time unit of Lucifer, and manushyavarsham the time unit he additionally acquired from his female Mary. To go on with the computation, 12000 god-years make one super-era (mahayugam), 1000 super-eras one kalpam, two kalpams one Brahmav-day, 30 Brahmav-days one Brahmav-masam, 12 Brahmav-masams one Brahmav-year, and 100 Brahmav-years the super deluge of consciousness (mahapralayam), when everything gets dissolved, including Brahmav. This signifies the termination of scripture. The regeneration is effected by Sivan, who is both destroyer and regenerator, and the type of the super-man specie. [n. 6 ends]

7. On the credibility of spirit possession, see Peter Brown, op. cit., p. 108: "Abundant anthropological material has made the phenomena of spirit possession eminently intelligible in observed societies. These studies have made plain that we are not dealing with aberrations but with the regular verbs in a stable grammar of the impingement of the supernatural (read submundane) in society that stretches from the new testament deep into the middle ages."

8. For instance, John of the cross (1542-1591). His writings propound a whole system of tactile communication with Lucifer graduating to what he calls "spiritual marriage" in the case of the most proficient practitioners. He has this to say in one of his letters to a nun: "You have never been better-off than now, for you have never known yourself so evil."—cited from M. Ermyntrude, Carmel Garnered, p. 134.

Printed p. 29 (scan04)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/29

Body

[¶ 6 concluded:] talk is the same being, viz., Lucifer, who communicated the same three dictums to Mary of Agreda. Between Agreda and the hill, the being has designedly procured unto himself^9 a transformation from its physical interaction with the human female that it acquired. This transformation transformed too the visage of the dictums by suddenly precipitating each one of them to their antipodal points. Then at a secondary level we hold too that the historical elements contained in the manifesto he deposited in Mary of Agreda are of such a kind of consanguinity with historical christianity as to show the latter to be a realisation of the former and thus to prove even at this secondary level the identity of the being that manifested itself to Mary of Agreda with the being that is the source of historical christianity.

We quote now from the revelations of Mary of Agreda:

"Lucifer said:

[the manifesto is set as an indented block:]

1. "We will subject the human creatures to our influence in order to destroy them. 2. We will persecute this race of men and will deprive them of the reward promised to them.^10 3. I will gain great victories over them, and I will destroy them all and subject them to my designs. 4. I will sow new sects and errors, and set up new laws contrary to those of the most high in all things.^11 5. I will raise up from among men false prophets and leaders who will spread these doctrines. 6. I will scatter this seed through them, and [manifesto block continues on p. 30]

Footnotes

9. Note here that the genre of godly beings, running or erstwhile, are masculine in gender. See the gender classification at genesis 18:10: "I will come back, said he who was speaking . . ."

10. This is in reference to Sivan's words spoken to Eve at genesis 3:4-5. Since the speaker in the revelations is Lucifer, they are sensed by him, in consonance with the terminology of christianity, inevitably as a reward. The Vedic rishis teach the joining of the individual soul with the Self, consisting of bliss, to be a mechanical effect of knowledge. cf., Badarayanan, quoted in Max Muller, ibid., p. 71. See also Sankaracharya, quoted at p. 316, ibid: "All those who teach the final release of the soul [self] are agreed that it results from perfect knowledge." See also Insight, ibid., pp. 21-30, for the being speaking to Eve systemically proved to be Sivan.

11. This is again a terminology accruing from christianity.

Printed p. 30 (scan05)

Running head: 30/The Ancient Mother II: Judgement on christianity

Body

[manifesto block continued from p. 29:] afterwards I will assign them a place in these deep torments. 7. I will afflict the poor, oppress the suffering and persecute the meek. 8. I will sow discord, excite wars, and stir up nations against each other. 9. 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. 10. This is my kingdom, and this is the reward which I will give to those who follow me. 11. And you, you demons who were injured together with me, follow me! 12. Obey me in the pursuit of this vengeance, as you have followed me in the rebellion!^12 13. Pretend to love men in order to destroy them; serve them in order to deceive them and to ruin them; help them in order to pervert them and to draw them into these regions of Hell!"

[The manifesto block ends here. No word of the printed manifesto (sentences 1–13) carries bold or italic emphasis.]

Sentences 1 to 6, 8 and 9, and 11, 12 and 13 pertain to action in history. The remaining two sentences, 7 and 10, refer to concepts.

The first set of sentences are decisively impressed with the image of historical christianity. Sentence 13 covers its entire "track record." Man is by nature good, as evidenced by the system of Sankaracharya, who derives even phenomenal knowledge from goodness.^13 In spite of this, it is impossible for a per- [¶ 11 continues on p. 31]

Footnotes

12. See n. 15, infra. See also n. 8, p. 73, Ancient Mother-I.

13. See Sankaracharya, quoted in Max Muller, ibid., pp. 46, 48-49: "Knowledge is an attribute of the guna (gene) of goodness. By means of this attribute of goodness, viz., knowledge, certain men are known as all-knowing Yogins; for omniscience is acknowledged to be connected with the very highest degree of goodness. The element of goodness is the cause of all-knowingness. Knowledge can arise only where goodness is predominant. A modification of goodness which is not connected with a witnessing principle is not called knowledge." See also Bhagavad Gita, XIV, 17, quoted by Sankaracharya: "From goodness springs knowledge."—cited at p. 46, ibid. Translator George Thibaut adds the note: "Goodness is the most exalted of the three constituent elements whose state of equipoise constitutes the pradhana" (the natural state of anything).

Printed p. 31 (scan06)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/31

Body

[¶ 11 concluded:] forming christian man to be good in this sense, for its own sake. Always and everywhere, the christian service is permeated by the desire to pervert individuals and races in the direction of Lucifer,^14 and motivated in the intermediary individual by a more acute desire to excel in his portion of the anticipated paradise. Such a phenomenon suddenly taking hold in history coincidentally with the "rising" of Mary's uterine son cannot be natural. The endearing pretext, the voluntary service, the deceitful aid—all are palpably imprinted with the same watermark that is apprehended in the netherly world where Mary of Agreda was transported.

The reward figuring in sentence 2 of Lucifer (Being 1) is distinguished from the reward mentioned in sentence 10. The second reward is expressly represented as the exact antithesis of the first. The first reward is for this reason the subjective thesis of the manifesto of Lucifer, and hence the objective antithesis, since the subject is a rebel—as also man's supreme enemy—by autonomous exclusive definition in christianity, as perceived from the revelations of Mary of Agreda (She visually discerns the genesis of the man specie as the precise moment of the rebellion: "Then Lucifer and his angels rebelled"^15), and from etymos- [¶ 12 continues on p. 32]

Footnotes

14. Vide John Calvin, quoted by William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin, A Sixteenth Century Portrait, p. 192: "When jesus appeared, he acquired possession of the whole world; god has consecrated the entire earth to the end that we may inhabit it and live under his reign." Even lexicographic endeavours are motivated in behalf of Lucifer. cf., Sir Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary. He outspokenly says in the introduction that the work was compiled with "the main object" of missionisation of the Hindu races. He writes how a certain Colonel Boden of the British mercenary troops in India left a munificent bequest with a special object, "most explicitly stated in his will," "to promote the translation of the 'scriptures' into Sanskrit, so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion (read subversion) of the natives of India to the christian 'religion.' " Sir Monier-Williams says besides that he personally made the translation of his "sacred scriptures" into Sanskrit the chief aim of his career as a professor of the Vedic language (pp. ix, xi).

15. See the revelations of Mary of Agreda, cited by Cyril Marystone, Grave and Urgent Warnings from Heaven, Vol. I, p. 137. As regards the details of the un- [n. 15 continues on p. 32 →]

Printed p. 32 (scan07)

Running head: 32/The Ancient Mother II: Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 12 concluded:] ian verbal history. (Vide the concomitant sphotam [etymosian meaning] of "Lucifer": fallen rebel archangel; the devil.)

The only place where the above thesis appears underivedly, and as objective thesis, so validated by confirmation on the part of the indicter,^16 is the genesis account in the bible book. This is the statement the serpent (Being 2) made to Eve^17 and the pretender god (Being 3) later confirmed,^18 contradicting his original statement that "in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." This confirmatory act on the part of the indicter in, and protagonist of, the bible book reciprocally inverts the given thesis and antithesis of genesis, turning the thesis so agitated there^19 into antithesis and manifesting the similarly agitated antithesis^20 as a fraudulent, deceptive, malignant thesis against [¶ 13 continues on p. 33]

Footnotes

[n. 15, ← continued from p. 31:] furlededly simultaneous rebellion, the authentic account of Mary of Agreda still inevitably reflects from the same rebellion, firstly from her own option as its unconscious but volunteering agent, under pressure of an organically flawed identification, and secondly from the composition of Lucifer himself as a gleesome rebel unto himself. For example, she was shown Michael visioned in the role of a rebel against the rebel at the "historical" moment of the rebellion, which was rebelliously manifested to her as transacting in the christian "heaven." However, the identical Michael is realistically presented and located, gleesomely, in the christian scriptures themselves (which are the authentic self-expression of Lucifer by universal definition in christianity—"unerrant word of god"—as necessarily understood in the light of the identity) in the netherworld by Lucifer's lineal brother and messmate—in the role of a male-procurer for Lucifer. So too is his master. See Jude 9. [n. 15 ends]

16. See genesis 3:1 for indictment of serpent by Lucifer: "There was none that could match the serpent in cunning."

17. Serpent to Eve: "No, you shall not die the death. For god doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof your eyes will be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."—genesis 3: 4-5.

18. See the ex-god's monologue, ibid., 3:22: "Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever." The text continues with the god rhapsodising in fancy that he has deprived man of the fruit of immortality.

19. "Of every tree of paradise, thou shalt eat."—genesis 2:16.

20. See genesis 2:17: "For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

Printed p. 33 (scan08)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/33

Body

[¶ 13 concluded:] man. Since this newly derived objective antithesis directed towards, and against, man ("You must not eat the fruit of the tree that gives knowledge of everything; if you do, you will die the same day"^21) appears in the identical direction and sense in Lucifer's manifesto laid before Mary of Agreda ("I will deprive them of the reward promised to them"), Beings 1 and 3 are the same by coagulation of antitheses.

Now from the testimony^22 standpoint. We have two testimonies each from Beings 1 and 3 and one from Being 2. The testimony of Being 2 points to man through the medium of his companion the way that will lead him to immortality: "No, you shall not die the death. For god doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes will be opened; and you shall be as gods knowing good and evil."—genesis 3:4-5. The second testimony of Being 3 concedes the testimony of Being 2 as valid, and at the same time contradicts with his own first testimony. The second testimony: "Here is Adam become like one of ourselves, with knowledge of good and evil; now he has only to lift his hand and gather fruit from the tree of life as well, and he will live endlessly."—ibid., 3:22. The first testimony of Being 3: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."—ibid., 2:17.

The confirmation on the part of the protagonist of the testimony of Being 2, who was framed as the antagonist, turns the said testimony into the thesis. Consequently, the first testimony of Being 3 becomes the antithesis. The mutual internal contradiction contained in the two testimonies of Being 3 externally verifies the newly derived thesis. The first testimony had portended immediate death. The second concedes the mendacity of the first by positive admission to a change of state in Adam—"Here is Adam become . . . "—instead of the portended extinction.

Footnotes

21. cf., corpus and note, genesis 2:17, Good News bible.

22. testimony: "a decree attested in scripture."

Printed p. 34 (scan09)

Running head: 34/The Ancient Mother II: Judgement on christianity

Body

By reason of the above voluntary admission on the part of the protagonist to the veracity of the antagonist's testimony and the autonomous internal contradiction with the former's own earlier testimony, the testimony of Being 2 stands bilaterally proved as credible. (Incidentally, the baffling contradiction was effectuated by a piece of responsible action on the part of Eve.) This one fact sufficiently exposes that the consciousness of Being 3 is replete with infernal animus against man.

He had effectively told Adam that he would die consequent upon performing a certain action. In couching his prohibition in terms that made death an impersonal absolute entity—"You will die the death"—he manifests he is dominated by this consciousness of demoniac animosity. Firstly, he himself ostentatiously admits to the contrary, subsequently to the performance of the act that he had prohibited in man under pain of self-extinction. So he does when he admits to a mere change of state in Adam—"here is Adam become . . ." (genesis 3:22)—consequent to the act. (Far from the death he had portended, this change by his own admission is in the opposite direction of eventual deathlessness [ibid.]).

Thus too is the change cognised by Adam the victim, as Being 3 postprandially admits: "They [solely] became aware of their nakedness," and as Adam himself perceives: "I was naked." Since the change is not on the line that Adam was occasioned to anticipate—"You will die the death"—Adam is now in deadly fear. "I was afraid," he says. This then is the genesis of christian Fear.

By generating this phenomenal fear, Being 3 stands excoriated by himself as well as identified by man as the phenomenal enemy of man. Further, since Lucifer is the only such enemy as perceived from his own voluntary declaration, Being 3 and Lucifer nucleate back and forth into each other, the former the manifestation of the latter in the mode of scripture, as resolved in his manifesto, and the latter the archetypal form of the former. Since scripture, original or counterfeit, is the criterion of reality yet, the christian scripture arising from an antithesis but preten- [¶ 19 continues on p. 35]

Footnotes

(none on this page)

Printed p. 35 (scan10)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/35

Body

[¶ 19 concluded:] tiously overlaid with all the forms of a thesis, seeks to liquidate reality, firstly from its very existence under the threatening rebellious label of holy book, and secondly, and even more dangerously, from having been knowingly turned in these 2000 years by the empire of Lucifer working overtime into a component in consciousness, and consequently into the thesis. Only from correct perception of its true nature can this thesis of illusion be overthrown. Since man can only exist under conditions of correct knowledge, and since a sense of scripture is still innate in him as a generality, such a global and universal pretext cannot but cause disastrous consequences to individuals and races and to the specie as a whole.

Frustrated in his malignancy against man (His reaction is embodied in the text "Behold" [genesis 3:22] in the sense of apprehension of the future with alarm), Being 3 immediately launches historical christianity. He first brings the curtain down by closing the scene and the chapter on the self-assuring note that man could "reach the tree of life no longer," since he "drove him out" and in addition posted armed sentry at the gate. Again contradicting himself, he now still pursues Adam although having been thus driven out, and produces Cain and Abel and, making use of them in unabashed multiple contradiction, engineers into the race by way of his ensuing scripture, and consequently in all his subsequent history through the semitic line produced from Shem, the gene of anger. The original scriptures and the literature arising from them tell us, as far as they can consistently with their insensibility to Lucifer in his rebellion, that it is this Krodham that became Lucifer.^23

Footnotes

23. Vide Thunjath Ramanujan Ezhuthachan, Adhyatma Ramayanam, p. 133: "From krodham (anger) comes about assassination of mother, father, biological brother, friends and acquaintances. No doubt it is krodham (anger) that became Yaman." Yaman is the scriptural appellation of god of death. On account of recoiling from Lucifer, the Sanskrit scriptures also treat Yaman as god of dharma. Reading the text in the context of the usurpative christian scriptures, Yaman is Lucifer, since the latter phenomenalises death at the very beginning of his self-expressive book.

Printed p. 36 (scan11)

Running head: 36/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

Now for the fourth being, jesus, uterine son of Mary. This apparently distinct being coagulates into the same mass from existence of the kingdom and the reward as a common factor between him and Lucifer. Because this kingdom is isolated by him from heaven and god and expressly proferred in furtherance of a covenant between him and his father, the covenantal father too is the same being as Lucifer. The kingdom in reward is the common factor between the uterine son and Lucifer who again is the same being as the "father in the heavens" by reason of uniformity of antithesis. Thus the kingdom is the "eternal fire" of mental anguish as realistically described by Lucifer, as unmistakably objectified by his prototype ("the lord rained down sulphur and fire from his abode"—genesis 19:24), as rebelliously served on an enticing plate of heaven and god by jesus, and as accurately repeated by Jude, his lineal brother ("they bear their sentence of eternal fire"—Jude, 7).

By consciousness judged on the running standard of infernal malignancy against man, jesus then spontaneously nucleates into a chip of the old block of Lucifer. Alone in him of all the three, there now operates alongside that chip a new consciousness that he has acquired from interaction with the human female, which capacitates him to diffuse the malignancy in a grammar of overt goodness. (This is the divisive of time, rebelliously labelled by historical christianity as its divider. Lucifer the devil supreme incarnating as pseudo-man!) But whenever the consciousness asserts itself, it asserts as the same consciousness as Lucifer's, since we see a determination in him to supplant man's biological father with his own true (from Sanskrit daaruna: hard) father, viz., Lucifer. It is pretentious merely from its splendiferousness: "Nor are you to call any man on earth your father; you have but one father, and he is in heaven." It is also programmed since at its beginning it is merely inclusive: "Our father who art in the heavens," he tells inclusively to man.

Such an ensemble obviously indivisibly programmed from its beginning to the loud shout at the end—"Eli, Eli" or "Eloi, Eloi," one cannot be sure which—necessarily points to a begin- [¶ 23 continues on p. 37]

Footnotes

(none on this page)

Printed p. 37 (scan12)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/37

Body

[¶ 23 concluded:] ning before this beginning and thus again inevitably to Lucifer in his council. The conscious pretext even is apprehensible in these words at his brain death, which are bodily picked consciously from independent earlier texts that he already knew.^24

He concludes: "Deliver us from evil." We have seen from his anchoress how the positive evil that he here discharges upon consciousness, originated in his own first council that she directly witnessed.^25 By reason of this symptomatic^26 coagulation of "evil," the agent here is the same one as the being of the first council. Since Lucifer is the name proper to that being's nature as creator of positive evil, it is the name proper also to its rebellious discharger here.

Afterwards, he identifies the aerial father exclusively as my father:^27 "My father who is in the heavens." Yet more, he unifies himself with this father: "I and my father are one."

Again he is realistic in using the term "my father" to address Lucifer. The fornication of Mary, daughter of Joachim, by Lucifer in paisacha vivaham,^28 known already to the Vedic writers, capacitates him on the one hand to discern a sonhood [¶ 26 continues on p. 38]

Footnotes

24. The words ascribed to him identically by Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) at his brain death are a practised duplication of psalm 22:1 of David. (The controversial text is enumerated as psalm 21:1 in the catholic books.) Psalm 22 articulates the poet's consciousness responding in anguish to the mistaken identification of the affecting god. Both in protestant and catholic books, this poem is uniformly sandwiched between antithetical poems from the identical writer that purport to applaud the same god.

25. See her intervening comment: "All iniquity had its origin in that abominable gathering."—vide Cyril Marystone, op. cit., p. 141.

26. symptomatic: "having the characteristics of a particular disease but arising from another cause."

27. The text precludes any confusion here with Joseph who is addressed as the "supposed father." Luke 3:23: "And jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years: being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph." The same four words read in another translation as "so people thought," and in yet another as, "as the opinion was."

