---
type: extracted-source
origin: "AM-1.pdf (PyMuPDF text layer)"
work: "The Ancient Mother I — The Key to the bible"
authority-copy: true
pagination-note: reflowed, not printed pages
extraction-quality: clean
extracted: 2026-08-16
gate-item: B.4
tags: [extracted, phase-1-input, panakal]
---

# The Ancient Mother I — The Key to the bible

Leo Panakal, with Vinodh Kumar as honorary co-author. ISBN 3-9520446-1-X.

> **Authority copy.** Complete text of `sources/AM-1.pdf` (57 pp., real text layer; a 2024 Word→ilovepdf rendering of the same state as `AM-1.doc`, which diverges from it by ~0.05%). This is the authority for **exact wording**; the hand-pasted chapter txts under `sources/key/single chapters/` remain the Phase 1 working text.
>
> **Pagination warning.** The `<!-- p.N -->` markers below are pages of *this PDF*, not of the printed book. The General Index's page references ("i, 14", "i, 100") address the printed volume and do **not** map onto them.
>
> **Typography.** Panakal's prose is reproduced exactly — lowercase "jesus"/"christianity", curly quotation marks, en-dashes, hyphenated coinages. Only two structural normalisations were applied: hard line-wraps from the PDF were rejoined into paragraphs, and the separator between a footnote numeral and its text was regularised to ". ".


## Preface

The present work and its companion The Judgement on christianity form the opening volumes of The Ancient Mother series. The series as a whole will be centrally concerned with the identity of christianity. Each title however will deal with a particular aspect of this inclusive theme.

The term ”Ancient Mother” is used in these books in a universal sense beyond all considerations of race, language, history or sect.

The series as a whole will be cumulative. At the same time, each volume will be practically self-contained in its particular field, as outlined in the individual title.

The notes in all volumes will be intrinsic to the text. Although featured as footnotes, they carry the same import as the text to the general and specific themes of each volume. It is hoped that the reader will also so construe them.

The bibliography will be independent for each title in the series. Since all bible books are equally authoritative, they will not be noticed separately in the bibliography. In the present volumes, the following bible books have been quoted from or otherwise made use of: New World Translation, Knox bible, Good News bible, Gideons bible, catholic truth society bible, London bible (published by Eyre and Spottiswoode Limited), Dublin bible (certified 1857), Sathyavedapusthakam (Malayälam) and Malayalam bible.

The glossaries will be culminative; an article explained already will not normally be repeated in a subsequent glossary.

Some Sanskrit terms have been used in the text in their Malayalam forms. For example, Siva in Sanskrit is Sivan  in Malayalam, jnana, jnanam, papa, papam, dharma, dharmam and Rama, Raman. Since Malayalam is closely related to Sanskrit in its scriptural and literary expressions, such a form will not detract in any manner from the sense of those terms.

Except where otherwise specified, the verbal definitions cited are from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1979.

The glossary and the index of the two books have been integrated in each case. They have been provided in such form at the end of The Judgement on christianity.

In certain cases, specialist term or terms used in a particular sense have been expressly defined or otherwise explained.

Citations from Insight are indicated by page number only; the relevant topics could not be further gone into within the mutually complementary plans of this series and of the similarly continuous journal. (Copies of Insight are available to readers on request.)

In the case of The Judgement on christianity, the main body of the work improvised itself segmentally. This explains the recurrence of certain footnotes and a few elements in the text.

It is hoped that the Ancient Mother series of continuing titles will contribute towards elimination from consciousness through correct knowledge of the phenomenal affectation of which their pages treat.

May 1997

L.P. / V.K.


## Foreword

This book began from concepts and scriptural findings originated by Leo Panakal and set out systemically in the theoretical journal Insight. 1

A perceptional canvas at once enormous and unique for its envelopment of time in all fullness and for its sweep of the East and West and of the rest of mankind has been starkly unfolded by those concepts and findings. From that vantage point, it is indeed possible, almost automatic with the aid of impeccable logic, to externalise and integrate experience in its totality and comprehend the whole of existence, in all its range and depth, in a totally integrative and indissolubly wholesome manner.

That the christian bible is the composition of Lucifer, the fallen rebel archangel and devil supreme who rebelliously auto-regards himself as, and unilaterally exerts to rival with, ”God,” the "perfection of goodness,” is the subject matter of the present volume.

The truth was realised, initiated and developed in India by Leo Panakal, Who had at last succeeded in isolating and rending 2 the most characteristic segments and passages of the bible. He then worked through them indefatigably to their dominant single underlying feature of rebellion against their own and the real author's true identity, which feature incidentally also pervades the book  as a whole in varying degrees.

As regards the bible book's text as such, the same feature manifests importantly in its programmed deletions, additions, substitutions, and suppressions, its purported genealogical tables that are only contrived for the genetic implantation of Lucifer's ethos in the consciousness of man, and thirdly, its uniform rebellious application of literal and etymosian meaning, as distinct from literary connotation, to words, phrases, and punctuations that are central to the identification of jesus and Lucifer as one and the same being.

The correct approach to the text of the bible book is to perceive its meaning in the light of definitions and etyma of the content words, as these are to be found in authoritative neutral sources. Needless to say, this approach, eschewing as it does the pursuit of esoteric meaning, and all besides that can be termed interpretative, is fundamentally different from that of the ”believers.”

The above concept, in which the bible book is listed flatteringly as scripture in the inclusive wide sense of the term, specifically places the same as one and the only one exemplar of a counterscripture. The existence in principle of a prior scripture, of which bible is enmarked, sole counterfeit, is therefore a genuine hypothesis logically perceptible by deduction from the objective existence of the bible book, much the same way as existence of an authentic currency note can be inferred from discerning a material counterfeit. Although the identity of the real bible writer, as distinct from its principal historical writer, as well as all other writers in the same historical category, is also consequently inferable from the one consideration of such a scripture previously existing, viz., the Vedas in India, as a matter of fact the selfsame identity is also discernible directly from the bible itself.

From the autonomic thrust of his very entity as undifferentiated rebel against the reality of his gravitational fall from goodness, Lucifer is compulsively bound to reality, and hence bound also to delineate himself– rebelliously, unabashedly, totally, uniquely, and once and for all–in terms of a non-dual rebellion against goodness. A book recording that kind of delineation will, by its very nature, singularly carry the self- expression of his TOTAL beinghood as rebel against goodness, THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE BEING THE SOLE, EXHAUSTIVE, FULL, CONCRETE EXEMPLIFICATION OF THAT EXERCISE.

Further, Lucifer, alias jehovah, alias jesus, has , of necessity from rebellion constituting the very core of his being, to depict himself in such a book competitively as ”God," the "perfection of goodness," and at the same time rebel against this very depiction in

<!-- p.3 -->

an essential and compulsive manifestation on the one hand of a comprehensive rebellion against the reality of his true identity and on the other, of a particular rebellion against his every individual act, oral as well as substantial. This means further that in the very act of rebellion against his true identity and, equally in consequence thereof, he has to reveal it too, although even this inevitably will be done in a rebellious manner.

Lucifer does all of this in his book, the bible we would repeat, and the malignant fraud went undetected for 2000 years, which is in fact the life span computed for mankind and the world in the aftermath of the same book. We consider this a biblical hint, although again inescapably rebellious, that jesus, alias Lucifer, would be exposed by identification at the expiry of 2000 years, and that he would then meet his terminal disintegration from correct cognition of his real identity in representative individual consciousness, along with gradual amnesia from consciousness itself.

It is hoped that the present two works and those others to follow in the same series would serve as peers to the mother of the above truths, viz., Vol.IV, No.1 of the axiomatic- cum-demonstrational journal–which is already issued for quite some time now under the title jesus = Lucifer = THE Devil–and the other forthcoming issues of that precursory publication. It is also hoped that the works individually and culminatively would aid its mother above named in precipitating the termination of the Luciferian age–the very age identified as Kaliyugam by the scriptures of India 3. –and the resultant automatic redemption of man from the gene of war-making as well as that of other crimes and proclivities genetically implanted in him at his consciousness level by that being by the way of book, and rebelliously kept cultured 4. by his kingdom, labelled as church.

This work, same like its companion, is meant not only for the believing christian but also for mankind as a whole, in whose psychic depths, now at last beginning to be emancipated from the fetters of religious faith, the shadow of the bible looms dark and large, constantly intimidating , unconsciously , if not consciously with the instant lethal poison of "guilt." Our specific propose is to free mankind from the overpowering burden and bondage of this guilt, alone manifesting in christianity's sin, by bringing at once analytically and cathartically upward to the same sickened consciousness, (For diseased consciousness, 5. in the language of commonsense, the cleverest fraud 6. in the history of consciousness–in reality larger even than the cleverest for being shrouded in the rebellious garb of a redeeming salvation. A fraud in whose final phase the criminal assumes the robes of the judge himself!

### Footnotes — Foreword

1. Initially started in 1971, the journal was suspended after its third issue. It was resumed in 1976 with sizably larger findings from the editor’s profound involvement with, and relentless investigation of, the phenomenon of religious consciousness totally and culminatively expressed by India, and the efforts of christianity to permeate therein. (The involvement was at once genetic and professional. His genetic inheritance included within it both eastern and western christianity, superimposed on the original Hinduism innate in him in common with the rest of the ethnic people of India.) With the identity of christianity then only incipiently sensed, the findings appeared in pages of the journal in abstractions and expressions of standard christianity that nevertheless evince a struggle between “orthodox christianity” and the same identity. As a result of the struggle, the journal was again suspended in 1977, this time after eleven issues were brought out. Meanwhile, a spontaneous remark by an informed but agitated “christian” visitor in 1987 and several fortuitous perceptions of a parallel import from Hinduism just before set him delving once again into the old and newer layers of consciousness, suddenly focused now for the first time on the identifying scriptural texts of the original and later streams. The result was cognition and development of the identity of jesus as Lucifer and in turn the resumption of Insight, where it is demonstrated in Vol. IV, No. 1, issued in October 1990, under the title jesus = Lucifer = The Devil, with the same demonstration to be continued in future issues.

2. rend: ”from Sanskrit randhra–hole, to split.”

3. The ongoing epoch is noticed in the Sanskrit scriptures as Kaliyugam–age of anger. Its distinctive characteristic is a preponderant waning, but not disappearance, of a sense of righteousness from consciousness, and proportionate loss of mental health. February 13, 3102 b.c. is reckoned as the date when the epoch began. Kaliyugam is fourth and last of the particular phase of cyclical time of which it is a segment. (For detailed exposition by sage Märkandeyan of the characteristic features of Kaliyugam, see Insight,ibid.,pp.42-44: ”On Dissolution of the Age of Lucifer.”)

4. cultured: ”Produced by artificial means, as cultured viruses.”

5. For diseased consciousness,  see Thomas Hardy, registering already four generations ago, the "chronic melancholy which is taking hold of the civilised races." cf., Tess of the D'Urbervilles, p.174.

6. fraud: "from Sanskrit dhvarati, he bends."


## Chapter I

**The proposition & The charade**

The proposition, "jesus = Lucifer,” is the key to the bible book. It is derived from perception and is thus a proposition rooted in reason. We would underline this specific characteristic of the proposition, since our key does possess he attributes of a genuine factual proposition even independently. 1.

Exactly this kind of proposition, incidentally, is accredited by the Sanskrit scriptures as nischalathathwam (reality unchangeable). 2.

Although in a sense precursory, the equation above cannot in truth be disregarded by any rational being. For, ultimately speaking, he would then be disregarding a certain objective reality, specifically the source of christian faith, the bible, without which the faith would not have materialised in the first place, and identically from which the above primary equation too is logically derived. Alone the objective existence of this book in its protracted continuum in the so-called old and new testaments, the hitherto unbeknown concepts it forthwith discharges into the environment, and its extension in the direction of a rebellious component in consciousness, insinuative enough to have contrived an impact on human history while yet remaining bereft of reason, untrue to experience and a frontal charade 3. to the intellect, are the factors that relieve it from palpable anachronism.

And yet, it never failed to intimidate minds otherwise great into succumbing to the "faith" sooner or later in life. Very many of them, besides countless multitudes, have perished from or with it in these 2000 years, 4. as though the only purpose of their coming into being and subsistence were to confer validity on that biblical text of Paul that ghoulishly 5. trumpets: "They tripped on the stone which trips men's feet. Behold, I am setting down in Zion one who is a stone to trip men's feet, a boulder to catch them unawares; those who believe in him will not be disappointed."–rom. 9:33.

For an alternative apprehension of the actual christianity as it leadingly found for several centuries now, it is necessary however to consider it from its two principal poles of protestantism and catholicism, as enduring in their common fervid territory of western Europe.  Although undifferentiated earlier, the one has thenceforward notably differentiated from the other, although more in attitude than in fundamental perception.

Emotionally, protestantism is apathetic and sober while catholicism is triumphant and gay. 6.  Protestants are generally attentive towards experience and logic, while the catholics are born supremo-god’s monopoly agents–self-righteous to the point of condescension, while at the same time irresponsible and aggressive in regard to rational questions of any kind, which they pronouncedly turn over to the church, almost as if by instinct. The resolved individual protestant on the contrary tends to examine the source of his faith for himself, at times confronting his theologians with impaling queries. 7.  The catholics leave it all to the professed church theologians who make ready-made questions and answers for them. On this method all their misgivings are sorted out in their behalf at a plane that lies beyond the boundaries of sense.