28. See Insight, ibid., pp. 46-49: "christianity proved as paisacha vivaham/ Fornication by the devil."

Printed p. 38 (scan13)

Running head: 38/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 26 concluded:] whenever the consciousness so operates and on the other to sense his unifactorialness with Lucifer whenever the consciousness is so directed, universally subject to rebellion, which is the preponderant nature of the being in any case. Further, an extrinsic sense of this double consciousness, a sense acquired from the terrestrial female, also capacitates him to choose one or other of these moments from his will. The will of man with its tendency towards goodness is feminine in source.

The inflexibility towards malignancy in his case^29 is operatic (from "operation") in him as its inheritor and masked carrier in a continuum of consciousness from his archetype and prototype, with rebellion the cohesive substratum throughout. The rebellion is perceptible in the archetype where he says he will persecute his followers with so much the greater torments the more faithfully they follow him, in the prototype where he directly asks Cain to murder Abel,^30 who admittedly pleased him with a bloody rite,^31 does the deed himself,^32 and then confronts Cain to account for the body,^33 and in the typifying carrier where he cleverly reveals the site of the assassination while simultaneously diverting the corpus delicti to man.

The bible book ends with an autonomous, sworn statement by jesus of his identity as Lucifer (revelation 22:16). By reason of the kingdom having been already commissioned at this point,^34 he reverts to delusion and glee, which are constituent dispositions in the psychological anatomy of asuras,^35 as the fallen angels [¶ 28 continues on p. 39]

Footnotes

29. See ch. IV.

30. See Knox bible, p.3 (Lucifer to Cain): "Meanwhile he [Abel] is at thy mercy and thou canst have thy way with him."

31. ibid: "On Abel, and on his offering, the lord looked with favour."

32. Vide Ancient Mother—I, ch. VII: "Assassination of Abel." See also Insight, ibid., pp. 31-38: "It is the 'lord' that killed Abel."

33. Knox bible, p.4: "Then the lord said to Cain, Where is thy brother Abel?"

34. See John 21:15-17: "Feed my lambs. Shepherd my little sheep. Feed my little sheep."

35. These dispositions are at once gradational and unitary, beginning from sexuality and going all the way to envy as the last item. Collectively they are [n. 35 continues on p. 39 →]

Printed p. 39 (scan14)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/39

Body

[¶ 28 concluded:] are sensed by the Vedic rishis.^36 The same as he did to Mary of Agreda, he reveals himself now to John, the follower he particularly liked,^37 as the same being she nominatively identified as Lucifer.^38 In the place of the nominative designation recounted to Agreda, this time the autonomous identification with that being is communicated to John in a similar encounter through the sphotam (etymos) of "Lucifer," which is the morning star. Morning star is the literal or actual meaning of the word Lucifer at its origin. But organic rebel that he is, jesus in no wise would say even compatibly that he is this. He says consistently with the rebellion that he is still the "bright morning star" and simultaneously rebels, cyclically, against this very consistency in other versions by this anacoluthon, "bright and morning star."

This harking back is compatible however with the phenomenon of his interaction with the female, which produces in him an apparent human consciousness, which is definitively obliterated at the same moment as its expression by the simmering ancestral consciousness of malignant rebellion. "Blessed are the poor," he begins to say euphemistically, and immediately reverts consciously in the same breath and sentence to the ancestral mode, "for yours is the kingdom of god" (Luke 6:20), and simultaneously rebels against this by pronouncing "kingdom of the heavens" (Matthew 5:3, New World Translation) in its place and also, simultaneously, "kingdom of heaven" (ibid., Knox bible) in the place of this second article. Since each one of these different proof-texts equally is the unerrant "word of god" and relates to [¶ 29 continues on p. 40]

Footnotes

[n. 35, ← continued from p. 38:] called ashtaragangal (octet of asuraic prepossessions). The fifth one in the string is madham (delusion) and the seventh dambham (glee or vaingloriousness). [n. 35 ends]

36. The Sanskrit sound asura, meaning ex-god (from a+sura), equally meant deva or god in ancient times. One of the synonyms of the sound in the Vedas is in fact purvadevan (ex-god). Because of unrighteous acts on their part, asuras got self-expelled from the class of devas. Like devas, these beings are bodiless, except Lucifer who got himself embodied. Also for this reason, Lucifer is not directly perceived by the Sanskrit books.

37. cf., John 21:20.

38. See revelation 22:16: "I am the bright morning star."

Printed p. 40 (scan15)

Running head: 40/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 29 concluded:] a transaction unique to this being, their requisite conflation is only possible from the realistic integrator of his identity with Lucifer, absolutely the only scriptural being that is a composite rebel. (See also infra, ch. VI).

The dictum adorning poverty is found in two separate reports of a talk given from a mountaintop. Of the two apparent scribes reporting this very instant in one and the same speech, Luke restrictingly quotes "you poor" instead of the definitive "the poor" of Matthew. But in Luke, the auditors are limited to twelve persons, his "disciples," and he pronounced the dictum "lifting up his eyes on them." The duplex proof-text of Matthew is inclusive also of "the multitudes," and he spoke here the same text "opening his mouth."

We are thus confronted with two varying sets of data formed from the same instant of a common history by an apparently indiscriminate utilisation of pieces. Since these pieces are phenomenal, the invariable should be sought at the level of scripture. But while Matthew directly quotes him as offering "kingdom of the heavens," as we saw, Luke quotes the same verbal instant as "kingdom of god." Once again, "kingdom of the heavens" reads as "kingdom of heaven" in another proof-text of the selfsame instant from an actual delivery.

The evocation of the lost brightness is also compatible at the level of the aftermath of his embodied existence, which historical christianity calls eastertide. He fancies here that he had regained the old brightness. As to the possibility of his redemption, the orthodox christian consciousness itself definitely rules it out.^39

Footnotes

39. C.A. Patrides discusses the issue under the banner of "the possibility of redemption for satan," prevalently applying the term "satan" exclusively to Beelzebub. He quotes Sir John Hayward that redemption is impossible, since their wills are "inflexible, and they are immovable from that which once they apprehend." Eastern theologians occasionally claim that the fallen angels may eventually redeem themselves. This view normally assigned to Origen was renounced by Western theologians with "impressive unanimity." "The notion of eternal damnation," writes Patrides, "is not particularly attractive; but Milton, and Protestants generally, never went so far as some medieval expositors who even [n. 39 continues on p. 41 →]

Printed p. 41 (scan16)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/41

Body

The Vedic rishis also make a deliberate anacoluthon. This is incorporated in Mundakopanishad in the mantra, Sathyameva Jayathe / naanrutham (Truth wins ever, not falsehood), a grammatical anacoluthon from the syntactic sathyameva jayathi.^40

But while it is consciously made here by the rishi to reassure man impassively of the final triumph of truth beyond all differences of language, the uterine jesus employs the selfsame mode to revel in the genocide of truth under an overtly protesting garb of truth "schematized" (from Sanskrit sahate)^41 by his most favored pupil. (The multiplicity of language is itself contrived by the same being.^42) What then is truth and what is it in the [¶ 34 continues on p. 42]

Footnotes

[n. 39, ← continued from p. 40:] claimed that the joy of the blessed in heaven will be increased by the sight of the torments of the damned in hell. This view was also shared by Thomas Aquinas who was canonised."—C.A. Patrides, Milton and the Christian Tradition, pp. 281-82. The Western theologians however have the sanction of the christian scripture, in which the archetypal being Abraham and one Lazarus are together portrayed as optically enjoying the torments of a rich man cast personally into hell by the maker of the christian scriptures. Luke 16:25-26: "Remember that you received in full your good things in your lifetime, but Lazarus correspondingly the injurious things. Now, however, he is having comfort here but you are in anguish. And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you people, so that those wanting to go over from here to you people cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us." As regards Beelzebub's redemption, treating him realistically as segmentally different from the case of Lucifer, the Vedic rishis are positive. See Abbe J.A. Dubois, op. cit., p. 565: "The Hindu sacred writers say nothing of eternal punishment. When the Kali-yuga (age of anger), in which we now live, has filled its allotted span, all souls will return to the divine essence, and the world having come to an end, the sufferings of the damned will cease also." The abbe obviously incorporates into his text terms like sufferings, soul, and end of the world from the grammar of christianity, which are irrelevant to reality and the frame of the Vedic writers, who reflect and transmit that reality. The corresponding objective terms would be grief over samsaram, Self, and end of a yugam, or time-cycle. [n. 39 ends]

40. See M.K. Ramakrishnan, Vedas and Upanishads: A Study, p. 246: "The expression jayathe is not grammatically correct. It should have been jayathi. But scriptural use has endowed jayathe with sanction."

41. See John 14:6: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father (read Lucifer) except through me."

42. See genesis 11:1, 8-9: "Hitherto, the world had only one way of speech, [n. 42 continues on p. 42 →]

Printed p. 42 (scan17)

Running head: 42/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 34 concluded:] christian milieau? The Vedic rishis define truth as the concept made valid in righteousness by man.—Sabdathaaraavali, 15th ed., p. 1680. On this side, a realistic apprehension of truth is missing.^43 Considering that mankind is one, whether in East or West, this lacuna should be laid at the door of the western scriptures, which are the self-expression of Lucifer, the original and real sinner,^44 who still stands towering in their consciousness as the embodied truth, so self-proclaimed, and man as the original and historical sinner. They would rather discard his book than its centrepiece^45 although his beingness remains singularly petrified in the book.

Let us now consider what portion would have been left to man had he followed Being 3 and had Eve spurned the data proferred by Being 2 after he unwittingly briefed himself on the proceedings against man in Being 3's consciousness. For, Being 2 had come in unpremeditatedly: "What is this command Being [¶ 35 continues on p. 43]

Footnotes

[n. 42, ← continued from p. 41:] only one language. The lord broke up their common home, and scattered them over the earth, and the building of the city came to an end. That is why it was called babel, Confusion, because it was there that the lord confused the whole world's speech, and scattered them far away, over the wide face of the earth." [n. 42 ends]

43. See J.R. Lucas, ibid., p. 147: "The word 'true' does not occur in the formal proof (of the Godelian argument) because truth cannot be adequately formalised. We cannot define truth. I think I know what truth is, but I know I cannot tell anybody else what exactly it is. I cannot produce a formula which will cover all cases."

44. See the intervening comment of Mary of Agreda on the first council of Lucifer: "All iniquity had its origin in that abominable gathering." She informs that "no human tongue can explain the malice and fury of this first council of Lucifer 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."—vide Cyril Marystone, ibid.

45. For example, B.R. Rees. He acknowledges original sin realistically, if not comprehensively, as a "christian myth."—B.R. Rees, Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic, p. 74. However, he does not go into the related question of the identity of the source-being of the scriptural concept of original sin. Efferently centred on the same being, that concept unheraldedly turns into a historical phenomenon in "general" consciousness at the same date as Mary's uterine son.

Printed p. 43 (scan18)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/43

Body

[¶ 35 concluded:] 3 has given you, not to eat the fruit of any tree in the garden?" "Any" in the universal sense evidences that Being 2 is unaware, on principle of universal goodness, of the particular prohibition made by Being 3.

Being 3 had said in the beginning that they may eat the fruit of every tree except of the tree of knowledge: "Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat." The trees thus permitted to be eaten from include the tree of life, or the tree of immortality. (This is a further tree extant at the same site, of whose accessibility, however, they were not specifically or comparably informed.) This means that grasping and nourishing from the fruit of the tree of life is unconditional, from comprehensive clearance. But Being 3 admits after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge that this was not really so: "Now, he has only to lift his hand and gather fruit to eat from the tree of life as well, and he will live endlessly." "Now" refers to the new circumstance of their having acquired knowledge. "Only" signifies in the context Being 3's postprandial acknowledgement of the underived fraud immanent in the prohibition. In the wide context, it also means—unbargained for by the particular speaker—firstly that immortality is only obtainable from knowledge and secondly that it is mechanically obtainable from knowledge.

The artificer of underived fraud that he is, Lucifer effectively in his consciousness foreclosed jnanam to man by misrepresenting that its dividend was death, instead of deathlessness. On the contrary, he admits after the outcome precipitated by Sivan that the foreclosed jnanam all along had been indispensable for attaining deathlessness.

Christianity still claims to be a system for redeeming man from mortality. In that case, at the end of christianity, we should, at least, find the fruit of the tree of life relinquished by the tree and dropped down to the ground below in the garden which, according to christianity, was reopened by the so-called act of redemption. John has a direct vision of this tree at the end of the bible book. He saw the tree was still bearing its fruits even at [¶ 38 continues on p. 44]

Footnotes

(none on this page)

Printed p. 44 (scan19)

Running head: 44/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 38 concluded:] that date beyond the dissolution: "On either side of the river, mid-way along the city street, grows the tree that gives life, bearing its fruit twelvefold."—revelation 22:2, Knox bible.

Therefore, if Being 2 had not intervened, if Eve had not taken that first step of boldly plucking it and eating herself, before serving to Adam and eating together with him, if Adam had heeded him in "faith," man would have been utterly bankrupt. He would not have had knowledge, nor would he have had life. All he would have had would have been the fear of an entity that the christian god named as death, which would have killed him anyway. Since this prospect is only manifested at the end of christianity, with escape now hopeless, the entire course of christianity from genesis to dissolution is discerned as a scheme for the ultimate corrosion and liquidation of man, before whom it is pretentiously arrayed and hawked about globally as his redemption by the empire that Being 4 the so-called jesus set up, and discharged on him.

This is also the same pretext that Lucifer announced in his council witnessed by Mary of Agreda. Therefore, Beings 1, 3, and 4 are all one and the same being, all commonly engaged moreover in gleefully executing this deadly pretext at different stages of an identical operation, which is simultaneously relayed to their generic historical empire. The first is the archetypal stage, the second prototypal, the third typal, and the fourth, the trio's so-called church, cumulative and physical. The final and terminative operation will be from man; it is the dismantling of the amphitheatre itself. The being knows too that this will come to pass. But malignant rebel that he is, he has at once covered for it and vented the malignancy against man by instituting the ultimate fear of end of the world. It is the typical grammar in which the rebel reacts to his own end.

These then are the vignettes of primordial and incarnate antipathy against man and of a diffusive being that is so saturant with it that it goes to unabashed lengths of self-contradiction even at risk of eventual detection. Pursuing this dominant gene, we can discern the being in all his manifestations. We find the [¶ 41 continues on p. 45]

Footnotes

(none on this page)

Printed p. 45 (scan20)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/45

Body

[¶ 41 concluded:] identical misanthropy in Lucifer when he reveals himself classically to Mary of Agreda. Instead of jehovah and jesus, the name there is Lucifer, but the personality configuration in all three is the same. Scanning the configurations, the different names are discerned as of a single being, viz., post-rebellion Lucifer, and his manifesto laid in Mary of Agreda the archetypal mould of the bible book in its so-called old testament, and the so-called new testament the overtly transformed type accruing from the above prototype by way of her namesake.

We find in a word identity of consciousness between the being of the two books and the being summated by Mary of Agreda after she reverted to her own time: "No human tongue can explain the malice and fury of this first council of Lucifer and his hosts against the human race." On the details of the pogrom, she quotes directly from the council: "Pretend to love men in order to destroy them; serve them in order to deceive them and to ruin them; help them in order to pervert them and to draw them into these regions of hell."

This is the same consciousness as that of the being standing behind and in the books of Moses, as also that of the subsequent being—minus the transformation obtained from the human female.—see also infra, ch. VI. The pretext to love, to serve, to help, which is here so intimately announced by Lucifer in his true name, in fact comes shrouded there in the garbs of scripture and a bearded impresario monitoring the whole prospect under the presently assumed nomenclature of god.

Christianity claims that its scriptures were decreed by interference on the part of an extraneous being in an otherwise faultless order. This compulsion having now been perceived as baseless from the admitted credibility of the serpent, the whole book falls to the plane of a self-appointed necessity on the part of its maker. Such an internal compulsion necessarily coalesces with that of Lucifer in his pretexts elaborately unfolded and intensely sold. This is why Lucifer is an identifiably compulsive^46 physical [¶ 44 continues on p. 46]

Footnotes

46. See C.A. Patrides, Milton and the Christian Tradition, op. cit., p. 91. He [n. 46 continues on p. 46 →]

Printed p. 46 (scan21)

Running head: 46/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 44 concluded:] component in the christian Greek scriptures. This is also why jesus announces at the end of the book after wishfully imprisoning Sivan from human consciousness^47 that he is Lucifer.^48

Whether Siva or Lucifer, we are dealing with extra-sensory beings. Each one is a specie by itself. Each one can be conclusively identified from his attributes as known from Scripture and scripture. There can be no ambiguity as to this identity nor any question of the data encountered possibly referring to any other being. If what we find are relatable to known individuals, then those individuals are in fact the ones related.

Because Lucifer is a scripture-fabricator rebel, his scripture will necessarily traverse the original scripture of the Vedas. The attributes of Sivan in the Vedas are "chalad-uraga-haaram" (ornamentation with the serpent that crawls on the belly),^49 "mrithyunjayan" (preemptor of fear of death),^50 and "jnanamurthi" (concretised phenomenal knowledge).^51 The three attributes are accurately discerned in the being portrayed in the bible book as serpent. The protagonist in the book acknowledges the first attribute at genesis 3:14—"Thou shalt crawl on thy belly." Since this attribute is already known to him from the prior existence of the Vedas with which as an ex-god he was acquainted, the objective existence of the attribute is re-impressed by the [¶ 46 continues on p. 47]

Footnotes

[n. 46, ← continued from p. 45:] notes the mandatedly countervailing christian claim that the rebellion of Lucifer occurred in their lost heaven, despite the "distressingly inadequate" evidence for the same. He observes that the reference in Isaiah 14:12 is actually to the fall of the king of Babylon. "Christian theologians displaced him in favour of Satan (read Lucifer). The other major 'evidence' given in verification of the war in heaven, one of the poetic visions in the Johannine Apocalypse, is just as questionable." [n. 46 ends]

47. See revelation 20:2: "He made prisoner of the dragon, serpent of the primal age." "Serpent of the primal age" is exact equivalent of Aadi Seshan, a designation unique to Sivan in the Vedas.

48. See supra, n. 38.

49. cf., Sankaracharya, Sivanandalahari, p. 3. See also Sreekandeswaram, Sabdathaaraavali, p. 383.

50. cf., Sreekandeswaram, op. cit., p. 1451.

51. ibid., p. 877.

Printed p. 47 (scan22)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/47

Body

[¶ 46 concluded:] affirmation on the part of the protagonist, and the imprecatory form of its articulation by him coalesces with his own attribute as a rebel against the Vedas.

Again the attributes of emancipation from fear and from positive nescience are acknowledged in the verbal history pertaining to the serpent and narrated by the protagonist. The verbal passage—"No. You will not die the death. You shall be as gods knowing everything"—exactly replicates the primary Vedic attributes of Sivan of which the protagonist was already informed during his own history before his fall from goodness.