The above would sufficiently explain the extreme cases that manifest in form of a profound melancholy in the case of the protestant, and a tenacious , if brittle, nonchalance in the case of the catholics. The protestant, all alone, frowning and brooding, trying to elicit salvation from the mystery book, is a sharp contrast to his god-victimised catholic counterpart who, although in regular communion (at-onement) with the same god, still has no misgivings about his very own individual salvation and assuredly but singularly shall not go to hell nor "die the death." Salvation, preponderantly sensible to him alone negatively, in the idiom of

<!-- p.6 -->

evasion of hell, is on claim automatically just from avoiding sin. Every so often he perpetrates a crime against man, the catholic, then, "cleanses" his soul before his priests of god at the confession box. The protestant all alone, undergoes a waking nightmare at each such occurrence.

In recent times science did bring a better salvation to the same resolved protestant–in the form of mind cure, which presented a method of positive thinking and the religion of Healthy-Mindedness. In the same setting, the catholic's response, characteristically, was an all-too-undisguised effort and exercise on the part of his church to operate even more imperatively, if too cleverly, in today's consciousness as a whole without exception by exultant revision of its own very typical, traditional and hitherto protected stances, even if inescapably entailing an integral contradiction with positions uninterruptedly documented absolutely inviolate heretofore. Accordingly, the so-called Vatican Council II, made in answer 8 to the "divine" 9. word, materially broke up the supernatural intransigence of the conventional dogmas, with most pros and lambs findings in it however a congenially humanistic stance in interreligious exertions. The magic door of salvation was suddenly thrown open to "other faiths," and the hard and the fast believers in the exclusive embodied word began to appear lost in consequence, 10. a cloud of mist having suddenly descended on the infallible mantle of the pope.

It was in these circumstances more than two decades after Vatican II that the foundational question of identity of the biblical god, viz., jehovah, alias jesus was terminally raised and resolved at an exotic, yet not irregular, conversation Ashram 11. in India. The question of identity was at once found to be a question of fact. Since a question of fact brings on evidence, the raising of the identity question was sufficient in itself to terminate peremptorily in resolution of the identity.

### Footnotes — Chapter I

1. On the attributes of a genuine factual proposition, see A.J.Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, p.20: ”Let us call a proposition which records an actual or possible observation an experimental proposition. Then we may say that it is the mark of a genuine factual proposition, not that it should be equivalent to an experimental proposition, or any finite number of experiential propositions, but simply that some experimental propositions can be deduced from it in conjunction with certain other premises without being deducible from those other premises alone.”

2. cf., Sankaracharya, Bhaja Govindam, verse 12, Dwadasapancharikasthothram.

3. charade: "an almost transparent pretence."

4. A forthcoming example is J.J. Rousseau, called ”absurd and presumptuous” for proposing that man was totally good and that in consequence he has nothing to fear from himself. The proposition is termed a ”ridiculous theory” by Raoul Plus, who writes that civilisation consists in ”organisation and struggle against original sin.” Cf., Raoul Plus, s.j., Progress in Divine Union, pp. 18-19.

5. ghoul: "(from Arabic ghul) a legendary evil being that robs graves and feeds on corpses.”

6. See William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 350: ”To intellectual Catholics many of the antiquated beliefs and practices to which the church gives countenance are, if taken literally, as childish as they are to Protestants. But they are childish in the pleasing sense of ‘childlike’–innocent and amiable, and worthy to be smiled on in consideration of the undeveloped condition of the dear people’s intellects. To the protestant, on the contrary, they are childish in the sense of being idiotic falsehoods. He must stamp out their delicate and lovable redundancy, leaving the Catholic to shudder at his literalness. He appears to the latter as morose as if he were some hard-eyed, numb, monotonous kind of reptile. The two will never understand each other–their centres of emotional energy are too different.”

7. See conversation of Tess and the vicar on burial of son. cf., Thomas Hardy, op.cit., pp.146- 48.

8. The Rome pope John XXIII who made Vatican II said at that time that the idea had come suddenly to him from a "spirit."

9. Etymology of the term divine is Latin divus, literally meaning ”god,” with the initial letter of that word uncapitalised, denoting its generic sense of a multiplicity. The Sanskrit term for the same concept is deva, devas in the plural, the plurality of the gods being a constant reality in the scriptures in that language. However, Sivan in the same books is Ekadevan, uni-god, a typification, as distinct from exclusivity, of the whole genre of gods or homogeneous mind-beings. At genesis 3:22–”Behold, the man is become as one of us”–the christian god, alias Lucifer, suddenly confesses to the same generic pluralism in himself.

10. These pathetic figures, the last victims of J Lucifer, are known under various names, the all-embracing name being ”traditionalists.” They are to be found in many countries. The more intend of them are listed in a ”world-wide traditionalist catholic directory.” Published in U.S. Whatever their mutual differences, one features runs uniformly through them all–a tenacious clinging to J Lucifer and his alleged undiluted doctrine disinherited from them by Vatican II. In reality, it is but a deadly clasp by the same being, not the less so for being unperceived by them in their clinging.

11. Ashram: "Sanskrit a (toward) + srama–(religious exercise/knowledge).”


## Chapter II

**Systems and Positions**

Thus far we have been concerned for the most part with certain introductory aspects of the theme. We will now advance in this interlocutory chapter the same positions, as also certain others, from the perspective of objections. As a matter of fact, however, the christian formulation are but the structuralised materialisations from a sentient, positive, environmental misidentification, one that, moreover, is progressive from ancestry of 77 generations, and by its nature, development and history suffocative of the original and prior system that constitutes the desideratum for correct identification of the source-being of the bible book. 1

It might thus be contented that the proposition, "jesus = Lucifer," is not an absolute precept, being a position avowedly counterposed from and captive to actually perceptible christian belief. But the two positions differ basically both as to fundamental constituents and by difference in derivative component.

The fundamental christian constituent being posited as rebellion, it presupposes the prior existence of a reality against which it is so constituted, since rebellion cannot come to be in absence of such a reality. Comprehensively, the entire christian position is based upon, and structured from, ban on knowledge under phobia of racial extinction, 2. and a redeemer from the consequences of violation of the ban. Since our postulate should hold under all conditions, including the above posited basic constituent, it would be necessary and sufficient to prove the rebellion internally as a cyclical rebellion that envelops even the self-vindicative basic constituent. That christianity is such a rebellion is proved from the original rebellion against the ban on knowledge from its being specified as "knowledge of good and bad"– exudative of the foundational notion of original sin–which is itself reduced by its certified commentators back to the original rebellion against knowledge as such. 3.

That jesus is Lucifer is a finding from experience and reason, and the fruit of generations of Prarabdha karmam 4. and years of suffering 5. and of objective and professional involvement in, and investigation of, various scriptures and the practices effective therefrom. 6.

Moreover, our argument rests upon analysis of the disposition, conduct and consciousness of the central figure of the bible book. Its significance consists in its relevance to man. Finally, while the christian position is a priori (being without examination or analysis: presumptive–Webster’s, p.56), ours is a posteriori (derived by reasoning from observed facts–ibid., p.53).

The christian position is based solely on faith, 7  or blind belief, in fact belief so blinding 8 .as for them to have to exert against the identity even against their own book, 9. guaranteed absolutely immutable. On the contrary, we will prove the identity independently of his self-confession, as it is done in criminal courts, and then point out how the self- confession itself is rebellious, on account of the centric nature of that being as a cyclical rebel, and how consequently it fits thereby into the same identity.

The christian position is based on assumption 10.  that jesus is "God” and that the bible is inspired by "God.” The correct position, on the contrary, is that jesus WAS a god who irredeemably lost that consciousness and condition along with his entourage (including, incidentally, Michael and Gabriel, to be sure) by failure to hold dharma, who thereafter rebelled against the fall, and "chose” a materially suffering race of mankind and one particular individual of that race, viz., Moses, whose consciousness he possessed and malinspired with his "scriptures,” which were captured by that individual and committed to writing by his fingers.

Again our approach to the bible book distinguishes between its core–the most characteristic particles that are carries of the identity and of which Moses is at the same time

<!-- p.9 -->

the very first and arterial conduit–and its burying pyramidic heap that is comparative less demonstrative as far as the consciousness of the true author is concerned and for this reason correspondingly denotive of elements of dharma (goodness), proportionately more or less, depending upon the genetic, historical and environmental characteristics in the transcriber’s own individual consciousness. The bible as we perceive it realistically is the work of many different authors while in a common state of possession by THE Devil, 11. which varies as to its intensity and extent in correspondence with the genetic and environmental components of the individual transcriber’s consciousness, and in any case existing in no one else so pronouncedly as in Moses 12.  compatibly with the true identity as in Isaiah 13. and so contrarily as in John 14.

The benevolent elements in the bible book really go to the credit of their individual authors as men. They have been inscribed not on account of, but in spite of, the overall author, and aspirated out of a struggle of consciousness with the same malignant being, so agonisingly recorded by David (psalm 22)

The basic quality of man, his “genetic marker,” 15. is his goodness, be he tribal or racial, primitive or civilised, unlettered or educated. That is why it has survived intact in Bhaaratham, 16. the land now known also as India, in spite of 1000 years of rule by alien and even semitic races, 17. and in spite of the most subtle, pre-determined and arrogant efforts of one among these in all of its history, viz., christianity, to subvert this gene in that land.

Since India remains the only pre-semitic race that is also uncontaminated by sin in its scripture, it is also for this reason the historical and objective reference point for the judgement on Lucifer and his christianity. (See Ancient Mother -II: The Judgement on christianity)

In the history of its consciousness no less than in its scripture, the discerning student will stop short of meeting sin or its counterpart of guilt 18.  However, the discerning ethnic western-christain of that land today, a product of the same consciousness both genetically 19. and historically, 20. is found to be an active by-product and vaporous sewer of sin/guilt, regardless of whether he is informed, 21. introspective, or pietistic, the same as his western counterpart.

Our investigation is based on the definitive standpoint that a rebellious counterscripture such as the bible would professedly manifest from that very nature one of the indispensable characteristics of scripture, viz., underivedness, which too in the event is specifically and singularly perceived rebellious in the case of the bible, although so discernible only under consciousness of the identity.

A particular expression coming in as a single word-syllable, a set of words, or a significant punctuation mark objectively signifies, to the point of interchangeablity, a specific object, emotion or concept in an underived state. Further, the object, emotional or concept signified by the expression is to be perceived in its original, underived signification, not in any other signification, and not moreover in any signification falling from linguistic evolution, which too. Incidentally, is ultimately related to, if not directly generated by, the same original etymos.

By thus going back to the etymos of a word, or its root and literal meaning, and consequently to its massage really intended in scripture, one communicates with the message straight, avoiding the likely pitfalls from historical or linguistic evolution.

Absolutely any scriptural translator at all during all intervening dates is solidly committed to total conformity to the original. In the specific case of the bible, the commitment disperses indiscriminately and universally to all classes of the book's fans and clients, whatever their mutual disagreements and whatever their differences even in regard to the book's text, both as to authenticity of the individual books as a whole and as to specific passages in common books. Moreover, the commitment is internally procured uniquely by explicit recall of the collective memory of primitive awe for scripture, as prevalent in semitic

<!-- p.10 -->

races, 22. and finally sealed by the positive misidentity that tantalisingly terrorises the translator-commentator's psyche, and that, in any case, all of christianity, professional and not, essentially share. Incidentally, the Vedic races, by wholesome contrast, concede only a limited role to scripture. 23.

When an observed term fails to close in upon a definite etymos, we will confirm to its definition as found in a specialist source, which although picked up by us in random coincidence, is unchangingly the same all through the essential identification process.

As for whole passages that are mutually suppressed and supplanted as between blocks of versions and also as between groups of individual versions from the same blocks, it will be seen that such instances are even more crucial as they decisively signal the true identity all by themselves by reason of their uniform internal rebelliousness, either intermittently or cyclically, and their universal reconcilableness instantly upon enlistment of the true identity, in a manner that entirely satisfies the intellect.

Our examination will remain at all times uniform, in the sense that we invariably dispose of a text as one and the same with its meaning or etymos, and vice versa where this is relevant.

It is from out of such a scrutiny that the identity resolves definite and conclusive. The certified deletions, additions, suppressions and substitutions–and each one of these exemplified, invariably in all the cases, either en bloc or in respect of whole passages or in respect of individual terms, but all uniformly central to identification–together with the positive decree that prescriptively defines all the texts in common and each one of them individually and equally (vide revelation 22:18-19) to be the unerrant word of ”God.” Alias Lucifer, and whole books that carry aloft the miasmic fumes of the particular netherworld of Lucifer and of the consciousness of the true bible writer that are dropped from one canon or another and included, properly to the identity, as original in a third, and this the so-called catholic canon, 24. all positively and invariably contribute to the evidence that manifests the inspirer and ”narrator” of the bible book as rebel against that truth that is called reality by India, ”the ancient mother.” 25.

Other common passages further define him as a malignant spirit conserving, and maintaining on, primeval malignancy against man, which is sustained and carried forward by the very existence of this book (besides, of course, by the dynasty of Lucifer, as subsisting centrally in the Rome pope) with its lurking gene of personality disintegration in any one at all who relates with it unawares of the identity and taking it as its word as proferred, innocent and clear-headed as he is. Lucifer has generated the different versions and spread out the capsuled variants that conceal, and/or rebelliously envelop, the identity in such design, the design itself being mandatorily dictated by the conscious id of his personality as cyclical rebel, that independently none of them, barring one lone exception, 26. would yield data sufficient by itself to finally wrap up the exposition of the Luciferian identity, whereas all of them together (and put together positively by man) reveals the same in a conclusive manner that not only individually explains logically, interrelatedly and wholesomely, all the various links present but also binds them all together with a single thread, which is nothing but the same identity.