The bible book therefore falls back into an auto-necessitated rebellious exertion by Lucifer in his diabolic antipathy against man whom he senses at this stage in Sivan, who typifies the man specie. Only in this way can he vent it if he also wanted to make it at the same time a component of history, as he did. Compulsively then he brings Sivan into his scripture, which is stamped thus from the beginning as a counterfeit of the Vedas. Rebelliously, he instals a tree whose fruit however is not to be eaten but whose accessibility he needs must expose bewitchingly in his programme if it is at all to find a start. Only thus can he come a second time as redeemer by programme from the consequences of having eaten this fruit.

Historical christianity inescapably falls into the same system because at the end of the book beyond the dissolution, Sivan, imperatively interposed now for the second and last time, is specifically identified by his Vedic designation of "Aadi Seshan" (serpent of the primal age) beyond the mere symbol at the beginning of the book, and "put in bonds, thrust down to the abyss, locked in and sealed there."—revelation 20:2-3. Here is Lucifer enjoying himself over the long-fancied suffocation of goodness, Sivan being the embodiment of all goodness;^52 unlike mind-body beings, a mind-being, after having, in a manner of speaking, developed a scripture, simultaneously converts the wishful phan- [¶ 49 continues on p. 48]

Footnotes

52. See Sankaracharya, ibid., p. 4. The Sanskrit text therein translates as: "O Siva, O bestower of happiness and the embodiment of all goodness!"

Printed p. 48 (scan23)

Running head: 48/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 49 concluded:] tasy into actuality, whereas we upon coming to, sense it realistically as a dream.

But organic rebel that he is, Lucifer at once rebels against this conversion and goes into the motions of a voluntary and unsought release of Sivan for a specified term of 1000 years.—ibid., 7. This is reminiscent of the ultimate pardon uniquely reserved to certain political presidents as the touchstone of their authority from man. But here there is further rebellion. Sivan got the release just so that he can "go out to seduce the nations."—ibid. Lucifer, alias jesus, senses goodness as seduction and its antipode as a gospel. Compassion, the touchstone of goodness, is only sensed by him as seduction to evil, to use a term from his vocabulary. It is from compassion that the upright Sivan^53 picks up a being crawling on its belly and makes it his sole ornament. It is from the same compassion that Sivan meets man trapped by Lucifer in an enclosed park, with a forbidden data involuntarily fed to him.

Why does Lucifer pursue Cain and Adam beyond the park?

More than everything from history, music is the one sure palliative. Man's capacity to create authentic music proves definitively that he is no original sinner. Specifically can this be proved from the phenomenon sensed in the Indian singer K.L. Saigal (1904-1947) of a beinghood and a consciousness that is "all music."^54 The "unsurpassed internal certitude" that Raghava R. Menon has further perceived as a musicologist in the swara^55 and sangeetham^56 of Saigal and that anyone at all can similarly perceive proves the unimpaired existence in man of an integrant consciousness. Since our phenomenon is uniformly untouched both by historical and incipient christianity, how does he fit into the christian system, which claims that man by nature is [¶ 52 continues on p. 49]

Footnotes

53. See ch. VI.

54. cf., Raghava R. Menon, K.L. Saigal: the Pilgrim of the Swara, p. 12.

55. Swara is a composite of the sounds swa and ra, swa denoting "self" and ra "to offer." cf., ibid., p. 111.

56. Sangeetham, or the art of music.

Printed p. 49 (scan24)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/49

Body

[¶ 52 concluded:] evil^57 and that his existential situation abstractedly signposts a redeemer from outside—who, in unrelated reality, is the selfsame being that contrived that situation. If then there does exist such a natural evil, how can one explain the above phenomenon of a natural internal certitude subsisting in man at the ascriptural plane of music? How can one explain for that matter any similar but unrelated creative phenomena perceptible even within the province and frame of christianity and its pretentious claims of redemption from a scripturally engineered illusion, since in this case the creative consciousness will be in conflict between the two mutually antipodal streams, which would have destroyed internal certitude anyway.

Christianity claims that Cain is the first murderer. On that claim, everything derived from Cain will carry too the gene of necrosis. Why then does he remarkably derive the gene of music from Cain? Why does he take music into his notice at all?

Lucifer works upon Cain to engineer the gene called Enoch whom he particularly immortalises by having a city named for him. This signifies in his consciousness the immortalisation of the anger gene that he had earlier translated to Cain by mutating his (Cain's) innate rage gene, which was apt to kill this affecting god. In Enoch therefore there is now immortalised, most importantly for the pretender, the gene of murder, this being the intrinsic direction of anger.

It is from this Enoch that he finally engineers the gene called Lamech who is immediately shown physically propagating through two females whom the pretender names comprehensively as Adah and Zillah. It is also this same Enoch-gene that served him most of all by conserving the gene of guilt, otherwise called sin,^58 and wishfully carrying it to all of mankind. As announced [¶ 55 continues on p. 50]

Footnotes

57. See C.A. Patrides, ibid., p. 100. Citing from the writings of Augustine, Patrides observes that "the conclusion Augustine ultimately reached was that the will of man is naturally inclined toward evil. This disposition of the will toward evil applies not only to a few individuals but to the whole human race."

58. See Ancient Mother-I, ch. VI.

Printed p. 50 (scan25)

Running head: 50/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 55 concluded:] at the very outset by Lucifer in his manifesto ("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"), Enoch was rewarded with execution by his master and pontiff.^59

From the two combinations, he proceeds to engineer three genes; each one is identified by its operational feature. Adah mothers Jabal and Jubal, the first the gene of tent-dwellers, the second the gene of musicians. Zillah mothers Tubal-cain, gene of war-making. Tent is now the foremost product because he needs it to effectuate the eventual fornication of Abraham's wife Sarah.^60 This is the template of the historical fornication of Mary by the same being, now metastasized into "holy" ghost through uninterrupted interaction with the son^61 archetypally begotten from the paisacha vivaham with Sarah.

Music remains the only gene that is not reactivated through Seth, Adam's third son, from whom the pretentious universal redeemer gene is engineered at the end of 77 different operations, inclusive of the gene of Cain as translated to this side. By the consequent solitary canalisation of the gene of music towards [¶ 57 continues on p. 51]

Footnotes

59. See ecclesiasticus 44:16: "Enoch pleased god and was taken away, repentance his gift to mankind." Also, genesis 5:24: "And Enoch kept walking with the god. Then he was no more, for the god took him."

60. See genesis 18:1-5: "The lord appeared to Abraham among the big trees in the valley of Mamre, as he sat by his tent door at noon. He looked up and saw three men standing near him; and at the sight, he ran from his tent door to meet them. He said, 'Sirs, please do not pass by my home without stopping; I am here to serve you.' They replied, 'Thank you; we accept.' "

61. The Rome pope has consistently maledicted any position on the generation of the "holy" ghost that would differ from generation by "father" and "son" together. By canon 14 of its 3rd meeting, the synod of Diamper accordingly maledicts the book anciently used by the Malabar christians in which the "holy" ghost was spawned differently, by act of the "father" alone. The synod denounced this position stating it was against the "catholic truth" that the "holy" ghost was generated jointly by "father" and "son."

Printed p. 51 (scan26)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/51

Body

[¶ 57 concluded:] Cain, who according to him is the killer gene, the god of christianity stands self-excoriated as the supreme enemy of man. For, both East and West agree on the redemptive potentiality that is inherent in music.^62 This potentiality is accredited by the Vedas. There music is recognised as a science and included among the four upa-vedas (supplementary Vedas) with the title of Gandharva-veda, along with Ayurveda (science of longevity), Arthaveda (science of wealth), and Dhanurveda (science of archery).^63

From Seth he forthwith engineers the same Lamech as before, out of a process that is all too visibly complicated for him. On the one hand, there is now in him the pressure to shield himself self-guardedly from the looming, and deadly, rage gene, and on the other the malignant compulsion to interpolate into the new line with the genes of fornication, war-making, and sin. And [¶ 58 continues on p. 52]

Footnotes

62. See Ragava R. Menon, ibid., pp. 43, 31: "To those of us, for whom music is a matter of rich and helpless response, there exists in it a fathomless mystery. There are many who while feeling this mystery, this hint of boundlessness and infinitude in it, mistrust and fear it. Most of us are moved by music, sometimes torn by it, but somehow we are anxious to find means by which this boundlessness and mystery can be contained, subdued and measured. Sometimes it was the tanpura that you heard for half the turn of the record and then Saigal's voice would emerge from somewhere in the silence beyond accompaniment and lead you gently by the hand with infinite tenderness into the soft moist interior of his song, and in those four minutes made you believe that there must be a god (sic) that made us and the wondrous universe of his song." See also Macrobius on the Platonistic concept of music: "It is natural for everything that breathes to be captivated by music since the heavenly soul that animates the universe sprang from music."—quoted by John Carey and Alastair Fowler, The Poems of John Milton, p. 715. For a variation on this theme, see Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation (Vol. I, p. 264), quoted by Malcolm Budd, Music and the Emotions, pp. 95-96: "The inexpressible depth of all music, by virtue of which it floats past us as a paradise (sic) quite familiar and yet eternally remote, and is so easy to understand and yet so inexplicable, is due to the fact that it reproduces all the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain."

63. See M. Rangacharya, op. cit., p. 1: Ayurvedo arthavedascha dhanurvedasthadhaiva cha/Gandharvavedaschethevamupaveda chathur vidhah/ (The supplementary Vedas are of four kinds: and they are Ayurveda, Arthaveda, Dhanurveda and Gandharvaveda.)

Printed p. 52 (scan27)

Running head: 52/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 58 concluded:] this he cannot do unless he brings Lamech to this side and with him inevitably the old rage-gene, which would kill him. He knows this too from memory of the reaction of Cain.^64

So the Cain-gene now emerges as Cainan, its suppressed mutant. And Cainan itself emerges from Enosh, who is a variant of the Enoch-gene transcribed from the other side. From Enosh emerges precisely after four different operations the identical gene of Enoch. So now we have the whole of the pretender god's professed mankind brought under sin through the bilateral Enoch. As far as he is concerned, the way is cleared for the redeemer-gene to be engineered. The process would necessarily include Isaac as the product of the archetypal paisacha vivaham. It includes as well the visitant gene of Joseph, which smugly gives the cover of licity to this part of the operation.

And this is what christianity has sworn to legitimatise by the label of incarnation.

From this replicated Lamech is engineered Noah and immediately thereafter the fiend auto-cogitates as he prepares himself for the meeting with Noah. No longer is he the faltering being that confronted Cain. We see instead the same deliberate pretender^65 in a crocodilian new visage, now animated all the same with the gene of sin, universalised, so he thinks, by Enoch, who thus made the redeemer perpetually viable. "So, smitten with grief to the depths of his heart, he said, I will blot out mankind, my creature, from the face of the earth, and with mankind all the beasts and the creeping things and all that flies through the air; I repent of having made them." Thus the catholic text of genesis 6:7. In the protestant text "the creeping things" are omitted from the planned decimation. The protestant text: "I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, from [¶ 61 continues on p. 53]

Footnotes

64. See genesis 4:6 (Lucifer to Cain): "What does this frowning face of thine mean?"

65. See the self-conscious parenthetical iteration of "true" uttered before the affected god title at four different places at genesis 6:1-11. cf., New World Translation.

Printed p. 53 (scan28)

Running head: Identity: First Definition/53

Body

[¶ 61 concluded:] man to domestic animal, to moving animal and to flying creature." The omitted expressions stand for Sivan in the speaker's consciousness. Both texts being scripture (so authenticated internally by generic certification),^66 the omission is by obligation. Such an obligation admitted, preempts the creative claims in the text.^67 Therefore, the speaker is an affecting god. Such an affecting god by autonomous definition in christianity is Lucifer.^68

Also in Noah, the rage-gene would survive. So he says self-assuringly in the very next movement of consciousness that "Noah found favour" in his eyes. Like the rest of the kind, the whole deluge narrative constitutes merely the indivisible imprint of a turmoil taking place in his consciousness out of dread of this gene. This makes him eliminate the entire line up to Noah and then contrive a new line from Shem, which is the line of christianity.

The message to Noah at the end of his mental deluge (genesis 9:2) shows him struggling in vain against the mortal dread of man, typified in Sivan. We have seen how the protestant stream was monolithic at genesis 6:7 in regard to Sivan. We now see the identical stream breaking into two divergent segments on the very point. One segment in the protestant stream of his book has him telling Noah and his sons, Shem most intendently, that "everything that goes moving on the ground"^69 will thenceforward live in terror of them. The other segment omits the [¶ 63 continues on p. 54]

Footnotes

66. See revelation 22:18-19: "To all who hear the words this book contains, I give this warning. If anyone adds to them, god will add to his punishment the plagues which this book threatens; and if anyone cancels a word in this book, god will cancel his share in the book of life, in the holy city, in all that this book promises."

67. See ch. VI.

68. See John Trapp, A Commentary upon the Epistles (1647), p. 659: The sin of Lucifer was pride "in affecting divinity."—quoted by C.A. Patrides, op. cit., p. 93.

69. New World Translation, p. 17.

Printed p. 54 (scan29)

Running head: 54/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 63 concluded:] moving things on the ground from the same message of terror.^70 The catholic stream, on the other hand, is still monolithic here in its own rebellious compass, holding the "creeping things" as of old.^71

We have seen the contradiction that this being makes and translates unbeknown into the consciousness of Moses. In regard to the christian deluge, this contradiction is even to be seen historically. It materialises in the mutually contradictory chronologies computated from the protestant and catholic streams, the difference between the two chronologies in this respect being of the order of more than 900 years.^72 Sensing the preantiquity of the Sanskrit scriptures and the realistic deluge of consciousness apprehended in those texts,^73 professed christian apologists missionising in India for their lord and pontiff have yet tried to bridge the gap in their own scriptures, not realising that the deluge related there is a reaction and a counteraction, in Lucifer's consciousness, against man's perennial rage gene. In so doing, they have, on the one hand, unwittingly used the Sanskrit texts as the [¶ 64 continues on p. 55]

Footnotes

70. Good News bible, p. 11: "All the animals, birds, and fish will live in fear of you."

71. Knox bible, p. 7: "All the beasts of earth, and the winged things of the sky, and the creeping things of earth, are to go in fear and dread of you."

72. See Abbe J.A. Dubois, ibid., p. 419: "There is a difference of more than nine hundred years between the period supposed to have elapsed between the Flood and the birth of our lord (read Lucifer) according to the septuagint on the one hand, and according to the vulgate on the other."

73. ibid., pp. 416-17: "The present era of the Hindus dates specifically from the commencement of the pralayam (the dissolution at the end of each time cycle). It is definitely stated in the Markandeya-purana and in the Bhagavatha that this event caused the destruction of all mankind, with the exception of the seven rishis. Another great personage called Manu was also saved along with the seven rishis." The abbe unconsciously uses instead of the authoritative pralayam the loanword jala-pralayam (flood of waters) from his books. (Pralayam is to be distinguished from mahapralayam, super deluge of consciousness. See supra, n. 6.)

Printed p. 55 (scan30) — CHAPTER III ENDS

Running head: Identity: First Definition/55

Body

[¶ 64 concluded:] standard and on the other subordinated their own particular scripture called vulgate!^74

[Chapter III ends here — upper fifth of the page; the remainder of the page below n. 74 is blank. Chapter III printed span: pp. 26–55, with a 74-note apparatus. This page is the target of chapter V's printed n. 4 ("See supra, p. 55.") — what stands on it is the close of chapter III: the vulgate exclamation and n. 74 (Dubois deluge-chronology computation). See Appendix C(h).]

Footnotes

74. ibid., p. 419: "Computing on the basis of the Hindu calendar, the time that elapsed between the deluge and the birth of our lord is 3,102 years; but it approaches much nearer to the calculations made in the septuagint, which gives 3,258 years between the deluge and the commencement of the christian era. In relying on the Hindu calculation, we have a difference of only 132 years between the Hindu computation and that of the christian scripture as regards the deluge." The abbe obviously is unable to distinguish the Sanskrit pralayam from its christian reaction.

Printed p. 57 (scan31) — SEGMENT DIVIDER (structural element in no digital witness)

(No running head, no page number; verso pp. 56 and 58 are blank and were not scanned.)

Segment II

The Apparatus

[Structural discovery: the printed volume is divided into segments. A divider leaf "Segment II / The Apparatus" stands between chapters III and IV — implying chapters I–III form Segment I (name unknown until the front-matter batch arrives) and chapters IV–VI form Segment II, "The Apparatus". No digital witness (AM-2, txts, 2008 crawl) carries any trace of this segment structure.]

Printed p. 59 (scan32) — CHAPTER IV OPENS

(Chapter opener — no page number printed.)

Body

Chapter IV

Universal Catharsis

vs

Primordial Evil

[The printed title reads "Primordial" — correctly spelled. Both digital witnesses carry the shared error "Primodial" in this title (§6.8). Print corrects it.]

The natural scriptures of man classify action exclusively as good and indifferent. The criterion of action is further defined as dharma (positive goodness), with vacuity of dharma constituting the preprimary state. Again knowledge is either phenomenal in nature or false; the first is categorised as jnanam, and the second as avidya (positive false knowledge). Jnanam is intrinsically endowed with potency over the object known.^1 Since now positive evil appears in the christian scriptures, as a novel and third entity, it is necessary and profitable to know its origin. In this chapter we shall deal on the one hand with the perceived universal catharsis of the Hindu scriptures and on the other with primordial evil, as it is obliquely sensed by the same scriptures and as expressly deployed into consciousness by the christian scriptures.

We find in the primordial scriptures an active sense of transcendent dharma in consciousness. As expositor Vyasan himself emphatically says, dharma is not translatable into a different language in its exact subtle sense. That kind of natural goodness existing in man outside of christianity cannot be explained under the centric tenet of christianity, which professes that mankind was primordially corrupted of all good parts by the avowed original sin of Adam. The independent existence of a person like [¶ 2 continues on p. 60]

Footnotes

1. See Swami Vivekananda, ibid., p. 131: "Knowledge is power, and as soon as we begin to know a thing, we get power over it." [new — no digital witness]

Printed p. 60 (scan33)

Running head: 60/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 2 concluded:] Vyasan, who wrote Mahabharatha for expositing dharma to mankind, cannot be explained in the system.

By system we mean in a general sense a single all-embracing principle that explains all phenomena, "coherent in all its parts and free from all contradictions."^2 Therefore, any scriptural system that claims a perpendicular and horizontal universal suffrage should be on the one hand internally consistent and on the other comprehensive of all coordinate phenomena from outside. Further, since scripture is underived, there can only be one such system of authentic kind, the other one becoming consequently a counterfeit of the first.

Cutting across the christian notion of the protesting underterrestrial redeemer and quite independently of him, Vyasan has attained to a transcendent sense of goodness and consequently also to the self-redemptive potentiality that is innate in man, upon and from whom he achieves a universal catharsis. This sense does not treat good and evil as two ever-separate compartments, as christianity does by winding up the story on the note, comfortably to its maker in his swa-bhavam beyond the affectation, of damnation of the numerous—maybe even from within the same clan!