Each, every and all transcripts of the bible book being creedal to the letter, its text remains universally, severally and indiscriminately authentic, regardless of mutual internal differences. These differences are merely autogenous, compulsively issuing as they do from the centric constitution of its real author as a cyclical rebel, with the book standing as the total self-expression of that kind of being.

Therefore, absolutely any version at all of the bible book or any two versions or any larger number of versions–in whatever form these are found, jointly for both "testaments” or separately for each one, or the four ”gospels” disentangled from the rest of the book or the

<!-- p.11 -->

same quartette mashed down into a single memoir, and whatever the label posted, "the saviour,” "the good news,” the "holy,” the "new world,” "authorised,” refined or whatever– can be utilised randomly and indiscriminately, as also selectively and unselectively, from the same or different versions to expose the true identity and to explode the false, which both lie at the same time shrouded and unshrouded therein in one or all of them, bit by rebellious bit, and passage by rebellious passage, quite apart from his auto-announcement–”I, jesus, am [rebellion against was] the morning star”–at the end of it all.

In  classifying only the Vedas and the bible as scripture, satisfying the essential requirement of being self-sourced, or in other words, the fundamental desideratum of not being derived from a prior source, we neglect all other religious literature, with the singular exception of the Koran, as disqualified. The subject matter and information only contained in these works, viz., the Vedas and the bible, is underived from any prior source of knowledge, the first one being intrinsically so, and the second rebelliously labelled as such, being a positive rebellious counterfeit and, in that particular, singularly underived.

It remains to say too that we do not directly take up the question as to why or how or where the one actually differs from the other in genesis and content, as such a contrastive engagement will still necessarily couple a sentient counterfeit with the original. Nor would it serve our present purpose to elaborate on the second premise of these works, viz., Sivan, unilaterally symbolised in the bible book as "serpent," except where such reference is internally necessitated from the bible book itself. But, the bible being the self-expression of Lucifer the rebel, alais jesus, it will hardly be necessary to glance outside that book to prove the identity of its true author. The constitution of jesus-Lucifer's ego, with its paramount characteristic of a rebellious syndrome of self-assumption as god, after irredeemably forfeiting that condition and consciousness by failure to hold dharma, is to be found inevitably in the bible itself, the book constituting his exclusive self-expression. For unravelling the being and his consciousness, it is only necessary to objectify it from the bible narrator's consciousness, which is but Lucifer's own consciousness synthesised in language, and keep note of the underived concepts the book seeks to impose, although, in the final event, futilely, on man's mind, and of the motivation and drive of the whole rebellious endeavour.

The astutely designed christian old testament archetypally strives to procure for the narrator a human female. Lucifer, the spirit or mind-being, incarnates himself upon and from her on the terrestrial plane to beguile and destroy the human race by planting the gene of schizophrenia in its representative best types and the genes of war-making, adultery, murder, theft, usury and other crimes generally. The mind of man, both collective and particular, was turned into a battle ground by Lucifer, causing an overpowering sadness in the race as a whole, and resultant loss of energy. For 2000 thousand years he deceived and destroyed great minds.

The weapons of the above spirit are concepts rebelliously structuralised on an actual kingdom of Lucifer that he rebelliously labelled "kingdom of heaven” for his duration as pseudo man, along with its inescapable, cyclically rebellious identification as the same bare "kingdom,” minus heaven, as he exposed to Mary of Agreda. Its carries are the so-called church that he allotted to Peter.

### Footnotes — Chapter II

1. See vituperative christian imprisonment of Sivan from consciousness at the saturation point of the bible book. It is subjectively accomplished for smothering the prior system from consciousness. Revelation 20:2: ”He made prisoner of the dragon, serpent of the primal age, whom we call the devil, or satan, and put him in bonds for a thousand years, thrusting him down to the abyss and locking him in there, and setting a seal over him.” (Vide Insight, ibid., pp. 21-30 for ”serpent of the primal age” systemically identified as Sivan in his auto- compassion towards all beings.)

2. Vide Lucifer’s monologue towards man: ”Of every tree of paradise, thou shalt eat. 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,”–genesis 2:16-17. See also Nischaladasa, quoted by swami Vivekananda, In Defence of Hinduism, p.24: ”he who has known Brahman has become Brahman. His words are Vedas, and they will dispel the darkness of ignorance, either expressed in Sanskrit or any popular dialect,” (Brahman: ”the ultimate ground of all being.”)

3. See note n, Good News bible, p.7: ”Knowledge of what is good and what is bad; or knowledge of everything.”

4. Prarabdha karmam stands for an individual’s prior genetic experience and the actions in consciousness thereof, that have begun to bear fruit in the instant existence.

5. See John B. Chethimattam, Patterns of Indian Thought, p.77: ”Suffering places man at the cross-roads of phenomenal reality.”

6. The Sanskrit scriptures term just this kind of finding as nischalathathwam, reality unchangeable. Vide Sankaracharya, ibid.

7. faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.” Vide also Bertrand Russell, quoted in Indian express, December 28, 1987: ”Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define faith as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. We were told that faith could remove mountains, but no one believed it. We are now told that the atomic bomb can remove mountains, and everyone believes it.”

8. A paradigm of blind belief is Cyril Marystone, roman catholic traditionalists scholar and eschatologist, who writes: ”Lucifer means light-giver. Thus christ is the true Lucifer. Since the devil is the chief opponent of christ, he is therefore the false light and the false Lucifer.”–Grave and Urgent Warnings from Heaven. P.135.

9. Note in this context jesus’ self-declaration of hid luciferian identity at revelation  22:16: ”I,     jesus, am the bright morning star.” cf., etymos of ”Lucifer”: ”the morning star.”

10. assumption: ”the supposition that something is true.”

11. cf., etymos of "Lucifer”: "a fallen rebel archangel, the Devil: the morning star.”

12. See numbers 12:6-8, for Lucifer’s sermon, transcribed by Moses: ”Prophets there may be among your race; to one I appear in a vision, to another I reveal my thoughts in a dream. Moses is not my servant on such terms as these; I entrust him with the management  of all my household, speak with him face to face, and when he has sight of the lord, it is not by means of parable and image.” See also definition of ”spirit”: ”a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being.” (The expression ”face to face” is recorded–non- rebelliously and more realistically–as ”mouth to mouth” generally in older texts and rarely in contemporary texts.)

13. See Isaiah 14:12-23, for compatibility of Isaiah with the identical equality of Lucifer and jesus: ”What fallen from heaven, thou Lucifer, that once didst herald the dawn? Prostrate on the earth, that once didst bring nations to their knees? I will scale the heavens (such was thy thought); I will set my throne higher than god's stars, take my seat at his own trusting-place, at the meeting of the northern hills; I will soar above the level of the clouds, the rival of the most high. Thine instead to be dragged down into the world beneath, into the heart of the abyss. Who that sees thee there, but will peer down at thee and read thy story: Can this be the man who once shook the world, and made thrones totter; who turned earth into a desert, its cities into ruins; never granted prisoner release? For those other kings, honourable burial, each in his own palace; thee the grave itself rejects, like a withered root, like a thing unclean. Rots thy corpse unrecognised, beneath yonder coverlet of men slain, that went down to the deep pit together; no fellowship hast thou with those others, no share in their sepulture, thou who didst lead thy country to ruin, thou, who didst bring destruction on thy people. The posterity of the wicked shall be nameless for ever; for the guilt they have inherited, his sons too must be slain, they must not live to make the land their own, and people the world with cities. A message from the lord of hosts: Now I mean to take arms against them, to destroy Babylon name and fame, root and branch. I will make the place over to the hedgehog, turn it into standing pools; I will sweep it clean, the lord of hosts says, sweep it clean away.”

14. See revelation 22:2: ”On either side of the river, mid-way along the city street, grows the tree that gives life, bearing its fruit twelvefold, one yield for each month.”

15. genetic marker: ”a usually dominant gene or trait that serves especially to identify genes or traits linked with it.”

16. See John B. Chethimattam, op.cit., pp.5-7: ”India’s cultural [scriptural] tradition may be called, in a certain sense[?], the conscience of humanity. India has found her strength, not in wealth or political power, but in man himself. Another secret of her millennia-old stability is that honour, prestige and influence are ascribed to learning and sanctity, and not to power and wealth, which always had to take second place. A third basis for the cultural unity of India is its closeness to and identification with Nature. A fourth reason is her intellectual approach to spiritual [self] realization.”

17. See Flora Annie Steel. India Through the Ages, pp.123, 240: ”Surely no land on globe has suffered so much from invasion as Hindustan. There is one cry of terror which from time immemorial has echoed out over Northern India. ‘The Toork! The Toork!’ rises the cry and in an instant jewels are torn off and hidden and with a wild prayer to some god for protection, the ultimate atom of India awaits destruction or dishonour or death in apathetic despair. It must have needed a bitter biting to have engraven this fear so indelibly on the Hindu heart.”

18. cf., P.Seshadri Iyer, Sri Sankaracharyacharitham (Sri Sankaracharya and his times) for guilt-free consciousness at and up to 8th century a.d.  See also: i. Sankaracharya’s guilt-free delineation of Devi (primal female) in Soundaryalahari; ii. Patrick Swayze, quoted in International Herald Tribune, March 30-31, 1991: "I expected [in Calcutta] the smog and the traffic and the throngs of people, but it is disconcerting–these people who live in such sorrow, how can they have such beautiful smiles and be so willing to show them to you. They have got a line of something we don't. It blows the western mind away."

19. cf., Karl Marx, quoted in ibid., August 20, 1991: "the traditions of all the dead generations press heavily, like a nightmare, on the living ones."

20. The historical christian on the Malabar coast of India, the territory that is now the State of Kerala, was Hindu by consciousness prior to 1599 when he was brought, by force and fraud, under the domain of sin/guilt by the ranking Portuguese cleric Menezes for the Rome pope. cf., proceedings of the synod of Diamper published in 1880-81 in the roman catholic tract Sathyanädam.

21. Illustrative is the orientation of John B. Chethimattam manifest in his work already cited. Although preeminently concerned with Hinduism, he uncritically accepts the rebellious claims of J Lucifer, the ”sins of humanity,” and the indispensability of ”faith” (pp.128-29). He ascribes ”a perfect human nature” to jesus-Lucifer–who is actually its exact antithesis, that being the very element that is absent in him even in its ordinary form. The cenobite- author also overrates the footing of the gregorian calendar, which was begun in 1582 and was not widely adopted until 1752. His own ethnic Hindu calendar dates from 3101 b.c.

22. Vide revelation 22: 18-19.

23. On this, see John B. Chethimattam, ibid., pp.61-62: "Scripture is the written record of the realisation of the sages concerning the Ultimate Reality. Though the written word as such is not absolute, it  nevertheless helps one towards the same realisation of which it is the record.

24. See ecclesiasticus 42:14: ”Man’s wickedness is too strong for woman at her best.” Knox adds the note: ”The Greek is just patient of the rendering given above, but the natural sense of all the versions is ‘Man’s wickedness is better than a woman who does good’–a sentiment which would have little meaning, even ]except] in the mouth of the most determined cynic.” Author and translator of the book are both named as jesus, the latter also specified as grandson of the former. The date of composition is c b.c. 180. ”Directed by the spirit of god,” the book is held authentic by the Rome pope, all other christianity as well as the Hebrews uniformly repudiating it.

25. Vide Swami Vivekananda, In Defence of Hinduism, op.cit., pp.34-36, 45: ”One vision I see clear as life before me: that the ancient Mother has awakened once more, sitting on her throne, rejuvenated, more glorious than ever. Shall India die? Then from the world all spirituality will be extinct; all moral perfection will be extinct; all sweet-souled sympathy for religion will be extinct; and in its place will reign the duality of lust and luxury as the male and female deities, with money as its priest; fraud, force and competition as its ceremonies; and the human its sacrifice. Such a thing can never be. Until all Hindu race becomes extinct, and a new race takes possession of the land, such a thing can never be–try East or West, India can never be Europe until she dies. And will she die? This old Mother of all that is noble or moral or spiritual, the land which the sages trod, the land in which godlike men still live and breathe? I will borrow the lantern of the Athenian sage, and follow you my friend, through the cities and villages, plains and forests, of this broad world–show me such men in another land if you can.”

26. The lone exception, featuring as the second and last part in the second section of genesis 4:7, directly quotes texts articulated by the christian god, alias Lucifer, to Cain, asking him to assassinate his brother Abel, the very one of the two who had expressly placated him by making a sacrifice of flesh, in succession to the senior Cain’s earlier sacrifice of corps from the field, which was turned down by the god. The text: ”Meanwhile, he is at thy mercy, and thou canst have thy way with him.”–Knox bible, p.3. Knox adds the note: ”The sentence probably refers to Abel, since the pronouns in it are masculine, whereas ‘guilt’ [appearing as such in the first part of the section in the concerned version, but as ‘sin’ in the identical text- niche in other versions] is feminine in Hebrew.” All other editions of bible book uniformly sink the exceptional sentence, its place as the second item in the section concerned having been accurately given to a new sentence (following the common passage), which introduces sin and its alleged redeemer for the first time. The passage and sentence: ”If you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?” cf., the Vedic texts. They define paisach–the inclusive Sanskrit denotative for Lucifer–as carnivorous by swa-bhavam (innate disposition).


## Chapter III

**Phenomenon of Man & The Brick in the wall**

Our standpoint is man, the one who reflects–man, moreover, considered as an objective and self-evident phenomenon. Being the individual self, the man concept is also subjective. When we say, for example, that the race of man faces extinction, it also means that Self

By "race of man” we mean the man-gene, in its irreducible prime quantum. Like the symbol zero in mathematics, the man-gene or the gene of reflection or of abstract reasoning is an improvisation and is distinct from all standard classification of genetics. It is also at the same time primal, so attested by its autonomous, universal, etymosial existence in verbal consciousness, both in East and West. 1.

The time component of this gene’s awareness in consciousness is different from that of the physical and embodied self, which is basically the same in man as in other organisms. The racial self, whether consciously in representative individuals or unconsciously in the race as a whole, however has a broader time dimension.

By Self therefore, is meant man-gene at any time and any place, no matter even if "he” is absolutely unrepresented elsewhere. That is to say, any self at any given time has a racial or gene history even up to the point in time of subjective realisation of that history and even after individual body death, if he were to realise it in the meantime.

For example, A is an individual man, been existing for quite some time. Therefore ,at the time of A’s body death, A realises that the race of man or the man-gene is continuing to subsist and is not about to cease to exist like A’s body, and further, that the reasoning gene lives on. Thus the statement "The race of man faces extinction” entails also that besides the death of the individual body the racial self too faces extinction. Rather would it ensue, correctly, that the racial self subsists in a progressive and essentially unchanging continuum of abstract reasoning–which is also an experiential objective reality 2.  And what is applicable to the man-gene is applicable, from continuum of participation, to the individual self too.

In short, when we speak of self or man we are necessarily speaking of the reasoning gene.

This line of argument should not be taken in the sense that we are a type of absurdist- atheist out to shock people with discourses on knowledge in abstraction. On the contrary, the qualifying mark "correct" should always be appended to "knowledge" to distinguish it from "incorrect knowledge," or positive ignorance. This would mean ultimately that positions, if not whole systems, based upon false assumptions are indeed possible!

A person's basic notions and assumptions are the fundamental principles that become a focusing point for his perceptions (and consequently also for his action), as the former constitutes the base from where hid thoughts arise. Since all thought processes lead to transmission of action or movement, those fundamental beliefs that are contrary to experience comprise incorrect knowledge. This is tantamount to saying that the fundamental beliefs of any person should tally with, and should be complementary to, his experience.

The source of a person's thoughts, called primary mechanism in psychology and correct knowledge by India, 3. is the deepest part of his being. His actions are all derived from it, which in turn confers on them internal certitude. Incorrect knowledge causes a self to forego this internal certitude.

Internal certitude means awareness by the self in the wholeness of awareness. To say that a certain person has internal certitude means that his basic beliefs, or knowledge of self, are integral with and complementary to, his experience. In such a state, every question arising

<!-- p.16 -->

in his mind is answered to his satisfaction, either on his own or by a peer who, at that pass, is his guru, 4. and his actions are integral and positive.

(Exactly this kind of phenomenal internal certitude is exemplified by Sankaracharya. His work known as Maneeshapanchakam [Quintet of Absolute certainties] consists of five Sanskrit verses in which he attests in so many words at the end of each verse to the absolute certainty of the preceding declaration. The words, repeated uniformly to seal the declarations, are: mama manessha [this I declare, absolutely and beyond all doubt]. 5.

(Let us see the first declaration: "That one prajna [consciousness] that more certainly than anything performs uninterruptedly in the three states of wakefulness, dream and dreamless sleep, the very prajna that, animating the whole universe, threads through all beings from brahmav to ant, I verily am that prajna. The material entities that come and go out of existence are emphatically not that I. Whosoever has this one knowledge, be he brahmin or chandalan by birth, is guru by right. Maneesha mama. [This is my firm declaration, incontrovertible and beyond all doubt.]")

But no sooner does the pseudo-science called theology, as understood in christianity, enter the human thought environment than a transcendental god, transcending the self and consequently self-destructive, is set up as a reality, and concomitantly with it the chronic pathological notion of "end of the world," which by the way has been exclusively symptomatic 6. of all of christianity unremittingly from Day One 7. Consequently, the self, being a psychological entity and by its nature, alone abiding in and from abstract reasoning, loses its certified awareness of itself on account of adjustments with "faith" in form of the above experimentally uncomplimentary basic belief or assumption, advanced in the patter of the above named "science" by studied professionals, and gradually tends to lose touch with environment and reality. In its acute form, and as rebelliously styled as eschatology in christianity, individual schizophrenia and exultance over racial extinction 8. are the end results. 9.

It may be claimed that although extinction of the race of mankind from advancive effects of incorrect knowledge is possible, such an eventuality is unlikely to arise in reality, considering that people with divergent fundamental beliefs do act in an identical manner in certain identical situations. this uniformity in the reactions of mankind, Which has its root in the deepest parts of its being–genes–rather springs from the prime characteristic of man, which asserts itself in emotional responses, overcoming incorrect knowledge of false assumptions that eat away his internal certitude at a greater pace, and in fact evermore deeply whenever they conflict with experience. Then his judgements are bound to be sceptical, and his actions could go genocidal.

Let us examine the criterion by which correct knowledge is distinguished from incorrect. The notion of knowledge signifies in its widest sense total understanding of the whole human situation and the universe that encompasses it. The Redmond theory based on modern scientific studies would best explain the complexion of man's perception and its amplitude. 10. The theory regards man's perception as a "blur," which is called the "discernment average." This means that there do exist phenomena beyond our immediate perception, which cannot be comprehended nor transmitted as idea as of present, and which are commonly left alone for the time being in the realm of mysticism.

Scientific knowledge is factual knowledge. The prerequisite of scientific knowledge is perceptive experience. Conceptual knowledge, on the other hand, is at once a causative and derivative of perceptional experience. Conceptual knowledge serves to anticipate, initiate and direct future actions.

The process of origination, development and destruction of concepts is generated by individual perceptional experience, which in certain cases is transmitted eventually into a collective racial experience of the objective self, which is man. As when we say, "Man discovered electricity."

<!-- p.17 -->

Knowledge expands with time, and evidently it is this refining and broadening of consciousness that always moves onward with time, with which the self sorts out experience and dispenses with incorrect knowledge that no longer tallies with experience and logic (like Ptolemaic concept of the universe), and in the process continuedly goes on broadening and refining itself. Other kinds of experience like works of literature, myths, legends, etc., also have a conceptual basis, but in their case their worth, depending as they do on a transitory or secondary relationship with reality, as distinct from a primary and mutational control of consciousness, is only either symbolical or allegorical, and therefore not paramount, diachronically or even intrinsically, and they are unimportant, ultimately speaking, except as images or hypothesis. 11.

In order to comprehend and communicate conceptual knowledge, one must depend upon the intellect. (In trying to establish a criterion to distinguish correct knowledge from incorrect, we are in fact appealing to and using the intellect of man)

Assuming that fundamental knowledge K is found by self S, the phenomenal experience of S is equivalent and rational to fundamental knowledge K. This means everything in the universe, all phenomena, can be explained and understood by S at his discernment average. This also implies that incorrect knowledge can never tally with experience. So, when we say that we are on the lookout for "correct knowledge," we have in mind a self-consistent system that makes sense.

An objection might perhaps be raised here. Since every hypothesis is intellectual in nature, how can the hypothesis above be used to comprehend consciousness fully and unmistakably, the intellect itself being only a part of consciousness. To this we would say that since intellect is an instrument for measuring perception, it is the base or focal point where it is fixed that is important for the inviolability of a criterion and the resultant theory of knowledge. This focusing point, which should be as broad as consciousness itself, 12. is man, the one and only being that cogitates. 13.

It may further be objected that it is impossible to proceed from or certainly to maintain a criterion that is itself subjectivistic, in order to distinguish correct knowledge from incorrect. To claim otherwise would be self-contradictory, or at least would denote a subjective application of the criterion, which would amount to sophistry.

Countering this objection, we come again to man, the one who reflects. The inherent capability of cognition equips man with the freedom to perform new and original action–as illustrated, for one, in his ability to interpose in great histrionical feats a chosen but alien consciousness into his own by a deliberate act of his will, still retaining, even while so doing, his own individual consciousness intact, or more typically, in our own pursuit of the true identity of Mary jesus, regardless of accretions from 2000 years of contrary identification. His experience compels him to distinguish himself from all other perceivable beings that are materially similar, more or less, in one respect or another, but all of them evidently incapable nevertheless of such a reflective function, at least not to the degree of a slow but still autoprogressively multiplying self-refinement of consciousness, or again to the degree of a sudden mutational impetus that produces a genius, either in the wake of the aforementioned normal and slumbering genetic evolution or otherwise in the phenomenon of sport, 14. (sport: "an individual exhibiting a sudden deviation from type beyond the normal limits of individual variation usually as a result of mutation especially of somatic tissues.") both being in any case the only determinants of history, including that of Lucifer too.

We conclude then that the focusing point for the intellect is the objective experience of man, which alone is capable of explanation of phenomena at discernment average. This is tantamount to saying that knowledge based on the authority of man is alone "correct knowledge." 15. Moreover, only such knowledge based on experience and reasoning can provide the key to attainment and comprehension of all other knowledge.

Let us now take notice of the terminology of man's religious consciousness.

<!-- p.18 -->

"God" is discernible from al other beings in consciousness as "perfection of goodness." But the term is now habituatedly uttered and otherwise used to signify sheer impositions, rather than a discernible vital force behind all phenomena. 16. However, from perception of this vital force behind everything only forms the purely intelligent notion of unity of the whole universe. It is therefore futile to try to construct logically upon the notion of "God," such that would be productive of a definition, except to say, functionally, that is an absolute principle from which everything is derivable. "God," the entity that we are thus conscious of, more through abstraction than perception, cannot be defined, just for this reason that it is attributless (Nirguna in Sanskrit)–because of an "eternity of creation," as distinguished from the rebellious notion of an eternity of creator as in christianity. And, it is attributless for being impossible–on account of its essence as pure consciousness, Prajnanam Brahman–of materialising in cognising definitive consciousness. Therefore, it is described as perfection of goodness, distinguished form a being that personifies goodness.

The notion of "goodness," yet hyphenated in consciousness to the term "God," denotes idealism and in the final analysis compassion of that hypothetical individual, and consequently its susceptibility to empathy on the part of the cognising individual. The concept of absolute uniquity associated with the term signifies impersonality and an objectivity that is however liable, to correct knowledge by the cogniser. 17.

The notion of goodness is thus bifurcated from the notion of singular absolute principle, even though both notions momentarily for now stand together, ostensibly, in the term "god." In religious thought prevailing from before the bible, however, both notions coalesce together in the single concept of Siva, and only so in Siva, both incipiently in particular consciousness and conclusively in the Hindu consciousness, which concept is again forthwith reduced–compositely, however–in the latter consciousness, to man, both conceptually and even biologically, the former by the notion of Easwara, 18. and the latter in the reproductive concept of Ardhanareeswara. 19.

To sum up. In our examination of the bible book, essentially we take for granted the Webster's definition of "God," "perfection of goodness," since it ought to be nothing else, whatever else the term may stand for in the same definition and whatever it might have purportedly come to connote from the pressure of incipient and historical christianity.

Accordingly, "religion" is defined as pursuit of perfection of goodness. To say then that an individual is virtuous means to say that his actions are derived from a certain notion of goodness. To be considered as virtuous, the one requisite is that a person should have a factor, a gene, of goodness as the deepest part of his, being, and consequently the fountainhead of his thoughts and acts.

Our demonstration might possibly be assailed at this stage on the ground that it is no longer perceptible as its centrepiece is once again a subjective notion, viz., goodness, that moreover has a wide range of meaning. To this we would say, exemplarily to begin with, that in the statement "Johny's actions are good," the qualitative expression "good" is not abstracted out of any material aspect of Johny's actions, but rather denotes something that is and that has been active in consciousness. This means the causative element in the action is genetical.

This leads to a point where we will have to say that Johny's goodness gene is pre- biblical and, if so, as intrinsic a gene in man as the abstract reasoning gene, or else assume that it derives from an incipient christianity that abides in Johny's consciousness.

But the existence of ashtagunas 20. –subtle as well as objective notions or genes of goodness that are inherently discernible as good by the same consciousness that so perceives Johny's actions–in Hindu thought, which admittedly is pre-Mosaic and timeless according to both scriptural viewpoints 21.  suggests that the goodness gene in man is coexistent with the abstract reasoning gene and is not a product of christianity. This means that Johny's actions are not pre-determined, caused or conditioned by any metaphysical notion, but are intrinsic, or

<!-- p.19 -->

at least are derived from a pre-christain gene, in other words a pre-bible gene of goodness that is and has been coexistent with consciousness and life.

The etymos of good, from which "God" after all is derived, would clear up the whole lot of mist produced by variations of senses of the term.

The word good is only derived from the Sanskrit root "gadh."

This would demonstrate, once again, that the concept of goodness originates and subsists independently of the bible book and christianity. Further, the charts drawn in the bible book of the original condition prior to the "original sin" are an orchestration of this reality. The account issues all the same from the original sin of the subterranean narrator himself and a preponderant drive to collocate it to man by infusing an imaginary guilt into his consciousness through Cain–which is simultaneously turned into sin by mutual genetic inversion 22. in other versions of the same text of Cain's words purportedly spoken to Lucifer. 23. As to the professions of the christian original condition, they are contradicted by acknowledgement of the existence and activity of the serpent in that very condition and the admission at the end of the whole book that the same serpent had been right there all the way from the "primal age."(See Knox bible, p.274).

Etymos of Sanskrit root "gadh" being "to hold fast," it follows that the adjective and the qualitative noun "good" are both derived from this verb. This means that it connotes, and is derived from, something active in life. Therefore, religion, being pursuit of perfection of goodness, necessarily points to an ethical function, and not to a person, and to a gene existent in reality–consciousness 24. –and not to a devised or supposed relationship with some infernal being.

Yet another linguistic relationship would point to the nondual cycle in knowledge that again bypasses a transcendental god but in this case actually takes its place.