Five unrelated times in the book ascribed to Matthew^3 and a sixth time in that of Luke,^4 the being contrives, as the compulsively multiplying vehicle of a single malignant thought, illustrations that differ one from the other, but are nonetheless mutually and universally interconnected in every case by a gleesome final outburst: "There is where your, his, their, weeping and gnashing of teeth will be." In the one case developed by Luke of a man who, using his own grammar, sharply asks whether only a few are to be "saved" by him after all, he draws in a building with a narrow door and a stern householder barring [¶ 5 continues on p. 61]

Footnotes

2. cf., Max Muller, ibid., p. cxiv. [new — no digital witness; sources the "coherent in all its parts" definition]

3. Matthew 8:12; 13:42; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30. [new — no digital witness; names the five Matthew "weeping and gnashing" loci]

4. Luke 13:28. (= B.4 handle IV-1)

Printed p. 61 (scan34)

Running head: Primordial Evil/61

Body

[¶ 5 concluded:] the way too. The man in his consciousness tells our quester: "I do not know where you are from. Get away. There is where your weeping and the gnashing of your teeth will be, when you see yourself thrown outside."

The key archetypal figures of Abraham and Isaac are startlingly restored here, the same as in Matthew's prefatory case, in which however the quester here is substituted with an army officer with unmatched "faith" in his affected identity. "I tell you the truth. With no one in Israel have I found so great a faith. But I tell you that many from eastern parts and western parts will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens; whereas the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be." By sons of the kingdom-bereft-of-heaven, he reverts to the accents of his ancestor speaking at patalam in the line of vision of Mary of Agreda when short of the sweet-sounding grammar on the accent the same being acquired from the human female Mary by pseudo-incarnation.^5 He is here in fact triumphantly making known the true nature of the reward that he has laid out for his inimitable historical followers.

Even when not sensing positive evil, or only encirclingly sensing it, the primordial scriptures in their compassion towards man in "the predicament of human life and effort upon this planet"^6 in Kaliyuga declare that "he who creates differences among individual selves will destroy himself in the cycle of [¶ 7 continues on p. 62]

Footnotes

5. The criterion of true incarnation is by-passing of gestationary period between announcement and childbirth. This is so specified in the Sanskrit scriptures and shown in the birth of Karna in Mahabharatha to the virgin Kunti. After Karna's birth, Kunti once again regains virginity as stated beforehand in the announcement.—vide C. Rajagopalachari, Mahabharatha, p. 30. In the case of Mary, there is no such provision mentioned by Gabriel. Besides, she does not also fulfil the criterion; she gives uterine birth to Lucifer by ejection at the end of the normal parturitionary term. [new — no digital witness; = General Index "Incarnation (true), criterion of, ii, 61-n.5"]

6. The quotation is from Raghava R. Menon, ibid., p. 12. (= B.4 handle IV-2; digital "Meneo" corrected in print)

7. See Kadopanishad, 2.4.14: Yadhodakam durggevrishtam/ parvatheshu [n. 7 continues on p. 62 →]

Printed p. 62 (scan35)

Running head: 62/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 7 concluded:] birth and death."^7 As for the retaliatory recurring decimal of the weeping and gnashing, its realistic impulse is named by the same scriptures as aavrithisthothram, defined as repeated intonation of a line in a Vedic mantra.^8

In Mark of all the three is ensconced, by feedback inhibition, the key to the "secret" of the six illustrations: "To you the secret has been given, but to those outside all things occur in illustrations, in order that, though looking, they may look, and yet not see, and though hearing, they may hear and not get the sense of it, nor ever turn back and forgiveness be given them."

The primordial scriptures treat goodness as the only positive gene. Just so, Vyasan only perceives the other pole negatively, in the terms of its absence, positive evil not being apprehended at all by the consciousness. To expound this he even sacrifices the image of Krishna at the decisive moment of the Mahabharatha battle.^9 Why is it that Vyasan, who has a transcendent sense of true redemption by intrinsic native goodness and who encompasses the entire history of consciousness, does not all the same cognise positive evil at any point? It cannot be claimed that he was sectarian; he has a sense of the whole of mankind. Further, the genealogy that he designs envelops all possible genes and types in male and female mankind.^10 Putting it generally, why is it that while there exists a highly developed sense of positive goodness in the mass of natural scriptures, positive evil is not found at all in the same mass?

Footnotes

[n. 7, ← continued from p. 61:] vidhaavathi/ evam dharman prithakpasyan/ sthanevaanu vidhaavathi// Even as rain water falling on inaccessible mountains scatters and dissipates itself upon flowing down various channels, so too will he who creates differences among individual selves perish in the cycle of birth and death. [n. 7 ends — the full Kadopanishad text and translation; digital carried only the bare citation (B.4 handle IV-3)]

8. See Sreekandeswaram, op. cit., p. 294. (= B.4 handle IV-4)

9. In the last scene of Mahabharatha battle, dharma is shown as irredeemable except by a subterfuge, which Krishna adopts on the principle that the laws of a previous age are not applicable in Kaliyuga (age of anger). "The era of kali (anger) has arrived," says Krishna, "when the laws of a previous age cannot apply."—vide C. Rajagopalachari, op. cit., pp. 321-23, 332. [new — no digital witness]

10. ibid., p. 10. [new — no digital witness]

Printed p. 63 (scan36)

Running head: Primordial Evil/63

Body

Vyasan does not sense any positive evil anywhere along the line from genesis to a universal catharsis (mangalam) indomitably hammered out by him through resolution of the anger gene that had been sprung into consciousness by Lucifer in pre-mariological and post-mariological time through his self-delineative counterfeit scripture and its odious historical expressions. Vyasan's work begins from the genesis of consciousness and he strikingly hammers it out, even as Lucifer rebelliously does, at the secondary level, consisting of terrestrial individuals in tangible life who are indiscriminately caught between dharma and its desolation. Never succumbing in the least to positive evil, he resolves the labyrinth of situations and characters on the one notion of dharma as the sole pervading phenomenon. On occasions he introduces extra-terrestrial personae, but not once does he import a being from beyond to keep dharma from perishing. It is on the terrestrial Yudhishthira, man, that until the last the fate of dharma depends. Of all the beings introduced in the work, including Krishna, Yudhishthira alone is responsible for dharma, and he alone emphatically redeems it.

Since scripture is still all-comprehensive, it follows that positive evil has been scripturally input from outside into the annals of consciousness. When we look around, we find such an importation in the christian scripture. Because scripture is underived, an expressed original concept in a work of genesis is indivisible from its expresser. To say it again, genesis purportedly deals with origins; therefore, when the protesting creator-god tells Cain inaugurally that sin is "crouching" at his door,^11 it means that the speaker himself has created and carried it there. Since he also says the sin is "crouching," meaning inertial, the verbal act on his part and the secretory sin are autonomous and unheralded.

The admitted inertial state yet at this time of sin and the concomitant reality of its domicile even at this time outside the [¶ 12 continues on p. 64]

Footnotes

11. See genesis 4:7, New World Translation; Good News bible. (= B.4 handle IV-5)

Printed p. 64 (scan37)

Running head: 64/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 12 concluded:] door of Adam's son manifest that there is no inheritance of sin in Cain, as christianity rebelliously and constantly asserts. Faced with the evolution syndrome, christianity came out with the observation that the first eleven chapters of genesis could not be relegated to the level of myth.^12 In fact, however, no part of genesis is mythical, as every part renders the genesis of the self-expression of Lucifer.

As for the eleven untouchable chapters, as far as Lucifer is concerned, they deploy the anger gene,^13 produce global confusion of tongues^14 and archetypally secure through Abraham the gene of admission of sin.^15 They also discharge onto female kind an explicit curse replicating the sorrows of childbirth ("I will multiply thy sorrows and thy conceptions"—genesis 3:16).

At the moment he devised the self-defeatist ban on knowledge, the sense of an Eve had not even germinated in his consciousness.^16 Therefore, even according to him, Eve is not directly related to his dictum against knowledge. As for giving it to Adam, she still perceived it, even after Sivan had explained it to her as redeeming knowledge, primarily as good to eat, secondarily as good to look at, and lastly and very vaguely as good for knowledge.^17 She gave it to Adam just so that he would live longer from its nourishment, since the female is responsible for life. This is why the catholic scripture, which is rather more true to Lucifer than others in the body of christian scriptures, [¶ 14 continues on p. 65]

Footnotes

12. cf., B.R. Rees, ibid., p. 75. (= B.4 handle IV-6)

13. genesis 4:6, Knox bible (jehovah towards Man): "What does this anger mean?" (expands B.4 handle IV-7 — the parenthesis and quotation are print-only)

14. See genesis 11:8-9: "Thus the lord broke up their common home, and scattered them over the earth, and the building of the city came to an end. That is why it was called Babel, Confusion, because it was there that the lord confused the whole world's speech, and scattered them far away, over the wide face of the earth." (expands B.4 handle IV-8, which was the bare "(ibid 11:8-9)" — full quotation print-only)

15. genesis 18: 23-32. (= B.4 handle IV-9)

16. ibid., 2: 17-18. (= B.4 handle IV-13)

17. See note to genesis 3:6, Knox bible: "The Hebrew words are sometimes taken as meaning 'and gave desirable knowledge.' " (replaces B.4 handle IV-14's bare citation; the Knox quotation is print-only. The sentence "She gave it to Adam just so that he would live longer…", which the digital witnesses carry inside this inline note, stands in the printed body.)

Printed p. 65 (scan38)

Running head: Primordial Evil/65

(This scan is ghosted by page movement — the only materially degraded page in the batch. Read against 400/600-dpi re-renders; readings that remain uncertain are flagged. A re-scan of printed p. 65 is worth requesting in the next batch.)

Body

[¶ 14 concluded:] says: By the woman we all die,(?)^18 in its convoluted antithesis both to natural sense and to the natural scriptures. There Draupadi is personally responsible for feeding the five Pandavas all the years they were exiled and living in straits. Again Vyasan absolutely says that whatever her offense a woman always deserves pardon.^19 The catholic scriptures say here that "man's wickedness is better than a woman who does good."^20

Wherever the christian scriptures impinge on the natural scriptures, they take the form of a reaction to or against the latter. The initial pulsation producing such reaction in the christian side is all coming from the primordial side. This reactive reflex is perceivable both in the general burden of the christian book as a whole and at specific points of detail. The general burden is a reaction against knowledge. The calculated introduction of a tree of knowledge for no reason except to outlaw nourishment from its yield cannot be understood save as rebellion against an antecedent scripture that exalts knowledge.^21 Since in the first place the Vedas are such a scripture, since secondly they are manifest to the gods without study,^22 and since in the third place knowledge is a common ingredient in both, in the christian scripture nega- [¶ 15 continues on p. 66]

Footnotes

18. ecclesiasticus 25:33. (= B.4 handle IV-12)

19. See Flora Annie Steel, op. cit., p. 14. The words came from Bhishma as he lay mortally wounded on the Mahabharatha battlefield on a bed of arrows. The discourse by Bhishma in its entirety runs to over 2000 pages in the English translation, and covers, in the present author's words, the "whole duty of mankind." [new — no digital witness]

20. ecclesiasticus 42:14—Malayalam bible. [replaces the digital inline "ibid 42:14 Knox bible" (§6.6 first unparenthesised item): print cites the Malayalam bible, not Knox]

21. See Kadopanishad: "May us guru and sishya (preceptor and pupil) be together blessed by the one that is jnanaswarupa (substantiated knowledge). Let him nourish and animate both of us with the exalted fruit which is called knowledge." (In acclaiming Knowledge, the rishi describes it here as a fruit affording nourishment for man. The identical imagery of fruit is employed by Lucifer in genesis for the opposite purpose of forbidding Knowledge as fatal.) See also Sama Veda, verse 173, hailing knowledge as man's most auspicious wealth: "O Sathakritho,(?) if you, kind as you are, desire to bestow happiness on us, please let us be gifted with the most auspicious wealth of jnanam." [new — no digital witness]

22. See Max Muller, ibid., p. 199: ". . . to the gods the Veda is manifest of itself without study." [new — no digital witness]

Printed p. 66 (scan39)

Running head: 66/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 15 concluded:] tively from stultification and in the natural scriptures positively from bestowal,^23 the being responsible for the christian scripture is identifiable even at this plane as a rebellious ex-god.

The obstinate resolve to sit in global survey of human action, voluntarily and unilaterally judging it both individually and collectively, but in the latter case rather more obtrusively as regards alien races than one's own, from an initial subjective imputation of theistic illiteracy on the one side and a scripture-derived assumption of immunity on this side has been input in the environment by christianity out of its source-being, who so divides consciousness, rebelliously. In this context, India should be taken as the reference point because of the unmatched antiquity of its scriptures,^24 the independent origin and subsistence of the Hindu races there,^25 and a natural tendency that we find in them to tolerate even to the point of self-abnegation the semitic quantity that entered there.

Of those three then what is the scriptural record of the flagrant one? Western christianity entered India only on account of a bountiful sufferance on the part of the Hindu kings. But as soon as it got seemingly entrenched through a respite acquiesced in [¶ 17 continues on p. 67]

Footnotes

23. See Sankaracharya: "The individual self consists of knowledge."—quoted at p. 134, ibid. [new — no digital witness]

24. See John B. Chethimattam, Patterns of Indian Thought, p. 13: "The Vedas, the earliest literature of humanity that has come down to us." See also the French author Satprem, Aurobindo or the Adventure of Consciousness, p. 292: "[In the Rig Veda] we are before the most ancient tradition in the world, intact." [new — no digital witness; two authorities (Chethimattam, Satprem) unattested anywhere in the digital corpus]

25. See Abbe J.A. Dubois, op. cit., pp. 198-99, 504: "There is nothing that I know of in the history either of the Egyptians or of the Jews to show that these people existed as a nation prior to the Hindus. The peculiarity of the dogmas and rites of the Hindu religion, the strong antipathy which the Hindus feel for anything that savours of imitation, the unshaken firmness with which they cling to ideas which originated at a date now lost in the darkness of antiquity: all these make me confident that the Hindus never borrowed anything from other nations. Everything connected with the Hindus is stamped with originality and independence. The Hindu religious system is sui generis in its very foundations, and contains special characteristics of which no trace can be found in that of any other nation." [new — no digital witness; = General Index "Hindus — antiquity of / originality of, ii, 66-n.25"]

Printed p. 67 (scan40)

Running head: Primordial Evil/67

Body

[¶ 17 concluded:] by the same dynasty,^26 we find the most typical cleric of the time expressly striving to subvert that very Hindu king on a self-made warrant that he was looking up rather more to Beelzebub than to Lucifer, and finally imprecating his person and imposing on him the judgement of the latter in end-time.^27

[From here to «"What does this anger mean"—genesis 4:6.» on p. 68 the printed body carries a passage (~200 words) absent from every digital witness — the ch. IV counterpart of the chapter-V abridgement finding. The digital text rejoins at "This is the moment that the primordial scriptures had always been warning…".]

Just in order for krodham (anger) to be engineered onto consciousness, Lucifer, alias the christian god, first raises the gene of rosham (rage or moral indignation) uniquely innate in man by upturning natural scriptures that before retained the gradation of biological brothers by corresponding nomination from the alphabet scale.^28 Here he inverted the natural order by deliberately bringing the junior Abel to the forefront, first by bivalent advancement through nomination, and then, all over again, by depressing Cain's profession in a malafide affirmation of rebellious partiality. "Cain was much enraged," thereupon he gets inscribed by Moses at once suppressing and rebelling against the reality of his own fear from the resultant manly rage, which was sufficient to have killed him, as he presently ruefully admits: Why is your face frowning? But along with this admission in the same breath and employing the chance that he had calculat- [¶ 18 continues on p. 68]

Footnotes

26. The reference is to the Hindu ruling dynasty of the Cochin kingdom, which persuaded itself to befriend the Portuguese traders and missionisers arriving in the territory, and in India, amid long political troubles for it from a neighbouring Hindu king. (= the digital unparenthesised Cochin-dynasty note, §6.6 — now numbered; print "missionisers" where digital reads "missionaries")

27. See K.P. Padmanabha Menon, History of the Kingdom of Cochin, Vol. I, pp. 399-404, for archival account of the meeting, which took place in 1599 in the town of Cochin. The account is hardly creditable to the Portuguese cleric. In addition, it is a record of perverse disinformation on his part where he says the king is "world-renowned as a religious illiterate." Here is the climaxing point of the talk: "Seething with anger and drained of all self-control, the archbishop, hoping that he could terrify the king, cursed him to suffer everlasting damnation on judgement day. 'O, let it be. About that we shall talk there on that day,' the king replied lightly. 'That won't do!' came the answer. 'That place is not for chatting. You are going to be sentenced on that day to abide for ever with THE Devil you worship.' " (= B.4 handle IV-15; print adds "there", reads "chatting" for digital "chating")

28. In the Sanskrit scriptural epic Ramayanam, Raman, hero and senior brother, is assigned the antecedent alphabet ra and his junior Lakshmanan the subsequent alphabet la. [new — no digital witness]

Printed p. 68 (scan41)

Running head: 68/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 18 concluded — still print-only text:] edly engineered to bring into being from the beginning of his genesis, he uses the reversive deictic "this" as though beginning to hark back, and by a simultaneous mutative motion from the potency of the same sphotam (sound syllable),^29 discharges anger into the surrounding consciousness: "What does this anger mean"—genesis 4:6.

[the digital witnesses rejoin here]

This is the moment that the primordial scriptures had always been warning against in their compassion towards the victim, here rebelliously called Cain and there realistically called Dharmaputra, son of dharma, or in nominative phraseology, Yudhishthira, one steadfast in battle against a-dharma.

As he reached swargaloka (heavenly world) with the dog he would not exchange even for brahmaanandam, Yudhishthira espies Duryodhana, the clan brother whom he had just vanquished in the battle for dharma, already sitting there on the throne, but none of his own biological brothers who had followed him in the battle. Shocked to oblivion, he demands to see them and is transported to narakaloka (netherly world) by attendants. There, he despatches these beings since he would rather be here with his devoted brothers than in swargaloka without them. Upon this, the darkness rolls away and the sufferings were no more to be seen. The god of dharma: "This is not naraka. It is swarga. It was an illusion designed to prove you." Thereupon, Dharmaputra was transfigured. The mortal frame was gone and he was a god. Then Yudhishthira saw there, in the universal catharsis, all his clan brothers who had ranged themselves on the opposite side in the battle, "all serene and free from anger, having attained the state of the gods."^30

It is the identical state that Lucifer bars from man after obligatorily admitting to it in his genesis book, ensuing from the intervention of Sivan and the responsive act on the part of Eve. "You will become like gods. This the god knows," Sivan had [¶ 21 continues on p. 69]

Footnotes

29. "Sphotam" means the sense inherently congealed in a language syllable or sabda. It has denotative power. [new — no digital witness]

30. See C. Rajagopalachari, ibid., pp. 371-75. [new — no digital witness; sources the Yudhishthira svarga scene]

Printed p. 69 (scan42)

Running head: Primordial Evil/69

Body

[¶ 21 concluded:] said in his compassion. "Here is man become like one of ourselves, knowing everything," the pantomimic ex-god said alertingly to himself afterwards. Coming now in malevolent reaction against the universal catharsis of the primordial scriptures, he self-cogitates against the inextricable dividend from knowledge. "Now," says he, meaning to say, "under the present circumstances," "man has only to lift his hand and gather fruit to eat from the tree of life as well, and he will live endlessly." So that this should not be, narrates now his amanuensis picking up from him, the ex-god spectacularly drove man out, and self-contentedly placed an incendiary at the entrance with revolving combustibles, "so that he could reach the tree of life no longer." "This was," so goes the smug explanation to the passage in a second book, "to keep anyone from coming near the tree that gives life."^31

It will be improper even to begin to consider this being from its iterative claims of godship. Those claims are proper to Lucifer, the only being that auto-estimates himself as god, so much so that it is his swa-bhavam from and after the rebellion. God cannot be an unknowable quantity since he exists through and in man. The primordial scriptures sensibly tell us that that being made the specie called man for his own self-realisation; this is why the first man is Manu, reflectional knowledge. Confirmatively, the West defines it, at the secondary level, as "perfection of goodness."^32 Incidentally, such a transcendent goodness sensible alone in human scriptures cannot be the result of an evolution.