"Dharma" is from Sanskrit root "dhri," even as "gadh" is. "Dharma" or ethical idealism means righteousness, and "dhri," "that which holds."

Dhri (that which holds) -----------------------------¦------------------------ 

 Dharma (righteousness)

Gadh (to hold fast)  Good  god 25.

Objection can be made to the use of linguistic data in proving our position. It may be contended that etymology being a different science in itself, its findings will hardly substantiate a non-dual cycle comprising knowledge   experience  higher knowledge.

To this we would reply that concepts are genes as well, and we are therefore concerned with the original and genetic sense of the word and its subsequent misevolution under christianity, incipient or historical. 26. This misevolution has been further governed, or at least been influenced, but in any case not irreversibly, by the gene of incorrect knowledge that was infused at a certain point in time by an absolutely malignant being, evidently driven by primal animus against man.

To a possible further objection that our argument is of unperceived verity, we would reply that it is based as well on analysis of the bible book, which first appeared in history

<!-- p.20 -->

3000 odd years as a small collection of books, and yet had verses even at that primary stage directly recording from the consciousness of its true author his expressed resolve to sow the gene of ”confusion” against a uniform  ”one language and one set of words” (genesis 11:1, New World Translation) the whole race hitherto had, and also subsequent verses that record the application of the resolution and the resultant large-scale confusive atavising 27. of the language of consciousness of goodness, and scattering of the race ”over all the surface of the earth.” 28.

In due course the book expanded in length, diffusing in the process the confusive (yet helplessly atavistic) gene aforementioned and all other genes of Lucifer implanted by the so- called genesis book and the succeeding exodus book. In the first millennium after the present- day second part of the monolithic book was compiled, and appended to the first, the christian ”faith” spread around from this final neo-book.

There is no anachronism in the historicity of the bible and therefore the ”faith” centered on the existence of the biblical god purports to be an empirical hypothesis. It is our purpose within the full compass of these works to establish all-embracingly that this biblical god is a ”spirit” by definition, and that his true name is Lucifer, and further that his historical name is jesus, all of which conclusions can be deduced from the same premises that apparently authenticate its claim of being ”God,” in conjunction with certain other premises without being deducible from these other premise alone. This book with its overt moralism and abnormal worry over man–culminating in the parting words of J Lucifer: Feed my lambs. Shepherd my little sheep. Feed my little sheep–proved too inconspicuous a bait for the innocent, clear-headed man, and infused into him the most lethal poison of the self, guilt, through sin. ("Spirit" is defined as "an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible." –Webster’s, p.1113. The three attributes are accurately discerned in the being that got itself invited at noontime to Abraham's dwelling, there to malevolently effectuate fornication of his aged wife with suggestions that contrive to summon up her memories. The being is designated at one moment as "they," in plural ["They asked, Where is thy wife Sara?" (sic) 29. –genesis 18:9, Knox bible]; in the next moment, the same apparently distinct beings objectify as "he," in the singular ["I will come back said he who was speaking to him" –ibid., 18:10], demonstrating it bodiless in both instances. The other symptom, of his visibility, is attested by the narrative, where it says that Abraham "looked up and saw three men standing near him," ibid., 18:2; the same spectacle is elsewhere further represented as "a vision of the lord.")

For example, any person who accepts jesus as christ at once brings into his consciousness, personally and extrinsically, the sinhood attributed to the objective life of man. Therefore, jesus is sin as well as son, jesus is the unifactorial 30. son of his father, by name Lucifer, who implants sin through genesis 4:7–under the pretext and loquacious claim of overcoming it, after having himself self-sustainedly originated it (vide revelations of Mary of Agreda)–the son who also at the same time cautiously and repetitively objectifies himself in the same bible book as the monopolistic physical overcomer thereof (John 8:34-35).

This sin which we shall prove unitarily and culminatively in the present series to be objectively real alone in respect of its infuser above named and an imaginary institution in all else, including man, is in reality only objectified through the infusorial life–assumed from the terrestrial female Mary, who forthwith turns into a yakshi 31. by mutation of somatic tissues– and sin-centred consciousness, of the self-styled, so-called, son of man, jesus, son of Lucifer. Thus, after the sin gene is successfully and tangibly implanted through intermediacy obtained from the same female, the evil spirit submitted Peter the so-called apostle to his whims and succeeded in establishing a breeding centre for a malignant "guilt culture" in the race as a whole.

<!-- p.21 -->

The bible fits into consciousness as a brick in the wall–and becomes intelligible even to its own maker, cyclical rebel that he is–only when, and not unless and until, the identity of jesus is taken into consideration and the same is apportioned as Lucifer. This identity is conclusively and completely derived from an analytical examination, which forms the basic premise, of a number of versions of the christian scripture in its old and new testaments, all of them internally authenticated severally as immutable.

The other premise, which is at the same time symbolised and stifled in the narrative and action of the same book, attains a magnitude that cannot be ignored. When considered conceptually in the light of the identity accruing from analytical examination of the bible book, the other premise in reality creates a sovereign objective frame encompassing all of mankind and all of existence, and offers a self-consistent philosophy. Without the other premise it would be impossible to accept objectively the conclusion about the identity of jesus, the only self-styled godhead extant. Furthermore, short of the second premise, our argument would remain as one more illustration yet of the ultimate absurdity of man’s intellect in this particular epoch of time and his all too patently fragile existence therein, side by side with historical christianity. However, this second aspect of our derivation, which stands outstandingly to reason, would supply enough credibility for our proposition to be called a genuine factual proposition. The other premise is symbolically represented in the bible book in the form of a serpent who makes a single statement in the entire book and is portrayed as the adversary of the biblical god, the protagonist. However, an analytical examination would effortlessly reveal that far form being the antagonist of man, the serpent is in reality his rescuer and impassive benefactor. Moreover, the serpent's words spoken to Eve are postprandially and helplessly ratified by the protagonist, who thereby compulsively makes known the fraud immanent in his earlier act of outlawing nourishment from off the same tree. What is revealed indeed also fills in to construct anew the bridge that joins and rejoins the mystical version of reality of the East with the nascently stifled version of the West, 32. to make a single whole. The other premise comes from the Sruti  of the Vedas, the Hindu scripture.

As a consequence of posing, and resolving, the identity question, the underived mystical counter-world of rebellious values contained in the bible book assumes a finiteness and departs to the netherly realm of the negative aspects of reality, from where after all it originated, rebelliously, and a prodigious sense and system of values is brought into refocus from the deep recesses of the collective unconscious of mankind, a system that is itself underived, and positive, and that has been existent from well before the bible, based as it is upon man as the composite source of all goodness, ever elevating himself from perfection to higher perfection by influx of correct knowledge seeping from his representative types. 33.

### Footnotes — Chapter III

1. The English monosyllable man is derived from the Sanskrit proper name and expression manu–cf., Webster’s, p.691. Manu is the representative man and father of the human race, as also the first to have instituted sacrifices.–cf., Rig Veda. Manu literally means ”thought, thinking or mental faculty.” Manu is both a concept and an entity and at once the starting point and the meeting point of the structured, self-contained cycle of knowledge. It is a reality self-evidenced form the objective existence of the phenomenon of self-awareness in man.

2. See genesis 3:5 (testimony of Siva in colloquy with Eve): ”As soon as you eat this fruit your eyes will be opened, and you yourself will be like gods, knowing ... ” See also: i. ibid., 3:22 for Lucifer, ex-god, confirming, in rebellious soliloquy: ”Here is Adam become like one of ourselves, with knowledge ... ”;  ii. Aitareya Upanishad: "Attaining identity with this prana [consciousness], one becomes united with the gods."

3. See Sankaracharya: "Whoever is informed with correct knowledge of Easwara, be he chandala [outcaste] or brahmin, that very one is my guru."–quoted by T.P.Balakrishnan Nair, Kalady and Sri Sankaracharya, p.5.

4. Guru means "one who removes darkness of ignorance," the sound gu signifies darkness and ru its removal or prevention.

5. cf., Maneeshapanchakam, pp. 8-9.

6. For exclusivity of the notion, see its unconscious but stark denial by Swami Vivekananda, ibid., 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."

7. Vide the testament of Peter: "The end of all things is close at hand."–I Peter 4:7.

8. cf., John Henry Newman for both together: "god works by human means. As he employs individual men and yet they die, so, doubtless, he might employ a body or society of men, which after its course of two thousand years, might come to an end. Doubtless, christianity might be such ... it may be destined to age, to decay and at length to die; but we know that when it dies, at least the world will die with it. If the church falls sick, the world will utter a wail for its own sake; for, like Samson, the church will bury all with it."– cited by Hutton Gibson, Paul VI's Legacy :Catholicism?, pp.48-49.

9. Vide in this connection Lucifer's manifesto as self-discoursed by him to Mary of Agreda: ”We will subject the human creatures to our influence in order to destroy them. We will persecute this race of men and will deprive them of the reward promised to them. I will gain great victories over them, and I will destroy them all and subject them to my designs. I will sow new sects and errors and set up new laws contrary to those of the most high in all things. I will raise up from among men false prophets and leaders who will spread these doctrines. I will scatter this seed through them and afterwards I will assign them a place in these torments. I will afflict the poor, oppress the suffering, and persecute the meek. I will sow discord, excite wars, and stir up nations against each other. I will raise proud and arrogant men to extend the dominion of sin; and after they have executed my designs, I will bury them in this eternal fire, with so much the greater torments the more faithfully they have followed me. This is my Kingdom, and this is the reward which I will give to those who follow me. And you, you demons who were injured together with me, follow me. Obey me in pursuit of this vengeance, as you have followed me in the rebellion. 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!”–Cyril Marystone, op.cit., p.140. The notions of "reward", "promise", "hell", etc., in the above originate inseparably and directly from fundamental christianity as held in common by all of its divisions and sects, while expressions relating potential fulfilment adhere both totally and unrelatedly to the Rome pope, when these are considered comprehensively in all their relevance. The expressions "most high" and "reward promised" treat of Sivan–within the parameters, respectively, of his condition as Eka-Devan (uni-god) and of his words to Eve recorded as Genesis 3:4-5–but as infected with the discourse's (Lucifer's) self-consciousness of his original sin. The discourse constitutes, in Lucifer himself, the central reference point that co-ordinates, following embodiment from Mary, his beinghood as cyclical rebel against reality. It also forms, for this compulsive reason, the lone rebellion-free expression to be uttered by his consciousness, in his time dimension, in between the moment of his fall from dharma (goodness) and of his taking possession of the consciousness of Moses–affording to man, unavoidably, the only objective primeval mirror for the correct spectacle of christianity, both incipient and historical. (Emphases have been applied in the text at specific points that afford recognisable visages of historical christianity, as typified by Rome pope).

10. cf., "The Cosmic Puppeteer" [Science Express, February 16. 1988] by Rasik U. Shah, who met the American thinker for documentation of his radical theory of Nature. "Concept of a creator is redundant," said Sanford Redmond in the conversation.

11. That even scripture is basically irrelevant to the perception of ultimate reality is documented endogenously. See Brihhadaranyaka Upanishad IV,3,22: "Then the Vedas are not Vedas." See also Sankaracharya, Brahmasutrabhashyam: "When knowledge springs up, scripture ceases to be valid."

12. Vide John B. Chethimattam, ibid., pp. 56-57: "Ultimate reality [in Indian thought] is consciousness. So, only in and through consciousness can supreme consciousness be approached. Aham Brahmasmi: my self is Brahman [ultimate reality]."

13. Vide Swami Vivekananda, Raja-Yoga, op.cit., pp.26-27: ”Man is higher than all animals, than all angels; none is greater than man. Even the devas (gods) will have to come down again to salvation through a human body. Man alone attains to perfection, not even devas. This human birth is the greatest birth we can have. Animals cannot have any high thoughts, nor can the angels (or devas) attain to direct freedom without human birth. In human society, in the same way, too much wealth or too much poverty is a great impediment to the higher development of the soul [self]. It is from the middle classes that the great ones of the world come. Here the forces are very equally adjusted and balanced.”

14. sport: “”an individual exhibiting a sudden deviation from the type beyond the normal limits of individual variation usually as a result of mutation especially of somatic tissues.”

15. Vide in this connection Mundaka Upanishad: ”Anyone who knows the supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his kula (lineage/gene) is not born anyone who does not know Brahman. He overcomes grief, and rises above the aberrations; and becoming freed from the knots of the heart, he attains immortality.” Says Lucifer in direct contrast: ”I am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”–exodus 20:5.

16. For goodness as constituting the animating force in all phenomena, cf., Mahabharatham for concluding direct discourse to readers by sage Veda Vyäsan, who remains unquestionably the central authority on phenomenal Hinduism: "Dharma is that by which everything endures. It is the substratum of everything. It is untranslatable in any language. Through desire for wealth or out of greed or fear, do not give up dharma, awe even to save your own life. Dharma is eternal happiness."

17. See Swami Vivekananda, op.cit.,p.23: "The one idea to express which the sages almost exhaust the vocabulary of the Sanskrit language, is that man must realise god even in this life. And the advaita texts very logically add, To know god is to become god."

18. Compositeness in the notion of Easwara is realised by its coalescent definition, as Sivan on the one hand and perfect man on the other [coalescent: "growing together and uniting into a whole"]. See also Swami Vivekananda, Raja-Yoga, ibid., pp. 138-39: "God as the creator of the universe is not meant by the Easwara of the Yogis [Rishis]. According to the Vedas, Easwara is the creator of the universe; because it is harmonious, it must be the manifestation of one will."

19. The term is masculine in gender. It literally means ”Easwaran having the left half of a female body.” The two halves are conjoined vertically in the middle in a posture initiating the abstract, primeval and perennially ongoing reproduction–resulting in the dissolution of the female, by reason of her preceding goodness. Expressive of compassion on the part of the wearer, the material representation of the concept has the serpent ornamenting the male half. The product of the union herein is the phenomenal Sivan. The serpent is ”read back” from the product. (See cover picture)

20. The term literally means "octet of positive excellences." They are Bhoothadaya [compassion], Kshama [toleration], Anasooya [transcendence of envy], Shaucham [hygiene],  Anaayasam [transquillty], Mangalam [benediction], Akarpanyam [generosity], and Aspruha [transcendence of desire for reward].

21. On the timelessness of the Veda, see Swami Abhedänanda, The Word and the Cross in Ancient India, p.8: ”The phenomena of the world exists because they are in the Veda. The word Veda does not stand for any book or writing but for Logos and comprehends all named concepts necessary for the creation of all created things.” From a strictly chronological point of view also, the preantiquity of the Vedas over the Jewish scriptures is conceded even by resolute sceptics of the last century. See T. Maurice, The Indian Sceptic Confuted, p.14: ”In his dissertation on the supposed age of the Vedas, the president of the Royal Asiatic Society had admitted to the possibility, the bare possibility, that the oldest of the Vedas might be of the age of 1500 years before christ, which would make it older than five books of Moses; for Moses was not born, according to Usher, till 1571 years before christ.” Contemporary authors have been more realistic. cf., the French author Satprem, Sri Aurobindo or the Adventure of Consciousness, p.30: ”The Vedic age, prior to that of the Upanishads, which was its heir, dates back before 4000 b.c.”

22. inversion: ”a breaking off a chromosome section and its subsequent reattachment in inverted position.”

23. cf., Knox bible (Cain to Lucifer): ”Guilt like mine is too great to find forgiveness.”– genesis 4:13. Genesis 4:13 in other books has ”iniquity” in the place of ”guilt” (a genetic inversion by Lucifer): ”My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon.”–Dublin bible, p.7. cf., definitions: guilt–“”feelings of culpability especially for imagined offences”; iniquity–”sin” See also Insight, ibid., pp.31-38: ”It is the ‘lord’ that killed Abel.”

24. For reality as consciousness, vide Thaithiriya Upanishad: Sathyam jnanam anantham brahman. (ultimate reality is immutable and infinite consciousness). Continues the mantra: Yo veda nihitham guhayam parame wyoman. Soshnuthe sarvan kaman saha. Brahmana vipaschithethi –He who knows that Brahman existing in the intellect which is lodged in the supreme space in the heart, enjoys, in identification with the all-knowing Brahman, all desired things simultaneously.

25. See in this connection John B. Chethimattam, ibid., p.142: “”The Indian tradition which did not place a bearded God ‘up there’ to preside over the affairs of men has nothing to fear from the dethronement of such a God,”

26. Misevolution is at once prolific and multifaceted. A singular example is the degeneration of the word "bible," the true meaning of which is "book," the word having derived from Biblos, ancient Phoenician city from which papyrus was exported. That sense is contemporaneously listed "obsolete," having been effaced beginning from 14th century by connotations from christianity. Another example is the word "prayer." It is derived from Sanskrit "prichati," he asks, a sense differing radically from the christian sense of supplication

27. atavism: ”recurrence in an organism of a form typical of ancestors more remote than the parents usually due to genetic recombination.”

28. Ch.11 in genesis continuedly registers Lucifer’s malignant consciousness as it expresses, through the fingers of Moses, the resolution against language: ”Hitherto, the world had only one way of speech, only one language ... and he said, ‘Here is a people all one, with a tongue common to all, this is but the beginning of their undertakings, and what is to prevent them carrying out all they design? It would be well to go down [rebellion against up] and throw confusion into the speech they use there, so that they will not be able to understand each other.’ Thus the lord broke up their common home, and scattered them over the surface of 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” (1-9). cf., W. Nelson Francis, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p.20a: ”Language is a uniquely human possession. All races, tribes and families of men have language; no animals do. Why this is so, when we share so much of our anatomy, physiology, and psychology with the animals, especially the apes and monkeys, science cannot yet clearly explain. A conservative position would be that we inherit a remarkable aptitude for learning language. Some linguists go much farther, as far as to maintain that we inherit not only an aptitude and a desire to learn, but actually a good part of the underlying system that is much the same in all languages.”

29. See note II, ch. VII.

30. unifactorial: “”controlled by a single gene.”

31. Yakshi: “”A female devil that generally change costumes and torments people”– Sreekaneswaram, Sabdathaaraavali, p.1466.

32. See Thomas Hardy, ibid., p.218: "It might have resulted far better for mankind if Greece had been the source of the religion of modern civilisation, and not Palestine.

33. Note in this context the words of Thaithiriya Upanishad: "Knowledge, which is the true nature of the Self, is inseparable from the Self, and so it is everlasting." See also Sankaracharya, Brahmasutrabhashyam, op.cit: ”Knowledge constitutes the means by which the complete comprehension of Brahman is desired to be obtained. For the complete comprehension of Brahman is the highest end of man, since it destroys the root of all evil such as Nescience, the seed of the entire samsara.”


## Chapter IV

**Chapter - IV The Substratum**

The religious sentiment of man is neither an accident nor an anachronism. We may address the drive, sustenance and the goal of this sentiment as salvation, or moksham, since its rationale is to bring about wholesomeness in a being that struggles at the present epoch of time between the two poles of his mortal beinghood and his immortal consciousness.1.  The bible has been unflinchingly contriving, and at the same time drawing on, this singular human condition. Moreover, starting from Peter and Paul, it has turned itself in the process into a mischievous limb in the genetic environment of the race as a whole, as the same evolves and concretises from the above struggle. Absolutely any such question at all of fact regarding it is therefore noteworthy, and if that fact stands antagonistic, as a matter of fact exactly antipodal, to its claim of a redeeming salvation, it should at once be put to test, since the result of such a scrutiny cannot but be significant and invaluable to man.

From the first book of Moses in the old testament, "Genesis," to the last book of John in the new testament, "Revelation," i.e., from the point of engenderment of "sin" to that of the rebellious proclamation of jesus' real identity as Lucifer, one can perceive a threadbare substratum–an unmixed elemental compulsion–that is to be formed into an ensemble, beneath a mass of literary heap that encases the biblical god. This core substratum consists of the forcible infusion of the selfsame extraneous concept of sin, an infusion that prepares for, and accurately was to be followed by, the alleged concrete saving act of jesus. This purports to be, and at that pass would so seem obviously to be, the salvation from sin, the saving act being the only antidote for that "original sin" of man, the supposed original factor of evil.

In the view of christians themselves, the books ascribed to Moses, which exclusively initiate sin, exactly anticipate jesus the "redeemer," and this is also characteristically corroborated by jesus himself in the new testament his "gospel" writers.

For example, the most part of ch.5 of the book scripted by John consists of a monologue by the uterine jesus on his cryptic father. The chance is siezed by him when his maternal countrymen in their situation of insensibility to Lucifer in his distinction from Beelzebub authentically contradict his inveterate affectations of an objectively-lost devahood–after they were tipped against him inexplicably by the very person whom he had sensationally saved from a 38-year-long illness. Twelve times in ten adjacent sentences he treats of the cryptic father, and the real connotations falls flat on the Jews on their insensibility. Then at the end of the chapter and the monologue, he brings the famed Moses in, and he was also understandably insensible to Lucifer per se. "That one who wrote about me" (John 5:46), says the pseudo-son confoundingly to the Jews now in their long-perceived insensibility.

The alleged resurrection on jesus' part and the hyped-up virginal conception by Mary (see also n.5, ch IV, Ancient Mother II), however, constitute the main objective indicatives of his relation with the invisible spirit of mount Sinai mentioned in the old book. They are also the chief formulas that are met with disapproval by the ungarbled mind even in commissioned christianity, 2. and the very themes that have been most raved about clerically to secure a halo for the two figures, or, in the case of non-catholics, for one of them.

As for the ethical teaching of jesus 3.–momentarily considering him synchronically, and also, arguably, as a biological human 4.–they are not even unique, scholars having found their origin in prior books. 5.

To follow then the avowed reality that runs in christian tradition and the bible, the transcendental spirit-god of the books of Moses assumed an enigmatic human form and called himself jesus and christ in the new testament. This jesus is crucified, but he disappeared from

<!-- p.27 -->

the grave, "rose" in the essentially autologues report, and later appeared to several women, and subsequently to men.

An abstract personality pursuing Moses and shadowed in his books, in short, materialised in jesus, seemingly concretised in flesh and blood. 6. The exertion of the gospel writers without exception is towards substantiation, even at the cost of wantonness, of the apparently inscrutable life account of jesus, while the letters of Peter and Paul further institute the bridge between the god of the old testament and jesus of the new testament.

In the sixteenth century the present new testament came to be assimilated at last as genuine–and the church fatherhood posted approval on the apposite texts. Many other books of the same category, and just as old, were labelled spurious, apocrypha, and destroyed or marginalised for discord, if not contradiction, with the texts thus organised. 7.

However, these very texts are themselves in discord over many crucial details, the disagreement being phenomenal in the case of the four so-called gospels. Although exuberantly concerned with the same character, the so-called son of man, they nevertheless numerously conflict multilaterally, bilaterally, and unilaterally in such instances as the words reported by some books at the point of his brain death, and the same uttered differently or not at all in others, 8.  the two thieves who both insulted him in Matthew 27:44, of course with none of them receiving paradise, and one of the same two who rebuked the other one for his affront and qualified for his paradise in the same account in Luke (23:39-43), the catalysing words "and was taken up into heaven" (Luke 24:51) not existing in certain manuscripts, and several, tangled endings of Mark, all inextricably bearing on the highlighted resurrection and its aftermath.

These monstrosities are only resolvable from the cognition of the real identity of the book as self-expression of Lucifer the rebel in his transformed personality as acquired from Mary with the title of jesus. Under mandate of the pseudo-system above mentioned, however, the discordances have to do more with themselves than with the "unknown" quantity of identity. Therefore (but wishfully) no one at all could possibly be perplexed over them, all the more so if it were to be ingrained that jesus was all too perfect and sacrosanct and it was from man's old incorrigibility that distortions came to be.

But man is no sinner, and this both by genetic reason and by cogent testimony in the anterior scripture of the Vedas. 9.  The Vedas unquestionably nullifies the christain sin, in the first place by its independent, unforced cognition of papam in the abstract, and secondly by the complexion of this cognizance on its part. 10 . The complexion in turn renders the Sanskrit papam into a wholesomely different entity from the subjective, illusionary and terrestrially impossible sin 11. –on the one hand by definition as misdeed, dosham, and on the other by the declared autonomous dissolution of such real and objective papam. 12.

It is therefore irrefutable that there was no sinner before the pentateuch appeared. It would be chimerical as well as a piece of christian wishful thinking to suppose that numerous men at different times in such an epoch put their brains together and designed the "mystical body of christ," a mysterious man-god amalgam and the lone begetter and carrier of the sin gene, who is also the perorative redeemer therefrom.

Again the substratum exposes the true nature of the "mystical body" as a composite of pseudo-God and pseudo-Man. Jesus is neither Man nor God. Man is the "one who reflects," and God is the "perfection of goodness." But jesus, as revealed by the biblical substratum of his real identity, is a malevolent spirit possessing a motivation to usurp the realm of reason and of truth, and hence of salvation.

The whole endeavour of christianity as indubitably announced by its champion is the "overturning" of reasoning directed toward the correct identification of its source- being as Lucifer. Taking his cue from the latter, 13. Paul accurately articulates the received word in postmariological time. Boldly now he narrows it down to reasoning per se. Boldly again but meticulously he announces that "we are overturning reasonings." 14.

<!-- p.28 -->

Since reasoning is the line that demarcates man from animal, christianity is seen to be a system for degeneration of man through retroversion of this demarcation.

The primordial system on the other hand invests man with the right to apply reasoning even to the (hypothetical) supreme being’s articulation, viz., Sruti, and thus to surpass scripture in the process of using it. 15.

Along with deeply embedded undertones of mysteriousness, the present christian bible does portray its wizard obtrusively as a divine and genuine being. Historically tracing him to the hilt only leads to a dead end, and the ambitious figure that emerges from the bible book is the net result of a programmed–and latterly disingenuous16.–design that was started by the same being around 3500 years ago through Moses, that was carried forward by him through a number of other writers of the same race stock, all uniformly imbibing the same alien notion of sin from the same historically initial author and his "inspirer," and that culminated in the so-called act of redemption from sin recorded in the name of still others several years after the event.

These factors, and the historically unheralded, but at the same time chronologically posterior, display of a guilt in consciousness in the “unchosen“ Vedic land of India by hand of the “chosen“ 17. would sufficiently evince the objective existence of a mind at once alien, malevolent and mysterious, that is commonly operating in and through all writers from Moses to John, and that caused the entire book to be composed during a span of 1500 years, in text that is centrally correlated around the alien notion of sin, substantiated out of the same sin’s consanguineous guilt, and capped by the animational visible input of an alluresome18. physical hanging. 19. Interspersed in the same books, one also finds subsequent to Moses and in the intervening period before the so-called new testament compositions like the Psalms of David, which resonate with echoes of the innocence of man, as if it is reflected by a typifying poetical mind that at the same time struggles helplessly with the unperceived trap of sin/redemption set by Lucifer, who is actually conceived by the race itself to be jehovah-god.