[The sentence "Incidentally, such a transcendent goodness sensible alone in human scriptures cannot be the result of an evolution." is print-only — absent from both digital witnesses.]

By manufacturing a new commodity codenamed as faith and setting up his empire for vending it, Lucifer was out to destroy the specie, as he told Mary of Agreda,^33 since faith is but the hijacker of knowledge. But man is no lamb as he wishfully [¶ 23 continues on p. 70]

Footnotes

31. Good News bible, note to genesis 3:24. (= B.4 handle IV-16)

32. Webster's, op. cit., p. 489. (= B.4 handle IV-17)

33. See Cyril Marystone, op. cit., p. 140: "We will subject the human creatures [n. 33 continues on p. 70 →]

Printed p. 70 (scan43) — CHAPTER IV ENDS

Running head: 70/The Ancient Mother II : Judgement on christianity

Body

[¶ 23 concluded:] fancies in his illustrations.^34 After all, he killed him, even at the risk of having back a robber in their midst.

[Chapter IV ends here — the body occupies the top of the page; the two closing notes follow; the rest of the page is blank. Chapter IV printed span: pp. 59–70, with a 34-note apparatus.]

Footnotes

[n. 33, ← continued from p. 69:] to our influence in order to destroy them. I will gain great victories over them, and I will destroy them all and subject them to my designs." [n. 33 ends — the quotation is council manifesto sentences 1 and 3 run together, sentence 2 omitted, cited to Marystone p. 140]

34. See Jawaharlal Nehru, op. cit., p. 33: "How amazing is the spirit of man! In spite of innumerable failings, man, throughout the ages, has sacrificed his life and all he held dear for an ideal, for truth, for country and honour. Because of that, much may be forgiven to man, and it is impossible to lose hope for him. Plaything of nature's mighty forces, he had hurled defiance at the elemental powers, and with his mind, cradle of revolution, sought to master them. Whatever gods there may be, there is something godlike in man, as there is also something of the devil in him." (= B.4 handle IV-18)

Printed p. 71 (scan01)

Body

Chapter V

Destruction of Continuum of Moksha

The apparatus of Lucifer serves to man as its piece de resistance a territorial paradise that ensues from an action on his part, viz., a misological involvement at the personal level in the affected identity of the profferer. The bible book constitutes the self-expression of Lucifer in the mode of this affectation—most directly in the texts inscribed by Moses, diffusively in the other parts of the so-called old testament, and historically in the alleged new testament. Therefore, the bible book and the christian paradise bear a cause-effect relationship with each other.

A totally disinterested action (nishkaamakarmam) is unincorporatable into the frame of christianity, which is founded upon and structured from a contrived act of sinning.

Christianity claims for its keystone that Adam was guilty of disobedience. However, the individual responsible for the concerned text being Lucifer, the man-creation account in his book is the expression of his affectation. Therefore, Adam was indulging in his right of self-preservation from a malevolent being, acquirement of knowledge constituting the essence of this right.

Dealing latterly now with the same question exclusively and in its own right, as predicated, the relevant data of the existence of the serpent was suppressed from Adam, through scriptural disinformation.^1 On the one hand, the serpent was [bold paragraph continues on p. 72]

Footnotes

1. disinformation: "false information deliberately and often covertly spread in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth."

Printed p. 72 (scan02)

Body

[bold paragraph continued from p. 71:] identified as snake, whch is a different being.^2 On the other, this being was earlier comprehensively applauded with the express statement made to man, typified in Adam as the quarry of the whole relevant text, that he found everything that he affected to have created to be in good order.^3

All of practical christianity is action motivated by hankering for personal reward. Every action of this kind carries with it the gene of terminal discomfiture for its typical agents. This is the natural consequence of uncertainty of the reward, as so affirmed repeatedly by its own rebellious artificer.^4

On the other hand, the Vedic natural scriptures strongly emphasise the transience of works, righteous as well as those desolate of dharma. Acts are classified, not as good or evil, but rather as good or indifferent. Moreover, it treats every action as a link in the chain of works that has been running on from eternity. Unless this chain is broken, moksham is impossible. Therefore, good works are extinguished no less than non-good works, the former by non-clinging to the Self at the end of its successive terminations, and the latter by autonomous destruction.^5 Specifically again the scriptures say that "there necessarily results the final release (moksham) of him who knows as soon as death takes place."—Badarayanan, Vedanta-Sutras, IV Adhyaya, I Pada, Verse 14.

Moksham is the state of selfhood in which the consciousness, having attained ultimate knowledge, as also awareness of such attainment by the siddhi (accomplishment) of asamprajnatha (superconsciousness), at the same time comprehends them both [paragraph continues on p. 73]

Footnotes

2. See genesis 3:1: "Now the snake was the most cunning animal that the lord god had made."

3. See genesis 1:31: "And god saw all that he had made, and found it very good."

4. See supra, p. 55.

5. See Chandogyopanishad, VIII, I,6: "As in this existence whatever is acquired by works perishes so perishes whatever is acquired for the next existence by good actions. Those who terminate this existence after having discovered the Self, for them there is freedom in all worlds."

Printed p. 73 (scan03)

Body

[continued from p. 72:] integrally with the anubhava (phenomenal experience) imbibed from sensory existence. It is acquired by its sadhakas (proficients) either in the moments immediately before death, when the jeevan (gene) retires little by little from the various limbs of the body and at last remains ensconced in the region of the hridayam (heart) or hridi ayam (I am atma), or quite possibly even before death is approaching. Individuals of the latter kind are recognised in scripture as jeevan muktha, those who attain moksha while yet embodied.

The sense of scripture innate in the agent or kindled in him by the guru overrides all other factors that contribute to his ability to comprehend experience by reduction to the terms of phenomenal knowledge. The most important factor here is his racial and genetic inheritance, and environment.

In the comprehensive term of environment are comprised such factors as comprehension of concepts, apprehension of scripture in its two-fold characteristic of underivedness and potency as the still commonly ongoing directive component of history, ability to discriminate primordial scripture from the counterfeit while at the same time generally applying to the latter the above-mentioned norms of scripture, and lastly the capability to sense the etymosial content of words and translate it into experience terms (anubhava).^6

Transcending all these is the phenomenon of intuition (anubhuti), or direct perception of ultimate reality without any contributory experience at individual level. (The Scriptures trace even anubhuti to one's earlier existences, defining it as "spontaneous intuition of supersensible truth, rendered possible through the knowledge acquired in former existences.") The upanishadic rishis had this guna (potency). So too had Sankaracharya, as borne out by transcendence of the Vedas by him.

Footnotes

6. On the concept of anubhava, see Sankaracharya: "The cognition of Brahman (ultimate reality) terminates in an act of anubhava; hence as it has been shown that reasoning is more closely connected with anubhava than sruti is, we have the right to apply reasoning to sruti."—quoted in note at p. 300, Max Muller, ibid.

Printed p. 74 (scan04)

Body

Individuals who acquire these potencies themselves become gurus in the guru-sishya parampara (succession). It is from association with them that the rest imbibe knowledge and attain moksha at one stage or another of the birth-action-death cycle or samsaram. The guru is ever open to this kind of association to whoever seeks it, while not himself initiative of it. This subtle balance, which comes naturally to him, is known as vairagyam (detachment).^7

Moksham involves the quantum leap from manushaanandam (anthropological happiness) to brahmaanandam (supreme happiness). Considering the question in absolute terms, aside from christianity, it is the senses that interfere with manushaanandam. In the case of an individual who has incorporated correct knowledge in himself, as the jeevan (gene) departs from his senses one by one upon approach of death, the sensory barrier too breaks down progressively. It then remains withdrawn in hridayam, the repository of manushaanandam, from where it leaves the body. Depending on the intrinsic quality of his knowledge, he attains either the lower level of ultimate reality, which is called easwara, or the higher level, called kaivalyam. At the lower level, he attains superhuman powers, but not yet brahmaanandam. After the effect of his works is extinguished, he again assumes a body, and turns into a successive participant in samsaram, but now at the penultimate stages. All the natural elements that constitute the body again assist the gene to find a new body. But this new body differs from the old according to the quality and kind of refinement of the gene in the previous existence by knowledge or action, or by both.

In this context, the christian paradise is admittedly the fallout of a redemption from knowledge; therefore, it is the exact antithesis of moksham. Man lost the original paradise [bold paragraph continues on p. 75]

Footnotes

7. Patanjali defines "vairagyam" as "that effect which comes to those who have given up their thirst after objects, either seen or heard, and which wills to control the objects." Swami Vivekananda adds that "vairagya" is "the only way to freedom."—cited from Swami Vivekananda, ibid., pp. 128-29.

Printed p. 75 (scan05)

Body

[bold paragraph continued from p. 74:] when he opted for knowledge. Therefore, he has now been redeemed back to the original state of nude knowledgelessness by christianity!

You exist in a continuum of existence. When you find in Vedic literature the sun, for example, contemplated with passages and illustrations that accord harmoniously with your own perceptions, you sense this continuum to be realistic; you realise that it is the same sun that you see and secondly that both you and the Vedic observers are mutually linked by a chain that can be called commonness of sensibility. "O Sun! Enlightening all sentient and insentient beings that come into existence in this world, thou dost hold your own in the vast skies, creating days along with nights. O Sun! Enlightener of everything! Seated on the chariot with the tresses of brightness, thou art transported along by seven horses which are the seven colourful rays."^8 When such an objective-cum-subjective continuum can be felt running from those times, far anterior to scriptural christianity, to your own time, it is also sensed to be everlasting. Scripture supports this conclusion independently, since it only senses an eternity of creation. "So that I may be many," says the creation text.^9

Christianity has broken this continuum. Therefore, its source-being is the enemy of man, since man cannot exist under conditions of doubt. That kind of enemy cannot but be subterrestrial; christianity calls him supernatural in its rebellion against reality. The only such enemy is Lucifer, as we know from Mary of Agreda and directly from his bible book.

Even a stalwart like Augustine, the guru of western christianity,^10 definitely pleads the strains of this loss of continuum. "I am not certain about anything," so says also Teresa of Lisieaux [paragraph continues on p. 76]

Footnotes

8. cf., Rig Veda, I, 50, 7-8.

9. cf., Chandogyopanishad, VI, 2.

10. See J.R. Lucas, ibid., p. 76: "It was Augustine who formed the mind of western christendom."

Printed p. 76 (scan06)

Note on scan quality: this render is noticeably softer (motion blur) than the others; readings verified against 350–900-dpi re-renders. Two words remain flagged.

Body

[continued from p. 75:] at the door of death.^11 Alphonsa (1910-1946), her eastern counterpart long uprooted from her soil, says the same thing in identical circumstance.^12

Footnotes

11. See her autobiography. The crevasse mentioned by Peter Brown in a similar but separate context shows even more deep and wide at her terminal moments. At one instant she tries self-preservatively to bridge the gap with realistic insights that issue from her feeling for goodness. At the next, under pressure of the affected identity and of the hovering presence of the minister of Lucifer ("That thought! It is dangerous. Don't let yourself think like that," says he upon sensing the terminal struggle in her against Lucifer, which he classifies duteously as "temptation against faith"), she militantly clasps the same being in the nurtured desire for his paradise. We have here a classic case of a highly sensitive young female ("I believe I have never sought anything but truth") struggling helplessly against the pseudo-identity that she sometimes senses ("I prayed very ardently. But still, the death pangs are not allayed in the least; they are not diluted even with an iota of relief"), but is unable to pierce in the simultaneous effort to cling to it all the same. She is caught to the last between her own poetic and femininely sublimated sense of goodness and the doomed effort to reconcile it with the subjective demands of her lifestyle as "divine spouse." "She longed," so goes the authentic narrative that is organised into the text of the autobiography, "with all her might for heaven even while battling against death. But heaven was closed against her. Who but a handful of her closest associates were aware that she was plunged in extreme and unlit torments. Rather should it be called a subterranean tunnel or thick wall! Some fleeting thoughts revealed to mother Agnes seem like thunderbolts. 'When everything turned on heaven, how strange and contrary is this kind of experience. Is this the reward one gets for so greatly serving the god and the virgin.' While looking at the garden through a window, she saw a dark crevasse between the trees. 'Psychically and physically I am in a similar hole. Ah! What darkness! I don't believe in anything except suffering now. Indeed, that's the sole gain.'" "The frightening temptation against faith, about which she had even addressed a treatise to Maria Gonzaga, was to last to the end of her days," informs the narrative. Again she says heroically to those at her side, "Know indeed that you are nursing a young saint." The autobiography closes with the following rebellious note on her passing: "That little known nun was beginning her inscrutable post-death life."—cited from Navamalika (tr. in Malayalam of the original in French), pp. 368-78.

12. This Indian female willed at a very young age to make herself an exact counterpart of Teresa of Lisieaux: "I zealously aspired to become a saint (of Lucifer). I had that desire while reading the biography of Teresa of Lisieaux." She had the same kind of terminal experience as her model. Paradoxically, and uniquely in her case, the terminal torments were of recurrent nature. Her homilies are [note 12 continues on p. 77]

Printed p. 77 (scan07)

Body

On the other hand, this continuum is uninterruptedly perceptible in East and West—in the East in the scripturally intact races and in the West before the onset of historical christianity. Although peripherally Vedic, the king of Cochin still reflects it when he says, "I expire," immediately invokes the universal mother-principle, and dies asking her to preserve "the dharma of kings."^13

Late classical Europe too stressed on "the peaceable continuity between the self and the divine." It did so by presenting the self, much as in the East, "as the last link in an unbroken chain of intermediary beings." The identity of a person again was thought of "as sharing in the calm order of the universe." However, by the end of the fourth century, continues Peter Brown, a profound change had taken place throughout western Europe in the late [paragraph continues on p. 78]

Footnotes

[note 12 continued from p. 76:] reflective of the working of a conscious process in her to force the "reward" that she thinks is automatic and progressive from increasing intake of mental and physical tormentation. "My lord, have you not promised a reward to those who renounce everything for your sake? Are you not bound by your promises to reward those who endure hardships for the love of you? Therefore, should you not grant me these my prayers, I will not move from here unless they are realised." "Make me a saint," she implores her professional director by letter. Nevertheless, uncertainty over paradise was to haunt her to the last. Breaking out into the same language as Teresa, she says: "I am in a sorry plight, and who knows what will become of me? I even suspect some mental derangement in me." "She was unable to find any consolation or strength in (her) god," writes her hagiographer. In fact, she passed away in monstrous desolation and abnormal sufferings, evermore even than Teresa of Lisieaux ("I can't stand the pain," she cried), crying out thrice to her actual mother ("Mother, my Mother, Oh, my Mother"), who died giving birth to her. The Rome pope travelled to Kerala in 1986 and meted out to her the rank of Lucifer's blessed. This is designed as the initial step for opening a new cult of ethnic saints from India—the same as in western Europe around sixth century.

13. See Puthezhath Rama Menon, Sakthan Thampuran, pp. 721-22. "Unmindful of the cord of kaalam (time as related to death) stiffening around his neck," writes Puthezhath Rama Menon, "and mustering all his physical and mental resources, the king said: 'I die. Cochin! My child! Well-being of the kingdom depends upon liquidation of a-dharma. Mother! Universal Mother! May the dharma of kings be preserved.'"

Printed p. 78 (scan08)

Body

[continued from p. 77:] classical sense of the stability of man's identity.^14

At the same terminal moment as the king of Cochin, Teresa rebelliously says, "I am not dying."^15 We find acceptance of terminal reality on the one side and rebellion against it on the other. Since mental health involves acceptance of reality, the christian type-figure has gone over with a positive absence of mental health. The Upanishads say here: "According to what his thought is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life."^16 Sruti is even more categorical: "Remembering whatever form of being he leaves this body in the end, into that form he enters, being impressed with it through his constant meditation."^17 All the representative type-figures of christianity, sainted or not, are impressed with the rebellious form of Lucifer through constant meditation that deliberately strives for paisachic metempsychosis.^18 The so-called sacraments, especially the willful [paragraph continues on p. 79]

Footnotes

14. The passages cited are from Peter Brown, op. cit., pp. 66-67. Elsewhere in the work, Brown notes "the full charnel horror of the rise of christianity" and "the christian breaching of the established map of the universe." "The rise of christianity," he continues, "was met by deep religious anger. The progress of this cult of "saints" spelled out for the pagans (read purists, from Sanskrit punati) a slow and horrid crumbling of ancient barriers which presaged the final spreading again over the earth of that "darkness spoken of in the ancient myths", in which all ancient landmarks would be blotted out. Throughout the Mediterranean world, the advance of christianity beyond the towns was the advance of the praesentia of the saints [of Lucifer]. In Gaul and Spain, the spread of Latin at the expense of local Celtic dialects betrayed the final death of cultures that had existed since prehistory. By the sixth century, the only major settled civilizations that maintained a paganism (purism) reaching back without dislocation to the preclassical world, west of India and east of Ireland, was the Zoroastrian culture of Sassanian Iran: elsewhere, in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Anatolia and in western Europe, the ancient preclassical world had come to a definitive end."

15. cf., Navamalika, op. cit., p. 378.

16. See Chandogyopanishad, III, 14: "Man is made of determination (kratu); according to what his determination is in this world so will he be when he has departed this life. Let him therefore form this determination."

17. cf., Bhagavad Gita, VIII, 6.

18. Confreres of Alphonsa have vouched that she "seemed to become one with jesus" (read Lucifer) during her meditations before his "eucharist."

Printed p. 79 (scan09)

Body

[continued from p. 78:] consumption of his body and blood along with its imposition at the terminal moment by practising full-time agents, are intended to consummate such metempsychosis.