### Footnotes — Chapter IV

1. See in this connection John Chethimattam, Patterns of Indian Thought, op.cit., pp.55-56: “The aim of all Upanishadic teaching is to lead human beings to attain the realisation of this unity [of theirs] with brahman (Ultimate Reality). The Upanishads propose a scheme of spiritual progress [progress of consciousness] which is clearly distinct from its western equivalent [travesty]. Even christian spirituality, as developed in the West, is not an exception here, though [as] it draws its substance from the bible and the Hebrew approach to the godhead. Western spirituality starts from the supposition of the duality of god and the world of particular beings including human souls [beings], and from that fact [?] works [exerts] towards a certain unity or union. The Upanishad take for granted the identity of all beings in the one absolute reality, and work for reaching a realization of this unity an identity in, through, and beyond the multiplicity of experience. The Ideal proposed for man is to realize the supreme Atman as his own self.“

2. For example, Hans Kung. B. R. Rees quotes him that the mariological doctrines of the virgin birth and the “immaculate conception“ both “have become largely pointless as a result of increasing criticism of the Augustinian view.“ Rees adds on hid own that both derive their authority from „“a scatter of dubious texts.“–B.R. Rees, Pelagius: A reluctant heretic, p.69.

3. Sanskrit books declare “overt sense of ethics“ as a faculty prevailing in asuras, “fallen angels,“ from the time of their fall from dharma. That kind of ethical sense, rendered from Sanskrit into Malayälam as neethisasthravijnanam, comes fourth in the quintuplet of asuradharmam (senses proper to asuras). The others (in their  order): aggressive conduct, contentiousness, war, and devotion (bhakthi) to Siva. As evidenced in the new testament (see Matthew 4:3), Sivabhakthi  is noticeable in Beelzebub in hid contentiousness with Lucifer, alias jesus, on his persistent claims of devahood. In the case of jesus, however, the identical Sivabhakthi is inceptively convoluted, by and through rebellion, to its antipodal point of murdersome aggression upon Sivan–which is also the hallmark of applied historical christianity, demonstrably in India.

4. cf., Insight, ibid., pp.6-8.

5. cf., Bishop C.Thirwall, Letters, Literary and Theological, quoted by M.K. Thomas, Knanayas and the New Gospel, part II, p.106: „“Bishop Thirwall and other scholars have agreed that in reality all of the accepted moral thoughts in the gospels are to be found in the ancient books of other religion.“ See also Mahatma Gandhi, An Autobiography or The Story of My Experience with Truth, p.51. He quotes a Hindu didactic verse in Gujerati, which includes the precept, return good for evil.

6. The identical equality of the being transacting with Moses and the being discharged by mary with the name jesus is evidenced by their common distinctive name, “I am who am.“ See exodus 3:13-14, where Moses insists upon having the name of the transactor, who then gives the name: “I am who am.“ See also John 8:24-27, where jesus, even when bamboozling the same question from the Hebrews (“ ’who are you?’ they asked him“) while perorating on sin to them, still says: “I am who I am.“–Good News bible, p.129.

7. The Malabar christians in India used as standard numerous additional books of scripture. A Portuguese-organised but normative “synod of Diamper“ in 1599 in that region commandeered nearly all of those ancient works in manuscript and imprecated and incinerated them to ashes. In so doing, the Portuguese identified them by name and extracts. One of the books so treated is Gospel of the Infancy. As for common books, the same meeting registers several variations in both new and old testaments used by the ancient community in the centuries before they were catholicised by the synod.

8. Vide comment on Luke 23:34: Some manuscripts do have "Jesus said,  'Forgive them, father! They don't know what they are doing'."–Good News bible, p.114.

9. See Swami Vivekananda: "the Hindu refuses to call you sinners. It is a sin to call a man so; it is a standing libel on human nature. Come up, O lions, and shake off the delusion that you are sheep."–cited from The Complete Works of Vivekananda, Vol.I, p.9.

10. The complexion is reflected in Sivapuranam, p.111: "By reason of the play of cause-effect, men do tumble day-to-day into one or another papam."

11. The notion of papam sensed by Rig Veda and connectedly in Sanskrit literature is radically different from the alien notion of sin imposed by christianity. In no sense is papam relatable or related to "sin," defined as the latter is as transgression of the law against knowledge of the christian god. Papam, on the other hand, consists of acts between man and man that are devoid of righteousness, or dharma, all of its various senses being autonomously intelligible, without recourse to the christian god.

12. Recital of mantra of aghamarshana automatically brings about the dissolution of papas. cf., Sivathathwarahasyam (esoterica of Siva), p.126. The verse concerned reads as follows: Ashtavaram hara ithi/ jale magno japennarah/ aghamarshanamevaithath/ sarvapapaih pramuchyathe. (The effect of aghamarshana-mantram is obtained by intoning the sound 'hara' for eight times while remaining submerged in a stream. All papas without exception are obliterated.)

13. cf., Matthew 15:19. Validly questioned by an ancient Jewish sect in regard to his intrusive claims, Mary jesus here for one and only one time makes mention of human reasoning, while inclusively pronouncing that man’s heart is the fountainhead of “wicked reasoning.“–New World translations. Exactly filling the prescriptive aggregate of seven, he transfers to man six additional effluents professedly issuing from the identical human source alleged. However, four of them–murder, adultery, fornication and theft–only issue from the selfsame transferor; they are in reality engrafted on man by him in genesis and exodus (see next chapter). The last two, viz., false testimonies and blasphemies against Lucifer, are meant to effectively foreclose reasoning directed towards identification of the pronouncer with the engrafter.

14. 2. Corinthians 10:5-6:  “For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty things raised up against the knowledge of god [read Lucifer]; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the christ [read jesus]; and we holding ourselves in readiness to inflict punishment for every disobedience [against Lucifer], as soon as your obedience has been fully carried out.“ Attenuatingly but quite antithetically to the text, Knox adds the note: “He [Paul] wishes to bring as many as possible of his critics to a better mind by reasoning [?], before he proceeds to punishment.“

15. Vide Sankaracharya: “The cognition of Brahman (Ultimate Reality) terminates in an act of anubhava; hence it has been shown that reasoning is more closely connected with anubhava than sruti is, we have the right to apply reasoning to sruti.“ –cited from Max Muller, Sacred Books of the East,  Vol. XXXIV, Vedanta Sutras, Part I, p.300. See also idem:  “Whatsoever any sruti that agrees not with anubhava should be rejected.“

16. disingenuous: “giving a false appearance of simple frankness.“ Note for example the sudden query about his identity (“Who do people say the son of man is“), the affirmation induced from Peter when he is pointedly confronted by him with the same query, and now the commissioning of Peter with warfaring against sin, and lastly the „“stern“ charge to all present to secrete the identity thus affirmed.–Matthew 16:13-20.

17. The first manifestation of positive guilt operating in consciousness is seen on an inscription engraved on a cross in an ancient settlement at Mylapore (Madras). The inscription reads: “My lord christ, have mercy upon Afras, son of Chaharbukht the Syrian, who cut this.“– Archdale A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom, Vol.II, p. 469. The writer Hosten dates the artefact to “about a.d. 650,“ from its Sassanian-Pahlivi script.–H. Hosten, s.j., Antiquities from San Thome and Mylapore, p. 170. The pleading phrase “have mercy“ and the documented personal act of assembling the artefact are evidential of a sudden virulence of guilt in consciousness. Identification of the engraver as Syrian would preclude the Hindu races, ethnic to the land, from that same virulence, and at the same time evince an effort toward endosmosis (endosmosis: “from Sanskrit vadhati, he strikes“) of the virus by the so-called chosen mankind in the direction of that land. (See ecclesiasticus 44:16 and Luke  3:37-38 for Lucifer engineering the gene of guilt on Cain, and subsequently towards all of mankind through the so-called Enoch, who is the seventh gene from Lucifer, bypassing  “Enosh,“ who is a transition gene. Transition: „“a genetic mutation in RNA or DNA that results from the substitution of one purine base for the other or of one pyrimidine base for the other.“)

18. On the question whether he is sensitive to suffering consistent with the nature of his embryogenesis, see Insight, ibid., pp.6-9.

19. See the words actuating arrest: “Let it go so far as this.“ –Luke 22:51. “Let“ is capitalised in the text to indicate that it is used by him to mean the seizers. Vide note at p.6, New World Translation.


## Chapter V

**Origination of Evil & Doom of Sin**

As a concept discharged onto perception by scripture–and from that very reason, sprung into existence for the first time in the history of consciousness–positive evil only rears its head in the book of genesis of the bible, and entirely so by an explicit movement of the consciousness of the true author of that book.

The relevant text directly quotes expressions of concepts underivedly operating in, and issuing from, the consciousness of jehovah, alias Lucifer alias jesus, concepts that both originate and beget positive evil. The text is indexed as 4-7 gen., appropriately the first entry for sin in the book of sin's lone father. 1.

The words therein at once produce and rebelliously, if futilely in the final event, serve to man, straight from Lucifer's consciousness, the very emanation of sin only-begotten in the self same consciousness. And appropriately again, it is served by and in the bible, that book being, once again, the sole maker, container and carrier of the same sin.

The words are uttered by, and occur solely and exclusively in, the consciousness of jehovah. And therefore, there has not been at all any origin nor movement of sin heretofore in any consciousness other than this one.

And the words recording in the consciousness of jehovah–unrebelliously for the first time–and captured by Moses, do accord with the above, as also with independent reality, as he concedes to man, eminently typified at this point by Cain, an inertia of sin: "sin is crouching." And thereby, there is not an inheritance of sin allegedly from Adam, as historical christianity rebelliously claims from words terminally inscribed by Paul. 2.

The alleged disobedience charged by Paul will not make any kind of sin since the primary condition of disobedience, expressed refusal to obey, is not satisfied, 3. pre-cast as Adam is in a muted role as of then in Lucifer's consciousness. As for the aspect of disobedience, viz., neglect, the charge is disproved under "discovery," 4. the same protagonist having withheld by malidentification the pertinent data of the existence of the serpent. 5.

And immediately, in the very next movement of consciousness in Lucifer, and again captured by Moses by these words, "For you is its craving," the sin is released by the being from its inertial and exclusive existence therein in that very consciousness, but hitherto confined to the netherworld, 6. in the direction of consciousness as a whole, and that through and by incipient and historical christianity–although futilely, as we do see in the light of the identity.

Apart from the above, the actual author did project before, in accord with his malignant consciousness, the auto-compassion of Sivan by the symbol of the snake instead of his ornament of serpent. 7. The genes of murder, war-making, adultery and theft are all genes latterly interpolated into consciousness and then deliberately brought within the sphere of the attributed acts of man described in the book–attributed to man by rebellious commandments proffered after the event, turning the human psyche in the process into a battlefield between the genes thus implanted therein with all their automotive drives and the commandments subsequently planted against the selfsame genes, both being done by the same being, viz., jehovah, alias jesus, whom Moses in his goodness, as man takes to be "God," the perfection of goodness, as continuedly professed by that being in execution of his rebellion.

<!-- p.32 -->

(For example, the gene of theft is so far alien in man that the so-called jehovah is disabled from implanting it in his genesis book. This is accomplished, as far as he is concerned, in exodus. Interpolatively even, 8.  he introversively plots out the deign for implanting of theft gene, through a message at once inducing 9.  and forcing 10.  the admittedly unbiased Moses and followers to rob the Egyptians. 11. In the chapter following, Moses and all his followers are expressly inscribed by lucifer, characteristically, as ”plunderers of the Egyptians.” the text reads: ”As instructed, the people of Israel had asked the Egyptians the loan of gold and silver ornaments and garments. Since the lord had made the Egyptians respect the Israelites, the Egyptians gave everything that was asked for. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.”–Malayalam bible, p. 79.

(The new commodity of garments included in the actual plunder at ch. 12 above helplessly outgrows from the motive force of the theft gene that had been already input from outside at ch. 11 by suggestion fortified by positive inducement through modulated environmental factors. The final impeachment of Moses and his  people is characteristic of Lucifer in his classic mode of especial betrayal of those who remarkably serve him.)

Signalled and inescapably inherent in the whole account is this one suggestion that a positive–although as yet invisible–being is inducing the crimes, whereas, chronologically, crimes were hitherto related to have been caused by vacuity of righteousness or dharma. This is documented in prior scripture, the Hindu scripture, where the concept of dharma exclusive to the Hindu races–in fact their gift to mankind–is ubiquitous by positively emerging diffusion, and  ”sin” conspicuous for its total doom. 12. The bible originated at a latter moment in history from the Vedas. Therefore, if one were to probe realistically into the origin of positive evil, indifferently analysing up and down from the focal point of its first and earliest manifestations as a positively appearing phenomena in scripture, one will have to trace it at last to the consciousness of the true bible writer, who by traditional belief is at the same time the protagonist of the book. Scholars justly sensitised over Evil but unaware of the above formula of its engineered history seek its incorporation in systems of enquiry into religious consciousness in order to make them competent and totally relevant. It is also affirmed by the selfsame christianity, speciously in this context, that buddhism and christianity are superior for per se incorporation of the phenomenon. 13. Nevertheless, evil as a positive entity only originated in and from the ominous being that is totally self-expressed in the bible book and that structured the same, through Peter and Paul, according to the agenda, into an active component in the existential consciousness. It is important that this singular source of positive evil be apprehended by correct identification in any system that would outgrow Evil. It is also important that there occur no misidentification or despondency as to outcome. 14.

In buddhism, a rebel offspring  15. of the Vedas (Knowledge), 16.  evil has its source and expression in death, and disillusionment arises from death's stark negation of the human instinct. In christianity, the objective originator of evil is himself the source and object of salvation. The buddhist pessimism has its origin in neglect of the regenerative aspect of death, while the christian obscurantism, however concealed as "faith," has its origin in christianity's pseudo-salvation and belief in the original sin of man, in the place of transposition of original sin on man by itself.