We have two other spectral episodes picked up by Brown from the archives of the beginnings of historical chistianity. The Roman lady Macrina sits upright in bed gazing at the setting sun, and prays the long, somber prayer of the dying, which "put into ancient words a sense of perilous uncertainty." Brown adds that Augustine broke out into the same "somber language of risk" when his mother was on death bed. He also cites Augustine's disciple as telling Apa Daniel then: "O my father, do you fear also, you who have become perfect in such measure?" "O my son, if Abraham, with Isaac and Jacob were in my presence now and said, 'you are just,' I would still have no confidence." Brown cites these types as signposts of the general and novel crevasse that was inserted by christianity in western Europe in the fourth century, and that came to open wide at individual's death, since "no one could be secure at that awful moment."^19

The christian paradise is like a cheque made out to the amount of all the wealth in the world by a dismissed executive on his old company's cheque book that he managed to take out. Thus far the analogy appears correct, except that the executive got self-dismissed by reason of a contrivance in the system in his old office which he could hardly imagine. This contrivance is gravitation. In scriptural terms, it is called dhri, the root-sphotam of dharma. The sense is "to hold," from which it follows that the moment you let go of dharma, you fall. "What?" Isaiah exclaims upon seeing the fall in scriptural time in all its unanticipated precipitateness, "What, fallen from swargalokam, thou Lucifer?"^20

The analogy can be made a little more complete by adding that the drawer puts a nebulous date on the cheque, which keeps [paragraph continues on p. 80]

Footnotes

19. cf., Peter Brown, op.cit., pp. 67-68.

20. Isaiah 14:12.

Printed p. 80 (scan10)

Body

[continued from p. 79:] advancing day by needed day. He explains that the amount is so huge that the company's owner himself will arrive one day and put the real date. "But as to that moment, none but the owner knows, not even his closest colleagues nor myself his only son."^21 He finally signs on the cheque by the name he designed for the purpose after he got self-dismissed, avoiding his true name, which is known to many.

From that date onwards, professed christianity has been waiting in tremulous expectation of the arrival. The tremulousness can be sensed running at all times and in every one without exception beneath all the self-satisfied ebullience, notwithstanding the controversies, which are confined to aspects of its decor. Occasionally, the tremulousness surfaces under the responsive charge of extraordinary turns of temporal, political or clerical history. Its intensity varies in degree in proportion to the receptiveness of the concerned individual or the reacting segment in christianity, with the more receptive and the more wishful expatiating in the following serious vein:

"At his coming in the air, we will experience a transformation at the same instant we defy gravity in our ascension to the great meeting in the air. We will be snatched away to meet him in the air."^22

More seriously, scriptural christianity affords no basis either organically nor even in respect of the freely enlisting individual for a semblance of assuredness of the professed reward. Committed christianity too, typified by certified exemplary polestars like Teresa of Lisieaux, does not furnish any other picture even from their terminal moments when the senses no longer operate and pranan (life) is withdrawn to the heart, which is the abode of aanandam (happiness). On the other hand, we do perceive the unmistakable signs of a ruthless internal warfare going on there in such sensitive cases at those moments, so evidently reflected in the words they articulate. Teresa: "Is this the reward you [paragraph continues on p. 81]

Footnotes

21. Matthew 24:36.

22. See Anis A. Shorrosh, Jesus, Prophecy and the Middle East, pp. 90, 93.

Printed p. 81 (scan11)

Body

[continued from p. 80:] give to those who serve you?"

The more impressible the subjects, the more they serve him. The more they have served him, the more is the terminal struggle. All the more then is the lone, plaintive, feminine, compulsive final effort to reconcile the reality of the experience with the sanguine proportionate reward so confidently anticipated all this while from service sedulously and desperately rendered on the lines of a dearly held scripture. Such a contrary outcome at the end of such hope cannot be rational. Therefore, once again, we must seek out the cause in the phenomenal world, the world rebelliously opened out to Mary of Agreda. He utters a sentence there that is the key to the whole macabre scenario: "I will persecute the meek, oppress the suffering and afflict the poor with so much the greater torments the more faithfully they have followed me."

Of the brothers Cain and Abel, the latter served him more than the former by expressly pleasing him with the endearsome sacrifice of blood. Just so, he was assassinated by the being whom he satiated.

[End of chapter V. Remainder of p. 81 blank; no footnotes on this page.]

Printed p. 82 (scan01) — chapter opener

Body

Chapter VI

Kingdom of Torments God = Lucifer

Coincident use of standard and antithetical particles at one and the same instant, or use of a uniform expression in a commonly rebellious convoluted sense in different proof-texts is the dissimulative stock-in-trade of Lucifer in his mariological time. Importantly in this context, he significantly exalts material poverty (Luke 6:20) in his hilltop speech. The same text is convoluted at Matthew 5:3 as "poverty of spirit," even though both texts concern a single historical instant. The latter text moreover embodies a contradiction in terms—the same as "love your enemies" at a different point.

The admitted singular enemy of christianity is a being unexceptionally designated by every kind of bible book as "anti-christ." Therefore, the scriptural and vulgar (from Sanskrit varga) christian approach to this being is the authentic touchstone of the above formula, however atmadushi (self-incompatible) the latter verbally is. This scriptural approach progressively verbalised by John at seven different places at the dissolution of christianity^1 and aimed at pre-designing the medial approach is however the exact antithesis of the formula. It results in open cannibalism self-satisfyingly carried out against the unique enemy by John in his "revelation" from Lucifer.

Moreover, it culminates in a "great feast of the flesh of [page ends mid-sentence; the paragraph, still in boldface, continues on p. 83]

Apparatus

1. revelation 16:2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 17.

Printed p. 83 (scan02)

Body

[boldface continues] all mankind" by god.^2 The wide-open feast is actually organised in hurried celebration of the doom of mankind targeted by him and announced through Mary of Agreda (see supra, pp. 29-30). As for jesus, he is indivisible from the above god, being the sole repository of the one-piece, one-time, banquet of universal extermination revealed by him directly, exultantly and by name to John (revelation 1:11). [boldface ends]

In Luke, he peremptorily and urgently invests the "kingdom of god" upon those struck down by phenomenal poverty (6:20). In Matthew, 5:3, the identical text is convoluted in one codex, followed by Knox, as "kingdom of heaven," and in another as "kingdom of the heavens" (New World Translation).

In stipulating the physical heavens, the text of his words last cited nullifies the other two. On the other hand, Matthew and Luke nullify each other by mutual discord in respect of the nuclear terms of god and heaven, both of them actually spoken moreover at one and the same instant by a single speaker.

Such a phenomenon in a scripture expressly protected in all its formulations, however differently worded, would be impossible except in the single contingency of different time units operating simultaneously in the speaker. This in turn would raise the pertinent historical question of the true authorship of the books ascribed to Matthew, Mark and Luke, which seek to sell the embodied Lucifer rather more directly than the comparatively generalised work of John. (See supra, pp. 39-40).

Again he says summatively in an unrelated context recorded by John that "the poor you shall always have with you" (12:8). It is evident that material poverty is meant.

Apparatus

2. revelation 19:18-21: "Come and gather at god's great feast, where you shall eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the strong, the flesh of horses and their riders, the flesh of all mankind, free men and slaves, the little and the great. The beast ("the anti-christ") was made prisoner, and with it the false prophet and both were thrown alive into the fiery lake that burns with brimstone. All the rest were slain by the sword and all the birds feasted on the carrion, and had their fill."

Printed p. 84 (scan03)

Body

In the same context, the Sanskrit scriptures come to the aid of man, victimised as he is by Lucifer with the infliction of his kingdom, accruing from suicidal poverty. Exactly this kind of poverty is called ashtadaaridryam (octandrious privation) by the Vedic books, which go on to say realistically that its victims will be mortally trapped in a vicious circle of pecuniary loss in everything that they undertake.^3

Impassively driven by compassion, Sivan approaches the rishi Vasishtan applying to know as to which one from among the two great sorrows comprising poverty and illness was the greater sorrow afflicting man in the world. Vasishtan explains with good reason how poverty is the greater sorrow of the two. The same concept of phenomenal poverty that Lucifer palavers into a killer blessing, is now turned scriptural in the genuine sense, so that an authentic remedy can be presented at the level of consciousness. It is thus that Sivan spells out the sivasthothram that extinguishes the sadness of poverty by the inherent dynamics of scripture. It is embodied in eight tercets in Sanskrit inscribed accordingly by Vasishtan; each one of them has also an extra line of refrain that uniformly notices Sivan as destroyer of the sadness of phenomenal poverty.^4

Apparatus

3. The scriptural sense is discernible in the following saying among the Hindu Nair races of Kerala: "To the man waylaid by ashtadaaridryam, nothing but loss from whatever he touches."—Sreekandeswaram, op. cit., 232. For an alternative perception of privation, see Vyasan, Sree Bhavishya Mahapuranam, p. 22: "The impoverished man is loathed by his own kin. The rich man however is honoured even by strangers. To him is attributed knowledge, noble descent and high cultivation. These qualities are not conceded in a poor man, even if he has them. The poor man is unable to attain qualities such as knowledge of sastras, skill, artistry, etc., belonging to the four principal objects of existence (purushaartha). Therefore, it is imperative that one should acquire wealth, by inheritance or by self-acquisition."

4. See Parameswaran Pillai, Weekly Rites, pp. 23-24. Another sivasthothram included in this work preempts fear of death. It is received from Sivan by the rishi Markandeyan. This also has 32 lines and many appellations of Sivan in his attribute of mrithyunjayan (preemptor of fear of death). "Sathyam sathyam vadaamyaham" (Verily, verily, I say unto you), says Markandeyan nominatively at the end, [note 4 continues on p. 85]

Printed p. 85 (scan04)

Body

The luciferian pattern above is discarded for once, when he deviates from the typical "kingdom of heaven" and says "paradise" instead. This is the same expression that his unifactorial father uses repeatedly for seven times in the space of two chapters in genesis.^5 It is a code word unique to historical and literary christianity. But it is rebelliously suppressed and consistently substituted in all current versions with the ascriptural expression of "garden,"^6 both sets of books uniformly retaining it however, when it is affirmed in mariological time.^7 This singular paradise of mariological time is thus the sole inalienable, as it is its protected contemporaneously surviving affirmation, and as it is perpetually perceptible in his scripture as an indispensable component, transcending the book's rebellious evolution.

This peremptory instance befalls when he, while yielding up the ghost, speaks to the singular robber who forswore to his misidentity as his own terminal thought, even as Teresa did. (See ch. V). Applying the Vedic texts, we have here a communion of terminal thoughts between speaker and hearer. But while in one reproduction of the particular instant, ascribed to Luke (23:39-43), the former spoke devisedly,^8 in the other reproduction of the same instant, and ascribed to Matthew (27:44), he drew it "authentically," both robbers equally insulting him in this second account.^9 "Paradise" is notably absent in this account.

When both robbers insulted him in one book, can he possibly award paradise to one of the same two as reward for applauding [continues on p. 86]

Apparatus

[continuation of note 4] "whoever reflects on this sthothram will not have fear of death at all." (See postscript.)

5. cf., Dublin bible, genesis 2:8; 2:9; 2:15; 2:16; 3:8; 3:23; 3:24.

6. cf., New World Translation, pp. 10, 11, 12.

7. cf., Dublin bible, Luke 23:43. Also, New World Translation, ibid.

8. "And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him. But the other answering, rebuked him. And jesus said to him: this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."

9. "And the self same thing the thieves also, that were crucified with him, reproached him with."

Printed p. 86 (scan05)

Body

him in another exposure of the same historical instant, both books being high fidelity by definition. Scripture should be understood comprehensively with regard to all its elements as well as integrally in respect of each element; the dictum applies to subterranean scripture too. Therefore, the ersatz paradise scene rebelliously integrated in the two books is the rebel's way of saying kingdom of torments, since the spurious hearer is despatched with positive misidentity as the terminal movement in his chittham (consciousness).^10

Scripture disposes the ersatz scene with the expression piyati, the devil's scorn. The fiend concept is thus traced to piyati. In one text he tells the robber that he will be with him in his paradise that same day. In the other reproduction of the same text, the date of initiation is dropped by relocation of the comma, making it now the date of his declaration instead. "I promise thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."^11 "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise."^12

Since scripture is comprehensively consistent with its emanational being, the two passages and spectacles are only reconcilable on the real identity of the testifier and protagonist as Lucifer, the rebel unto himself and the masked enemy of man.

Lucifer forfeited brahmaanandam at the fall. While Beelzebub reconciled himself with the fall, Lucifer rebelled. Since it is an organic rebellion, he can only conserve it by rebelliously feeding on the memory of what he lost; anything else would be adjustment with the loss. (The question of an alternative course by Lucifer is relative. It does not arise in the absolute sense, [continues on p. 87]

Apparatus

10. Chittham is the third vertical level of consciousness. On the one side, chittham apprehends the phenomenal world and on the other, ultimate reality. Mandookyopanishad: "When chittham quivers, the phenomenal world; when chittham is quiescent, brahman." The mode of chittham is anusandhanam (integration). Beyond chittham is the fourth and last level of consciousness, anthahkaranam. The two surface levels of consciousness are manas (mind) and buddhi (determinative faculty).

11. Knox bible, p. 84.

12. New World Translation, p. 1149.

Printed p. 87 (scan06)

Body

since positive evil is not endemic in the system. On the one hand, we miss it in the system of Bhaaratham,^13 which is chronologically anterior in the first place and which in the second place, senses the fall but is still redemptive of those merely fallen. On the other hand, we find it has been input in the system from outside by primordial christianity by and through its source-being at genesis 4:6. Since this being can only endure from positive misidentification in consciousness, its realistic identification in the same consciousness will automatically bring about its disintegration, sarvanaasham, and simultaneously the termination of evil at the wellspring.^14)

The relevant account, couched inevitably in christian terms, says: "As soon as Lucifer and his followers entered hell, they assembled in general council which lasted to the morning of Thursday. During this time Lucifer exerted all his astuteness and diabolical malice in conferring with the demons and concocting plans to obtain revenge for the chastisement to which he had been subjected (read self-chastisement he had courted). They came to the conclusion that the greatest vengeance would be to impede mankind (in acquisition of correct knowledge). This they hoped to obtain by deceiving men."^15

Again "paradise" is kingdom of torments, since it is designed by Lucifer and brandished in human time, which is acquired by him by way of his female and in execution of his manifesto. The "eternal fire" he boldly announces there denotes the fumes of eternal mental anguish. Scriptural anguish of that degree operates at the level of chittham in its most typical agents. For this [continues on p. 88]

Apparatus

13. Bhaaratham or Bhaarat, the scriptural appellation of India, is composited of the Sanskrit sounds bha, ra and tha. Bha means "resplendent among all scriptures," ra, "solicitude towards every being," and tha, "the pulsation of all sacred rivers."

14. cf., Ancient Mother—III/IV. (Editor's note: The author intends to take up the mentioned topic in the next volumes of the Ancient Mother series.)

15. See the revelations of Mary of Agreda, quoted by Cyril Marystone, op. cit., pp. 139-40.

Printed p. 88 (scan07) — no footnotes on this page

Body

reason it is capable of surviving beyond their body-death, the brain still functioning after body-death. It is reserved for those who serve him with conscious phenomenal determination. It is this state that christianity rebelliously calls man's eternal happiness.

Since this objective terminal anguish is presented before man as a "paradise" and subjectively couched in the terms of an unasked for and disproportionate varam (boon), christianity is even more lethal than a killer who meets his quarry in the disguise of his doctor. The victim had been turned already vulnerable by unsuspected doses in small quantity of the toxin called sin. The killer now visits as his victim finally lay in hospital. He is robed with the doctor's gown and armed with a syringe noticeably covered by the label of the best-known antibiotic, but which actually has cyanide inside.

All through the rest of his mariological term, he particularly verbalised on the kingdom of his father in heaven. But when he loses this time and reverts to his original time, he speaks the same language as did Lucifer to Mary of Agreda. To say it again, when both stand in their common time dimension, they fall back to the same language of the bare kingdom, bereft of heaven. He told Mary of Agreda: "This is my kingdom, and this is the reward which I will give to those who follow me." Under pressure of a looming threat to his professed identity in mariological time, he reverts in fury back to the same bare kingdom.

His maternal countrymen had nearly identified him when they declared he was Beelzebub. Both beings are identical in everything except rebellion, which is definitively special to Lucifer, being entirely of his mind and making. At the council, Lucifer is the dominating figure both in malevolence frustratingly pitted against man ("I will destroy this race of men by pretending to serve it") and in advancive planning. He plans the text of his sermon on the mount in all of its most important three points. "I will persecute the meek," so goes the authentic blueprint. "Blessed are the meek," so reads it in his mariological time. The first is the reality and the second the deliberated rebellion super- [continues on p. 89]

Printed p. 89 (scan08)

Body

imposed on it when he goes up the mount and rebelliously senses a momentary release from gravitation.

The countrymen had indeed identified him correctly if we take him in his post-fall and pre-rebellion aspect. The pressure of identification discharges his original time onto him, instantly inlaying itself on the pseudo-time he had acquired from the human female. In the result, he loses the thin veneer on which he demonstrably perches at steady moments the distinction from his "father." Harking back now to the scene in the old pseudo-paradise along time that at stalling moments is at once old and instantaneous in him in consequence of the extrinsic consciousness accruing from correlation with the human female, he at once re-visions the serpent. Around that old vortex, his time is recycled and retrojected, and stays concertinaed at the unifying common point of malevolence. The pseudo-sonhood is autonomously unwound, and he dissolves into his real beinghood as Lucifer.

Still operating around the vortex, under the motive force of the rebellion, he keeps the old numeration and utters seven imprecations, each one punctuated by paragraphs of vituperation in his mind and each renewal feeding upon the one immediately preceding,^16 and all accumulating together into an ultimate defiance that on the one hand bares from the kingdom the heaven that he hyphenates with it at other times, and on the other scorningly forces upon and from him the clue to the murder of Abel.^17 It is the ultimate clue that leads to detection of his true identity, [continues on p. 90]

Apparatus

16. Matthew, 23:13, 14-15, 16-22, 23-24, 25-26, 27-28, 29-31.

17. See Luke 11:51, New World Translation: " . . . from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah, who was slain between the altar and the house." cf., the same text at Matthew 23:35: " . . . from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." A person named Zechariah who was killed in old testament account at the identical site mentioned above (in Matthew) is not the one designedly cited here by jesus. The actual sufferer is Joiada's son Zecharia, who was killed in the temple courtyard on orders of the king. The identical accounts of the violent death of this man are to be found at II, ch. 24, verses 20-22 of a uniform book, which is titled [note 17 continues on p. 90]

Printed p. 90 (scan09)

Body

which his countrymen missed by reason of their scripture having narrowly omitted the Lucifer concept, which is kept in reserve for the christian scripture. The parental Hebrew scriptures notice Lucifer exclusively, if variously, as king of babylon, or shining one, or again as morning star, while the catholic-christian scriptures conserve his nominative identification intact.^18

This means that the Hebrew books as a whole do not sense the rebellion. The Vedas too do not sense an irredeemable rebel for the different reason that being a natural scripture they do not impinge on the preternatural sin of Lucifer. Scripturally considered, however, the identification of Lucifer as jesus is only possible from the Vedas as they minutely sense his fall but not the subsequent rebellion. This latter is the preserved lore of christianity, which insists upon nominating as heaven those innermost regions of the nether world where the rebellion was concocted. Incidentally, the primordial scriptures identify the site as patalam, [continues on p. 91]

Apparatus

[continuation of note 17] variously as paralipomenon I, II by the catholics and chronicles I, II by the protestants. The person cited by jesus in Matthew, Zechariah, son of Barachiah, is author of a book in the old testament that carries his name; this person was never killed. Therefore, the whole of Matthew 23:35, except for the text by Lucifer, alias jesus, self-centredly judging Abel as righteous on account of his bloody rite, is liable to be cancelled as falsehood designed to cover-up the speaker's accountability for the assassination of Abel. The configuration of the site of the deed, "between the altar and the house," is accurately known to the speaker. The site is unknown to Cain, as he realistically says, "I do not know," when asked by the protagonist at genesis 4:9 to account for Abel's whereabouts, after he himself had done him to death for having served him far more than Cain with the rite in blood classically relished by him, in explicit preference to the rite in crops offered before by the latter. Vide Ancient Mother I, ch. VII.

18. See in this connection C.A. Patrides, ibid., p. 91: "Renaissance expositors accepted the theory of the angels' rebellion in heaven as a fact. Unfortunately the biblical evidence for this theory is distressingly inadequate, consisting of a passage in Isaiah and a few verses in the book of revelation. In Isaiah the reference is to the fall of the king of Babylon, whom christian theologians displaced in favour of Satan on the evidence of an incidental statement by jesus ('I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven'). The other major 'evidence' given in verification of the war in heaven, one of the poetic visions in the Johannine apocalypse, is just as questionable."

Printed p. 91 (scan10)

Body

along with six other distinct sites in the same nether world. In the language of Kerala, this patalam is ritually specified by christianity as the identical location where he descended upon allegedly giving up the ghost.^19

At the same time, once the identification is accomplished, the Vedas will have fulfilled its purpose, which is summated in the maxim: Let there come into being the state of grieflessness for every being in the world (Lokah samastha sukhino bhavanthu).^20 This is why Sankaracharya said in transcendence of the Vedas that whatsoever any Sruti that contradicts with experience should be discarded.^21 The pure religion of knowledge dissociated from rites and observances is more to be found in the Upanishads of which Sankaracharya was the greatest expositor. Again, Sankaracharya has sensed, by implication, that the historical anubhava of Lucifer is not directly apprehended by the Vedas. Absolutely speaking, such apprehension would have cost its homogeneity since Vedas are the primordial scripture and in this sense anterior to the rebellion of Lucifer, which is the point when the christian sin really comes to be. Our only vista on pre-rebellion macrocosm, Vedas at the same time afford the unsullied foil so essential for estimating a cosmic counterfeit like christianity.

By scripture we mean a body of books that are underived and that provide the entire history of consciousness, from genesis to the end of the particular cycle of consciousness. The Sanskrit sacred works are such a scripture since their gamut is from [continues on p. 92]

Apparatus

19. See "confession of faith" of the roman catholics in Kerala: "On the third day he rose from the dead (and) descended into patalam."

20. The concept of sukham contained in the maxim is codified as "the state devoid of dukkham (grief)." Dukkham is defined as "that singular state from which everyone desires release or moksham." cf., Sreekandeswaram, op. cit., p. 1005.

21. Vide T.P. Balakrishnan Nair, op. cit., p. 11: "Explaining verse 66, chapter XVIII, in the Bhagavad Gita, Sankaracharya has said that whatsoever any Sruti text that contradicts with empirical knowledge should be rejected. He pointed out that rites and observances are secondary to intuitional perception. The final goal of religion, he declared, is attainable in this life itself."

Printed p. 92 (scan11)

Body

Purusha Sooktham, the part of the Rig Veda relating the genesis of consciousness, to the Upanishads, which explain the final release of consciousness, or moksha. The later works, most importantly Ramayanam and the Puranas, belong to the same frame but at a realistic secondary level of consciousness; the Mahabharatha on the other hand serves at both levels by reason of its common origin from the author of the Brahma-Sutras (Key to Ultimate Reality) under his alternate name of Badarayana.

The christian scriptures, momentarily so treating them, as proffered, really belong to this secondary level. But since they ostensibly portray themselves as a genesis and since the genesis of the serpent, upon whom the whole book swings, is not included in it, they are a rebellious scripture against the Vedas and consequently against man since the Vedas contain the science of true knowledge that alone leads to moksha, and also since the portrayed serpent is a Vedic being and the symbol of scriptural compassion towards man. To identify the christian scriptures objectively as what they really are, viz., the self-expression of the consciousness of Lucifer, is true knowledge (jnanam) and to regard them in any way otherwise is positive false knowledge (positive avidya). Such a false knowledge will estop man's moksham. This is why Adam and Eve walked out of the place "hand in hand" upon a note of "love regained," as Patrides says independently of the identity.^22

The record of his history in mariological time is consciously assembled in a haphazard pattern by the four supposed narrators in four, or five, different books of vastly mismatched sizes, each divided one knows not when and by whom into quasi-chapters that do not conform to any norm except the intention to deceive by chronological and documentary subterfuges. The same scene is ingenuously cast about in apparent disdain in different books over numerous codices. The effort at apparent guilelessness is so far overworked and circumspect as to make you so much as feel [continues on p. 93]

Apparatus

22. cf., C.A. Patrides, ibid., p. 177.

Printed p. 93 (scan12 skewed take, scan13 clean take — identical text)

Body

the presence of a common overvalent mind working at the back of the whole composition. Such exercise is even more to be perceived over those code words that on the one hand hide and on the other deviously reveal the identity in a whirlpool of the obligatory rebellion syndrome.

For example, the above kingdom scene is scattered over two books with all the seven imprecations dutifully lodged in one of them, each starting a new paragraph. We call this the reality by reason of its numerical affinity with the seven paradises in genesis and also because the consciousness instantly reverts there by reflex that causes a sudden recall of the phantom-spirit of Abel from the same book. The clue to the killing of Abel is lodged in the other version of the same scene in the same codex, in which the earlier numerational affinity is rebelled against by dropping one of the imprecations^23 and by sandwiching the clue word and passage between the fifth and the final imprecations.^24 In the first book—ascribed, varyingly, to Matthew in the some codex, but uniformly so in all other codices reviewed—this same passage appears, as we have just seen, after all seven imprecations have been delivered and with a devious cover-up of the clue and a rebellious double cover-up too in which Abel is expressly applauded—crocodilianly in the suddenly precipitating paternal consciousness^25—as righteous. (There is no special point of righteousness perceivable in Abel, none that Lucifer could characteristically allege against him, as he does. Actually, he was deviously persuaded by Lucifer, artless as Abel was like his specie, to offer a sacrifice of blood alternating from Cain's natural Vedic sacrifice of crops. Beings that satiate under bloody sacrifice are known in Scripture; they are classified as paisach, from the sound "pisitham," which signifies flesh.)

For another, all four writers uniformly misemploy and one [continues on p. 94]

Apparatus

23. Luke 11: 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 52.

24. ibid., 11:51.

25. The same crocodilian visage appears at genesis 6:7 in the father. See supra, p. 52.

Printed p. 94 (scan14)

Body

of them in addition glosses a passage of Isaiah in a patent effort to devise a scriptural antiquity for the lord. Isaiah had written about 700 years before a vague little piece about how two sites that he identifies as Zabulon and Nephthalim were weighed down by affliction after they had in fact lightly borne some burden at an earlier date. The four writers, Matthew in all detail and the rest less so, relate realistically that the lord "withdrew into Galilee" upon hearing that the baptist John his forerunner had been constituted terminal prisoner, deservedly. He then willfully came to live in Capharnaum on the borders of the very places mentioned by Isaiah, so "that it might be fulfilled which was said by Isaias (sic) the prophet,"^26 says the writer on the utilitarian presumption that Isaiah was writing beforehand of the lord. Matthew glosses Isaiah's text where it spoke in the last verse of the chapter immediately preceding in the Hebrew original, omitting a sentence that connects the original passage with the one preceding.^27 The connecting sentence would change the entire tenor of Isaiah's words as they are now found in the Greek or Latin translations or in both of them, since it speaks particularly of the ruin that was to come to the race. And this Greek and Latin translation is what passes for scripture.

The "Lucifer" expressly registered by the catholic scriptures is not identifiable with the serpent of the same books, nor with Beelzebub. Of the three, only the sepent has to do with knowledge. Nor is he a contentious being, as Beelzebub is in the latter-day christian scriptures, rebelliously labelled as new testament; he appears and disappears simultaneously by reason of his siddhi (faculty) known as thirobhavam, evanescence.^28 Inci- [continues on p. 95]

Apparatus

26. See Dublin bible, Matthew 4:14.

27. The sentence glossed over reads: "There will be no way for them to escape from this time of trouble." It appears as the first verse of the ninth chapter of Isaiah in some christian versions or is either wholly suppressed or dislocated to the last verse of the preceding chapter in others.

28. Thirobhavam (evanescence) along with its counterpoint of avirbhavam (emergence) is one of the five operations of Sivan. They are collectively called easwarakrithyapanchakam (quintuplet of Easwara's operations).

Printed p. 95 (scan15)

Body

dentally, this power is imperceptible to the protagonist as he in his malevolence keeps repeating the string of imprecations even when the serpent is not scenically present.

Of the five behaviour patterns (dharmas) of asuras sensed by the Vedas,^29 contentiousness is alone perceptible in the christian scriptures in Beelzebub, in his shadowing of the rebellious escapee from a common territory. He is aware too of the true identity, when he confronts his peer in the fall with the challenge, "If you are son of god . . . "^30 The latter wilts and rebelliously endeavours to match it later on with a needful miracle-account whose realistic genes are however to be found in Mahabharatha, where the archetypal being Krishna,^31 responding to a domestic plight of the terrestrial female Draupadi, symbolically turns a grain of rice into an effective feast for 10000. Mind-beings function in the world of scripture; it is up to man, the lone mind-body being, to decipher scripture and distinguish it one from the other by intrinsic kind. The objective criterion to be used in that case is dharma, which is innate in man, be he scriptural or ascriptural, Aryan or semitic, tribal or aboriginal.

Whenever he mentions the real kingdom bereft of heaven, he couples it with a mysterious being whom he addresses variously as the father, or his father, or even "your" father, and of whom nothing is known independently from his book. Contrariwise, whenever the father is introduced in this context, he drops heaven and reverts to the bare kingdom: "I make a covenant with you just as my father has made a covenant with me, for a king- [continues on p. 96]

Apparatus

29. The five behaviour patterns, collectively called asuradharmapanchakam, are bellicosity, rivalry, war-making, overt sense of ethics, and Siva-bhakthi (devotion to Sivan). Since he is no rebel, all the five are compatibly present in Beelzebub. The last-named, viz., Siva-bhakthi, rebelliously manifests in jesus the rebel in the form of a conscious exertion, verbalised cumulatively at revelation 20:2-3, to suffocate Sivan.

30. Matthew 4:6.

31. Krishna is archetypal being as perceived from the present consciousness in Kaliyuga, but a regular being in his own yuga of dwapara.

Printed p. 96 (scan16)

Body

dom."—Luke 22:29. There operates a covenantal relationship between himself and the being that he verbally discharges into environment. In furtherance of such relationship, he endeavours to bring man unsought into the same covenant. Directly and patronisingly he makes the same endeavour in another context: "Little flock, have no fear, because your father has approved of giving you the kingdom."—ibid., 12:32.

This is underived scripture. Therefore, we must explore for the being at the same thematic level as jesus speaks here as the being's alter ego.

Amidst all the welter of verbal rebellion and cross-rebellion, this one data of the bare kingdom is alone sustained unrebelliously as the common factor as between pre-mariological^32 and post-mariological Lucifer. "This is the reward," so says pre-mariological Lucifer in the revelation to Mary of Agreda. The christian salvation of mariological time is likewise bespattered with the sense and expectation of personal reward for the action of believing the affected identity: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."—Mark 16:16. On man's part the criterion of eligibility is nucleated to swallowing the garrulously protested affected identity, which is enlarged by regulated activation^33 into a novel identity as supereminent son of god.

We fully grant that there functions a pseudo-sonhood in him now from incubation by human female through paisacha vivaham, and also from the scriptural absence of any such sonhood notion in works prior to this female's time that have been brought into the same body of books.

On the other hand, Alexander when leaving India monumentalised on the original concept of a plurality of gods.^34 In [continues on p. 97]

Apparatus

32. The catholics mandatorily read back Mary all the way to Lucifer's genesis. cf., note in Dublin bible (p. 7) and Knox bible (p. 3).

33. cf., John 17:1-5.

34. cf., Flora Annie Steel, ibid., p. 41.

Printed p. 97 (scan17)

Body

France even in the fifth century, we notice the same concept.^35 In Ireland we see the spontaneous notion of natural fatherhood engraved on tombstones of the same date and the Rome pope deliberately estopping and replacing it with his father.^36 Why, even Lucifer himself admits in genesis, under panic, that he is one of many.^37

By his act of sundering moksham by making it contingent upon action, specifically the action of believing the affected identity, the being prevalently called jesus passes out of the definition of god as perfection of goodness and automatically passes into the definition of Lucifer as affecting god.

Action, which is illusory, cannot be the criterion for a phenomenon like moksham. Because something happened, something else happened. This means that every happening is essentially fortuitous. The solution is to know yourself as the immutable perceiver of this illusion, on whose consciousness all of it is registered. God is not the solution since he is Lucifer.

God, alias Lucifer, has been forced upon man by christianity. The rebellion of Lucifer after having become self-expelled from the class and the abode of gods consists not only in regarding himself still to be that which he lost, but also in auto-affecting himself now to be even superlatively so, the only god.^38 By systematic autistic replication^39 of this auto-affectation of godship for a pre-fixed amount of 28 times in the course of the first 27 verses of genesis, he is sufficiently impressed with the notion as to perceive it as a separate image of himself. At this point he can contrive the next step. This is the genetic transcription of [continues on p. 98]

Apparatus

35. cf., Peter Brown, op. cit., p. 117.

36. cf., B.R. Rees, op. cit., pp. 116-17, 121.

37. See genesis 3:22: "Here the man has become like one of us."

38. cf., John Trapp, loc. cit., quoted by C.A. Patrides, ibid., p. 93. On the basis of internal tradition in christianity, Trapp identifies "the sin of Lucifer" as "pride in affecting divinity."

39. replicon: "a linear or circular section of DNA or RNA, which replicates sequentially as a unit."

Printed p. 98 (scan18) — no footnotes on this page

Body

the sensed image onto man. Therefore, along with the 28th replication, he senses man as he wants him to be, viz., the image of Lucifer, in the same 27th verse, in which he has Moses write: "And god created man to his own image: to the image of god he created him: male and female he created them."—genesis 1:27. He is in contradiction here with genesis 2:18 and 2:21-22, where the female is originated all over again. This contradiction evidences a compulsive drive in him to re-pose excellently as god, so that by transference of the image scripturally inlaid by him, man would be demonized.

This being then is the god that christianity has imposed upon man.

He accurately repeats the same system by a throwback reversion while engineering this same gene to make the so-called jesus in the book ascribed to Luke. The historical jesus, Mary's uterine son, comes exactly as the 28th unit from this earlier jesus in Luke, this earlier jesus, derived from the same god as above, being the ancient gene and the historical jesus its replicated form after the required 28 units. This whole obligatory process shows the christian god, far from almighty, a slave of the gene. On the other hand, Sivan transcends the gene by simultaneous destruction and regeneration. The Joseph appearing as the 21st unit here is a visitant, necessary to cast licity upon the uterine birth, so admitted at Luke 3:23 ("jesus himself, when he began his work, was about 30 years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph").

After the 28th unit, in genesis, he indiscriminately returns seven times to the self-appointed god gene, four times in ch. 1 and three times in the next. Then in ch. 2 and the next, the gene is renominated 20 times as lord god, non-sequentially in the course of 19 verses. At the beginning of ch. 4, he drops out the nomination altogether and emerges realistically as mere lord. Sufficiently thoroughbred in his fashion in the course of the entire process, he simultaneously bares himself now in bold words of favouritism towards blood that classically mark him out: "The lord had respect unto Abel and his offering" (of [continues on p. 99]

Printed p. 99 (scan19)

Body

blood).—genesis 4:4.

Everything can be denied, but not the denier. The atman (Self) is therefore the ground of all being. To know that this is so is the only thing worth knowing. This is why the Upanishads say that whoever sunders moksham^40 will perish in the cycle of birth and death: "Even as rain water falling on inaccessible mountains scatters and dissipates itself upon flowing down along diverse channels, so will he who contrives differences among selves perish in the spiral of birth and death of the same differences."^41 The rebel can only sense this as the end of the world, since upon perceiving it as the end of his world, he will cease to be a rebel against reality. A being functions in all respects in accordance with its swa-bhavam.

Lucifer does not exist in any scripture except the christian scripture nor in any consciousness except the christian; he is thus unique to christianity. The serpent is not unique to christianity; he exists in the Hebrew scripture. On the other hand, the Hebrew consciousness recognises him as an upright being; the serpent is so mentioned in Hebrew books. "Just as old," says Patrides, "is the tradition that before the Fall the serpent was beautiful and could in fact walk upright upon his feet."^42 The serpent is not Lucifer since he is a being from outside christianity: "Why, who told you that you were naked?"—genesis 3:11. The introductory expression Why followed by the searching words show that the speaker is not aware of the whereabouts^43 of the serpent.

The passage at genesis 3:11 is comprehensively identical for both catholic and protestant streams of the bible book. However, the expression "creeping things" at genesis 1:24 is not uni- [continues on p. 100]

Apparatus

40. Moksham is relatedly defined as the release of atman from bondage of nescience. cf., Sreekandeswaram, op. cit., p. 1462.

41. Kadopanishad, 2.4.14.

42. C.A. Patrides, op. cit., p. 107. The tradition cited being christian, it embodies the reality in compulsively rebellious form.

43. "His present whereabouts are a secret," writes Webster's, p. 1324, in illustration of the term.

Printed p. 100 (scan20) — no footnotes; chapter and volume body close

Body

versal for both streams, the said expressions turning up in the catholic books only. In the protestant stream, the same passage omits the class of beings pretentiously depicted in the other stream as a creature of the self-affective god. Again, both streams identically mouth the vituperation against the serpent at genesis 3:1. But the protestant stream while maintaining a general uniformity on the passage with the other stream features an internal difference singularly in respect of the entity named as serpent. One set of protestant books keeps the term serpent, as do all the catholic books, while the other set has the different entity of snake in its place.

But all books whatever the stream invariably affirm upon serpent in the end. This is done at revelation 20:2, which pretentiously relates the imprisonment and suffocation of the "serpent" (from Sanskrit sarpati, he creeps)—who is Sivan—besides self-consciously imputing and re-imputing to him ("whom we [christians] call the devil, or Satan") the connotation of "satan," which is proprietary to the source-being of the bible book in its old and new formulations.

Since Sivan is the one and only being that generates the principle of goodness in consciousness, the course of christianity from genesis to dissolution is discerned as an undertaking for the suffocation of goodness from consciousness under the pretext of redeeming it.

Again Lucifer is not the serpent since Lucifer does not exist outside christianity. Since scripture is underived and the christian scripture counterfeitively underived, consistent with its rebellious and affectatious origin, Lucifer is, and is in, christianity.

[The lower half of p. 100 is blank; the volume's body text ends here.]

Postscript

the AM-2 manuscript; the printed form awaits the next scanning session.

“Verily, verily, I say unto you”

References to jesus-Lucifer that stand out by their perceivable authenticity exist in at least two Hindu puranas.

Markandeya-puranam which, significantly, is the work of Markandeyan, not only apprehends jesus-Lucifer distinctly–even disclosing that Krishna had seen him–but also treats of him in his true particularities of “man of sin” and “executioner of mankind.” Interestingly but unwittingly as to its real significance, the puranic text is cited by the French roman catholic abbe J. A. Dubois in his work on the Hindu kind.

The text reads thus: “The ‘Man of sin’ is the executioner of mankind. Krishna, having seen this ‘Man of Sin,’ became thoughtful and pensive. Touched by the woes with which mankind was overwhelmed, Krishna resolved to remedy the evil. Krishna considered how he might bring the reign of the ‘man of Sin’ to an end, he being the sole cause of all mankind’s misfortune. Turning to the ‘man of Sin,’ Krishna addressed him in the following words. “Begone, wretched being, begone! Thy reign is over. Till now you have been the tormentor of the world.’”

Appropriately, the text refers to jesus-Lucifer by the name naarakan, meaning inhabitant of the nether world. The word also means mahapaapi, archsinner.

Bahvishya-puranam, on the other hand, mentions Lucifer in his historical name of jesus. The work also states that he came “hither,” to India (idham samaagatha).

The sojourn in India would explain the acquirement of the exact information ha has of the teaching of Markandeyan.

The rishi is deeply concerned with Kaliyugam and its ramifications for man. Even so, he stops short of identifying it by its proper nomenclature of christianity.

In accord with his concern over the situation of man emplaced side by side with christianity, Markandeyan sets down in Sanskrit the sthothram, formulary, that would redeem man from fear of body-death. Appended to the sthothram are four additional lines of verse in which Markandeyan personally attests even by signature to its instantaneous potency over mruthyubhayam, fear of body-death. The attesting statements in these lines reads in the Sanskrit original as Sathyam, sathyam, vadaamyaham. This reads in English translation as: Verily, verily I say unto you.

Jesus is informed with Markandeyan’s attesting statement and consequently with the sthothram of which it is an integral part. The statement is repeated verbatim by him at 21 different places in the book ascribed to John. In each of these instances the expression verily comes twice in immediate proximity to one another as in Markandeyan. These 21 instances also exhaust the use of the formula in John.

However, the conformity to Markandeyan is compulsively rebelled against in 37 further instances of the statement in the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The general burden of the text that follow these statements is the same as in John, a manifoldly recurring effort to introduce in uncorrupted audiences the kingdom of torments by expatiation as the kingdom of the father.

However, the effort in John stands apart from the other books by directness. But then the multilated formula appears in Matthew for the same 21 times as its original does in John, each one thus a rebellion against the other.

In John there exists also the baring of the “kingdom” in its true paisachic import: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.“–6:53.

The original rebellion against the Hindu text manifests pervasively in form of a uniform suppression of one unit of verily in all the 37 instances and not a single instance in the books ascribed to Matthew, Mark and Luke of the primary conformity to Markandeyan in this particular seen at 21 places in John’s book.

Except for once, the text in these 37 instances is differently worded in each case. This is so even when they do with the same theme and render a single utterance, as in Matthew 21:21 and Mark 11:23, or in Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17.

The exception is the paternal theme of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is expatiated uniformly in two different places, Matthew 10:15 and Mark 6:11. The theme, however, is omitted in John.

The conscious and precise rebellion against Markandeyan and his words of authentication are canalised towards Matthew and John. Of he four, these two have an equal amount of repetitions of the attesting text, 21 in number.

Secondly, the text in such a case as distinct from the attesting words would also be the same.

This conscious instance is found at John 13:21 and Matthew 26:21, the texts reading respectively as “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.”

The words, different in the two reproductions, are however uttered to his followers for nonce.

As deviser of fear of body-death, jesus-Lucifer is obsessed with Markandeyan who redeems man from the fear. He necessarily perceives Markandeyan as the hindrance.

General Index of The Ancient Mother Series

the AM-2 manuscript; the printed form awaits the next scanning session.

Ashram, definition of, i, 21-n 11

Asuras (fallen angels), i, 55-n.3, 75-n.8

Beelzebub, i, 54, 91-n.34, 96; ii, 9-n.4, 10-n.4, 18-n.3, 40-n.39, 67, 88, 94, 95

• devotion to Sivan of, i, 55-n.3; ii, 95-n.29

• redeemer from Lucifer, ii, 10-n.4

Bhaaratham, definition of, ii, 87-n.13

bible/christian scripture (see also old testament):

• abnormal worry over man, i, 49

• affectation of godship, i, 89

• an antithesis, ii, 34

• carrier of sin, i, 62

• charade, i, 18

• counterfeit, i, 12, 32; ii, 47, 100

• counterscripture against Veda, i, 28; ii, 92

• its general burden, ii, 65

• late in origin, i, 66

• ist necrosis of music, ii, 49, 50

• outflow of possession, i, 25

• rebellious exertion of Lucifer, ii, 47

• self-appointed, ii, 45

• self-expression/composition of Lucifer, i, 12, 13, 33, 57, 88; ii, 42, 92

• self-necessitated, ii, 47

christian god (see also Lucifer):

• an affector, ii, 53

• is Lucifer, ii, 53, 97

• not almighty, i, 86; ii, 98

• one of many, ii, 97

• slave of gene, i, 86; ii, 98

christianity:

• counterfeit, ii, 91

• cyclical rebellion against knowledge, i, 23

• is Lucifer, ii, 97

• overturner of reasoning, i, 58-59

• pseudo-religion, i, 83

• source of evil, i, 62, 66-67, 89

• suffocator of goodness, ii, 100

• thesis of illusion, ii, 35

church (christian):

• kingdom/empire of Lucifer, i, 14; ii, 35

Consciousness/prajna, i, 37; ii, 7

• as prana, i, 35-n.2

• as reality/ultimate reality, i, 41-n.12, 47-n.24

Creation, eternity of, ii, 7

David, i, 26, 61

Death, distribution upon, ii, 24, 24-n.24

Dharma, i, 25, 42-n.16, 47, 55-n.3, 58-n. l l, 66, 66-n.12, 78; ii,S9, 60

• as criterion, i, 66-n.12; ii, 18-n.2

• dependant on man, ii, 63

• exclusive to Hindus, i, 66

• gift to mankind from Hindus, i, 66

• innate in man, ii, 95

Easwara, i, 36-n.3, 44, 44-nn.18, 19

faith (christian):

• hijacker of knowledge, ii, 69

• midwife of superstition, i, 68

• positive nescience, ii, 9

Gandhi, Mahatma, quoted, i, 55-n.S

Genius:

• product of gene, ii, 8

Goodness, i, 42-n.16, 71, 77

• its independence, i, 46

• perfection of, i, 12, 13, 64, 71; ii, 97

Guilt (see also sin), i, 14,76; ii, 49

• discharging of, i, 93

• equality with (christian) sin, i, 15, 46, 46-n.23, 49, 60-n.17, 61, 72, 82, 82-n. 20, 86

• interchangeability with sin, i, 72, 73, 82

• suicidal, i, 83

Hindus:

• antiquity of, ii, 66-n.25

• calendar of, i, 28-n.21

• originality of, ii, 66-n.25

• place of scripture in, i, 29, 29-n.23, 40-n. l l

• (Hindu) thought, antiquity of, i, 45

• time span of, ii, 27-n.6

• (Hindu) women, ii, I9-nn.6,8

Identity, defined, ii, 17

Immortality, ii, 43

Incarnation (true), criterion of, ii, 61 -n.5

India:

• the ancient mother, i, 30-n.25

• transcendence of (christian) sin

• by, ii, 17

• uncontaminated by guilt/sin, i, 27, 27-n.18

Inquisition (in India), ii, 10-n.5

Isaiah (see also jesus), quoted, i, 83

Islam, i, 74

jesus (see also Lucifer):

• affector of divinity, i, 89

• aggressor against, suffocator of,

• Sivan, i, 55-n.3, 90; ii, 95-n.29, 100

• alter ego of Lucifer, i, 84

• (his) brain death, i, 57

• chip of Lucifer, ii, 36

• a composite, i, 58

• conviction of, i, 100

• criminality of, i, 100

• cyclical rebel, i, 24, 32, 84-n.1, 100

• derivation of his name, i, 85-n.4

• disintegration of, i, 14

• double consciousness in, ii, 38

• (his) end of world refrain,

• meaning of, ii, 99

• executioner of mankind, ii, 82-83, 83-n.2, 101

• ex-god, i, 24

• (his) failure to hold dharma, i, 25, 33, 75-n.8

• fall/gravitational fall of, i, 25, 73, 74-n.8

• a fraud, i, 15

• identity/unifactorialness with Lucifer, i, 12, 23, 51; ii, 38, 40

• (wishful) imprisoner of Sivan, ii, 46

• incarnate rebel, ii, 23

• introducer of sin, ii, 18

• irredeemability of, 1, 24; ii, 40, 40-n.39

• Isaiah quoted on, i, 25-n.13

• Lucifer’s embodied manifestation, ii, 26

• Lucifer/son of Lucifer, i, 23, 50, 69

• a malevolent spirit, i, 58

• physiology of, i, 78-n.14

• pseudo-redeemer, i, 83

• pseudo-sonhood of, i, 94

• rebellion in, i, 13

• rebellion against fall in, i, 90

• self-confession as Lucifer by, i, 24, 24-n.9, 32; ii, 46

• (is) sin, i, 50

• sunderer of moksham, ii, 97

Jews:

• (their) insensibility to Lucifer, i, 54

Jnanam/Knowledge, ii, 9, 12, 18, 59

• christian ban/rebellion against, i, 23, 23-nn.2,3

• its potency over papam, ii, 18-n.4

Kaliyugam, i, 14; ii, 61, 101

• characteristic of, i, 14-n.3

• Karl Marx, quoted, i, 27-n. 19

• Koran (see also Islam), i, 32

Krishna, ii, 63, 101

• as regular being, ii, 95-n.31

Lucifer (see also jesus), i, 27, 30, 33, 42, 42-n.15, 46, 49, 54, 59-n.13, 61-65, 68-70, 80-82, 85, 87-91, 99, 102; ii, 9-n.4, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27-29, 28-n.8, 29-n. 10, 31, 32-nn. 15,16, 34-37, 39, 4348, 53, 54, 54-n.72, 78, 78-n.18, 79, 82-84, 86, 87, 89-94, 96, 100, 101, 103

• affectation of divinity by, i, 89

• affectation of goodness by, i, 89

• auto-regards as god, i, 12; ii, 97, 97-n.38

• cyclical rebel, i, 31, 51

• (his) dynasty, i, 31

• enemy of man, ii, 34, 75

• gravitational fall of, i, 73

• (his) intolerance of man, i, 73

• (his) malice against man, i, 87-nn.17,19

• (his) malignancy, i, 48-n.28, 97-n.49

• manifesto of, i, 38-n.9; ii, 21, 29-30, 33, 45, 50

• original sin by, i, 38-n.9, 46, 71,72

• rebellion against goodness by, i,13

• rebel against reality, i, 103

• sin of, i, 89

• (is) source of anger, i, 76

Mahabharatham, i, 42-n.16, 80, 81, 103-n.60

Man:

• goodness of, i, 18-n.4

• supremacy of, i, 41-n.13

Manu, i, 34-n.l; ii, 9, 54-n.73, 69

Markandeyan, ii, 101-103

Mary:

• as yakshi, i, 50

Moksha, ii, 23-n.20, 72-74, 92

• attributes of, i, 89-n.28

• defined, ii, 23, 72-73

Moses, i, 25, 25-n.12, 39-n.9, 45-n.21, 48-n.28, 54, 56-n.6, 60, 61, 63-65, 65-n. l l, 74, 87-n.20, 92, 95, 96-n.47; ii, 21, 45, 54, 67, 71, 98

Music (see also bible and Saigal, K.L.), ii, 48-51

Nestorian christianity, ii, 20-n.11

old testament:

• embodiment of Lucifer’s consciousness, i, 92

Paisacha vivaham, attributes of, i, 86-n. l l

Papam/papakarmam, ii, 18

• defined, i, 58-n .11

• destruction/dissolution of, i, 58-n.12; ii, 18

paradise (christian), i, 97; ii, 7, 8

• destructive of Self, ii, 8

• extra-structural, ii, 8

• (an) illusion, i, 89-n.28

Prajna (see Consciousness)

protestants, i, 18-20

Religion:

• defined, i, 44, 46

• drive of, i, 53

Russell, Bertrand, quoted, i, 24-n7

Saigal, K.L., ii, 48

Sankaracharya, i, 36, 40-n.11, 102-n.56, 105; ii, 11, 18-n.4, 30, 91

• on Buddha, i, 67-n.15

• on goodness, ii, 30-n.13

• on Knowledge, i, 52-n.33

• on man’s highest end, i, 52-n.33

• on Moksha, ii, 23-n.20

• transcends scripture/Veda, i, 36-n.3, 59-n.15; ii, 73, 91-n.21

Sanskrit, as language of consciousness of goodness, i, 48

Scripture:

• characteristic of, i, 28

• as concerned with specie only, ii,18-n.4

• as transient, ii, 7

Shakespeare, i, 80

Sin (christian), (see also guilt), ii, 17, 18,49,51,52

• fatal, i, 70

• inertial in christian god, i, 72, 76; ii, 63

• irredeemable, i, 83; ii, 18

• (is) subjective, i, 70-n.3

Sivan, ii, 64, 68, 84

• attributes of, i, 64-n.7; ii, 46, 47

• auto-compassion of, i, 22-n. l, 63-n.5, 64; ii, 48

• christian imprisonment of, i, 22-n 1

• defined, i, 86-n.13

• destroyer of papam, ii, 18, 18-n.5

• eka-devan (uni-god), i, 38-n.9, 64-n.7

• embodiment of goodness, ii, 47, 47-n.52

• generator of goodness, ii, 100

• pre-emptor of fear of death, ii, 84-n.4

• transcends gene, i, 86; ii, 98

• typifier of man-specie, ii, 47, 53

Truth, concept of:

• defined, ii, 42

Vedas/Sanskrit scriptures, i, 13, 32, 45-n.21, 52, 71-n.4

• anterior to christianity, ii, 18, 54

• antiquity of, i, 45-n.21

• awareness of Lucifer in, i, 77, 89

• insensibility to Lucifer of (see also Jews), ii, 90

• nullifies (christian) sin, i, 57

• recoils from Lucifer, ii, 24

• recoils from (christian) sin, i, 66-n.12

Vyasan, ii, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65

Bibliography

the AM-2 manuscript; the printed form awaits the next scanning session.

Bouwsma, William J., John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).

Brown, Peter, The Cult of Saints: Ist Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (London: S.C.M. Press Ltd., 1983).

Budd, Malcolm, Music and the Emotions: The Philosophical Theories (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985).

Bunyan, John, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, ed. Roger Sharrock (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972).

Carey, John & Fowler, Alastair, The Poems of John Milton (London: Longman/Norton, 1968).

Chacko, K.C., Sr. Alphonsa (Bharananganam: Vice Postulator, 5th ed., 1983).

Chaplain, My Treasure (Chundale: Shrine, 15th impression).

Chethimattam, John B., Patterns of Indian Thought (New York: Orbis Books, 1971).

Dubois, Abbe J.A., Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (1st ed., 1897), ed. Henry K. Beauchamp (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Impression of 1928, 3rd ed.)

Ermyntrude, M., Carmel Garnered (Cochin: L.P. Publishers, 1980).

Ezuthachan, Thunjathu Ramanujan, Adhyatma Ramayanam (Kottayam: National Book Stall, 1980).

Fonseca, Jos Nicolau da, A Historical and Archeological Sketch of the City of Goa (Bombay: Thacker & Co. 1878).

Gambhirananda, Swami, Prasna Upanishad (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1985).

Herman (tr.), Navamalika (Trivandrum: Carmel Publishing House, 1982).

Hunter, W.W., The Empire of India (London: W.H. Allen & Co., 3rd ed., 1882).

Lucas, J.R. The Freedom of the Will (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970).

Marystone, Cyril, Grave and Urgent Warnings from Heaven, Vol. I. (New York: Cyril Marystone, 1978).

Max Muller, F., The Sacred Books of the East, Vols. XXXIV, XXXVIII (London: Oxford University Press, 1890, 1896).

Menon, Padmanabha K.P., History of the Kingdom of Cochin (Trichur: 1911).

Menon, Puthezhath Rama, Sakthan Thampuran (Ernakulam: Viswanath Press, 1940).

Menon, Raghava R., K.L. Saigal: The Pilgrim of the Swara (Delhi: Hind Pocket Books, 1989).

Monier-Williams, Monier, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, New Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899).

Nair, Balakrishnan T.P., Kalady and Sri Sankaracharya (Kaldady: Vyasa Press, 4th ed., 1988).

Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, reprinted 1969).

Niranathu Rama Panikkar, Sivarathrimahatmyam (Thrissur: Kerala Sahithya Akadami, reprinted 1989).

Patrides, C.A., Milton and the Christian Tradition (London: Oxford University Press, 1966);

Pillai, Parameswaran, Weekly Rites (Trivandrum: Chandra Press, 1984).

Priolkar, A.K., The Goa Inquisition, 1st ed., 1961 (New Delhi: Voice of India, 2nd impression, 1991).

Rajagopalachari, C., Mahabharatha (New Delhi: The Hindustan Times).

Ramakrishnan, M.K., Vedas and Upanishads: A Study (Kasargod: Sandipani Sadhanalayam, 1990).

Rangacharya, M., Sarva-Siddhanta-Sangraha of Sankaracharya (Madras: 1909).

Rees, B.R., Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1988).

Sankaracharya, Sivanandalahari (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1985).

Satprem, Sri Aurobindo or The Adventure of Consciousness, tr. Luc Venet (New York: Institute for Evolutionary Research, 1984).

Shorrosh, Anis A., Jesus, Prohecy and the Middle East (Secunderabad: Maranatha Revival Crusade, 1981).

Sreekandeswaram, Sabdathaaraavali (Kottayam: National Book Stall, 12th ed., 1987).

Steel, Flora Annie, India Through the Ages (London: George Routledge & Sons).

– – –, India by Mortimer Menpes (London: Charles Black, reprinted 1912).

Swami Vivekananda, In Defence of Hinduism (Mayavati: Advaita Ashrama, 1980).

– – –, Raja-Yoga or Conquering Internal Nature (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 18th impression, 1982).

Vyasan, Sree Bhavishya Mahapuranam, tr. K. Sreedhara Warrier (Thrissur: Trichur District Printing and Publishing Co-op. Society, 1992).