But sadly, religion is understood as faith by the man in the street. Where faith dwells, reason vanishes, since faith is but the midwife of superstition. For the man-in-the-street christian, moreover, verification from experience is primevally foreclosed. But he would still be bent on an argument or two in behalf of Lucifer without so much as having even touched his book!

The identity re-established in the pages of this work, and further to follow in subsequent works, might appear formidable to certain ranks in both believers and non- believers. Ultimately speaking, the bafflement is due to the Fear gene that abides either

<!-- p.33 -->

dominant or dormant in individuals, and that is traceable to Lucifer's scripture in the matter of the origin 17. Paradoxically, it is cognition of the same identity that will redeem them from this Fear.

On the opposite track are those who altogether deny the existence of Lucifer and the standing of his self-delineational book.

The fabric of man's mind designs itself upon the past, since past genes do continue in operation, as we know from Lucifer's supervening gene history–culminating as it does in the indented gene of jesus at the end of 77 operations related at Luke 3:23-38. If man has become generally civilised, it is on account of the Self, which impelled improvisation of the genetic process. By the same token, the alien concepts of sin and guilt discharged into the environment by the bible book have today become in 2000 years a surcharge, as manifested in the complex melancholia characterising some of the most representative types of the race. 18.

On the one side are the sick people who put themselves to torture stricken by guilt or motivated by a venerated afterlife–the unwitting martyrs of Lucifer–and on the other those chained by their own intellect. They refuse to accept that the gene of evil has been transmitted from one genetic unit to another, each with its own assured improvisation, and that it is intentionally planted in the system by the bible book by its alien and subterranean actual author. 19.

Through all the super-tech and ithyphallic pornography overflowing from the mind of "jehovah" and made directly sensible as such at the point of its calculated projection onto man 20. one can also perceive a drive for utter humiliation of man, and in general the worst kind of misology, besides the fabrication of a genealogy for a pre-calculated end. This is the creation of the ultimate schizophrenia, whose underived gene type is jesus, the "son of man," as misanthropically self-designated by him in his self-awareness of his own identity at that point in time as son of Lucifer. This even transcends the pseudo-transformation he acquired from the human female Mary by way of parthenogenesis. The son of man whose iterational 21. father is still in the heavens!

### Footnotes — Chapter V

1. For evil originating in, and only-begotten from, the consciousness of the so-called jehovah, see genesis 4:7, quoting his words to Cain and the very first deployment of evil in consciousness:  ”There is sin crouching at the entrance.”

2. cf., letter of Paul to the Romans, 5:19: "Through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners."

3. disobedience:  ”refusal or neglect to obey.”

4. discovery:  ”the usually pretrial disclosure of pertinent facts or documents by one or both parties to a civil action or proceeding.

5. For positive misidentification of  ”serpent” by jehovah, see genesis 3:1: ”Now the snake was the most cunning animal that the lord god had made. The snake asked the woman, ‘Did god really tell you not to eat fruit from any tree in the garden?’ ”–Good News bible, p.6. The being speaking to Eve is elsewhere inscribed as ”serpent.” Vide the selfsame genesis 3:1 in Knox bible:  ”Of all the beast which the lord god had made, there was none that could match the serpent in cunning. It was he who said to the woman, ... ” –p.2. Compare also revelation 20:2 in selfsame Good News bible (p.321):  ”He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent ... ” See also selfsame revelation 20:2 in Knox bible for the ”serpent” vituperatively and definitively identified as ”serpent of the primal age”–the exact rendering of ”Aadi Seshan,” a Sanskrit subrogative name of Sivan expressive of his auto- compassion towards all beings. For snake and serpent as discrete entities, vide etymos of snake: ”Old English snoegl, snail”, and of serpent: ”Sanskrit sarpati, he creeps.”

6. nether: "from Sanskrit ni–situated beneath the earth's surface (the netherworld of deceit, subversion, and espionage)."

7. For serpent as ornament of Siva, see Sivanandalahari of Sankaracharya. The Sanskrit phrase used at verse 3 to verbalize that perceptible  ornament unique to Sivan reads: ”chalad-uraga-haaram,”  which translates: ”garlanded by the serpent that crawls on the belly.” (cf., genesis 3:14 for jehovah malevolently specifying Sivan by identical attribution with his words: ”You shall crawl on your belly.”) Other attributes of Sivan noted by Sankaracharya in the same verse in Sivanandalahari: the condition of being uni-god, inseperableness from primal female, support of pure consciousness, and the state of being first of all beings. (See also n.5)

8. The text is exodus 11:1-3.Knox has the following note: ”Verses 1-3 seem awkwardly placed, so as to interpret what appears to be one continues narrative describing one continues interview” (featured in preceding and following verses).

9. cf., ibid., 11:2–Malayalam bible, p.77: ”Give the word to the people that each male should ask his neighbour of his sex and each female likewise of her sex for loan of silver and gold ornaments.”

10. cf., the same text in Knox bible: ”Give the word, then, to all people, men and women alike, that they are to claim gold and silver trinkets from their neighbours.”–p.57.

11. The rebellious admission of Moses’ indifference is made in the mutually divergent texts of exodus 11:3. One text, in Malayalam bible, has Lucifer’s mocking attestation of Moses’ high stature in all of Egypt, immediately after having incited Moses in his dispassionateness to rob the Egyptians: ”jehovah produced respect in the Egyptians towards those people. Moreover, Moses was considered to be a very great man in all of Egypt by the servants of the people of Pharao.” The other text, in knox, rebels against the attestation, omitting the patronising sentence but still retaining the earlier part of the verse, which carries the incitement.

12. The Vedas recoil, by positive exclusion, from the entity entitled as Sin. It only recognises papam–unphenomenal objective acts between man and man, acts that are devoid of righteousness or dharma. The criterion of action is dharma. Accordingly only dharmatman is positive, defined as a prototype of dharma. On the other hand, papatman does not connote a positive sense, noticed merely as negation of dharmatman.

13. For the christian patronising of buddhism in the same context, see George M. Morais, Renewal: Its Notion, Means and Obstacles, p.19: ”It is not generally known that in ancient times the church in India made a present to the west f the Buddha, and the western church was so charmed by benign personality that it straightaway listed him among her saints.” See also Joseph Jacobs, Baralaam and Josephat, for Buddha included from before 1370 in the list of  ”martyrs” of the Rome pope. Buddha’s  ”baptised” name there is Josephat. ”There can be no doubt,” writes the author,  ”as to the identity of Josephat and Buddha” (p.xivi). The date of November 12 is set by the Rome pope as ”feast” day of Buddha, who is characterised as ”saint” Josephat.

14. For the helpless articulation of despondency in the christian races, see, for example, Thomas Hardy, op.cit., p.495:  ”Positive views on the Whence and the Wherefor of things have never been advanced by this pen as a consistent philosophy. Nor is it likely that they would exhibit a coherent scientific theory of the universe even if it had been attempted–of that universe concerning which Spencer owns to the ‘paralyzing thought’ that possibly there exists no comprehension of it anywhere.”

15. See S. Radhakrishnan, Two Thousand Five Hundred Years of Buddhism, p.xiii: ”Buddhism was an offshoot of the ancient faith of Hindus, perhaps a schism or a heresy.” See also Sankaracharya: ”Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only, and general nothingness, has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused. So that Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.”–Quoted in Max Muller, ibid., p.428.

16. Veda etymosially means “”knowledge.” The word is akin to Greek  ”eidenai,” which has the same meaning.

17. See genesis .3:10:  ”I was afraid because I was naked.” Here is fear caused by anubhava, experience, of the unanticipated. On the god’s word, Adam expected to die the moment he ate the fruit forbidden. In the event however he didn’t die, but, unanticipatedly, got cognizant of his nakedness, causing him in turn to panic. See also in this connection Anis A. Shorrosh, Jesus, prophecy and the middle east, p.62: ”Ibn Khaldun proved that events were shaped by religious beliefs, customs, climates and racial backgrounds.”

18. For example, Jean-Paul Sartre. Writes Walter Laqueur: ”Sartre’s philosophy was one of freedom and choice, leading man beyond despair; it was to save mankind from the basic absurdity of life and the lack of purpose by engagement and cult of action. By the early nineteen-sixties most of the original impetus of existentialism had petered out.”–Eurpoe since Hitler, pp.300.302.

19. See in this connection Jeffrey Burton Russell, quoted in Time, June 10,1991: ”It is  true that there is evil in each of us, but adding together even large numbers of individual evils does not explain an Auschwitz, let alone the destruction of the planet. Evil in this scale seems to be qualitatively as well as quantitatively different. It is no longer a personal but a transpersonal evil, arising from some kind of collective unconscious. It is also possible that it is beyond the transpersonal and is truly transcendent, an entity outside as well as inside the human mind, an entity that would exist even if there were no human race to imagine it.”

20. see account of the historical origin of Ammonites and Moabites at genesis 19:36-38. See also i. genesis. 21:8; ii. deuteronomy  34:7 and note in Knox bible.

21. iterate:  ”(from Sanskrit itara)  relating to or being a computational procedure in which replication of a cycle of operations produces results which approximate the desired result more and more closely.


## Chapter VI

**Chapter - VI Sin = Guilt**

The notion of "sin," original or not, is at once the linchpin and leitmotiv of Lucifer transformed into jesus through Mary, his bible book and the pair's common product of christianity. Shearing of sin, both producer and product instantaneously dematerialise through denaturation, no matter how hard the votaries of sin might try to prop them up, all three having been suddenly turned into the likeness of a tree denuded of its root. That eventuality, in other words the demise of sin, is indeed well noticed, if not dreaded, by their most representative expositors. 1. Sin being thus the basis of christianity, we are concerned here with the whys and wherefores of this aberrant concept by which it has sought to hold man in its grip, in order to undo him eventually–through repentance everlasting. 2.

Based on the assumed authority of the bible, christians prescriptively post the notion of "original sin" as the keystone of their faith. In the subconscious of man, which can hardly discriminate between real and the imaginary, the christian sin, being imaginary, 3. would in point of fact be fatal–from creating alienation from environment or reality. The christian theologian Soren Kierkegaard is a typical example. 4.

In psychiatry, such alienation is considered a diseased condition in which the individual suffering becomes prone to self-annihilation. This kind of struggle is constantly going on in every christian, unconsciously if not consciously, and varyingly as to its degree in accordance with the individual's genetic, racial and ancestral mores and modes of his personal involvement with christianity. In extreme cases, self-annihilation is unavoidable. It is this sin that we propose to delete from the annals of consciousness and of mankind itself, with the instrument of correct Knowledge.

This sin has been intentionally transfused into the consciousness of man–importantly, the consciousness of a particular scriptural segment of the race–by a malevolent being, the real original sinner, whose seeming ascendance and potency devolve from his unipolar intelligence, motivated and pitted against man from the moment of his fall from goodness, the true original sin, and from his relatively advanced application of genetics. His ultimate motive was negation of man's pursuit and acquisition of correct knowledge of "God" as perfection of goodness, thereby to monopolise the deepest part of his consciousness, the part vital for his actions and consequently for his existence.

The authentic firsthand citations and observations of Mary of Agreda, which are autonomous to christianity, on the one hand place the origination of sin at a site earlier and different from the so-called garden, 5. and on the other appropriately identify the original sinner differently from man in Adam, as scriptural christianity claims–as "the prince of that (same) assembly." On account of its complexion, as original, the sin above is integral with, and inseparable from, its originator. Therefore, the being and the consciousness that carries the underived gene of sin at genesis 4:7, and exerts itself verbally to discharge it upon man, is the same "prince of sin" as above.

The reader has seen in the previous chapter the enumerated first entry under sin in the bible book, where the sin issues alone from the consciousness of jehovah, in words avowedly spoken by him to Cain. Here below is the same passage in full:

A) "If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling; but because you have done evil, sin is crouching at your door. It wants to rule you, but you must overcome it."–Good news bible, p.7.

However the same verse in the importantly attested Knox bible goes as follows:

B) "If thy actions are good, canst thou doubt they will be rewarded? If not, canst thou doubt that guilt, thenceforward, will lie at thy door? Meanwhile he (Abel) is at thy mercy, and thou canst have thy way with him." –p.3.

<!-- p.37 -->

The entire bible book being underived and the text titled and couched as "genesis" being the bottommost compartment of the same aspect, "sin" and "guilt" in A & B above are interchangeable. Secondly, they are expressly personified by the speaker. Thirdly, they lie in a crouching state of inertia when and until so personified.

Unless acted upon by an external force, they would interminably so remain in inertia in, with, and alone with, its first and only spokesman above. The statement, "it wants to rule you," is how he elementally personifies sin/guilt - specifically too, by naming them "it" - so that he can apply on it with the force he needs to start it on motion, "it" embracing the sense of a person in lexicographic definition. By the expression "wants" he acts on the personified guilt/sin and puts it in motion.

As a figure of speech, personification is used for its appeal to imagination. Therefore, the "lord's" figurative expression constitutes a direct suggestion to Cain's imagination to admit to the guilt for the dead body of Abel–and inevitably therefrom, by the christian interchangeability thereof (by way of B & A above), the Sin. The lord himself had done Abel to death just before for this very purpose of confronting Cain with the body, so that seeing the visual proof he would admit himself to the killing, and to the guilt/sin thereof. The lord killed Abel also from impulsion of his singular and distinguishing trait of superabundant infliction of those who go out their way–as did Abel, by reason of suggestion on the part of Lucifer–to serve him phenomenally. As for Cain, his act of assault in the direction of Abel with no attendant, nor intended, 6.   manhandling was directly contrived by the lord by mutating the rage gene intrinsic in him as man into the Luciferian gene of anger, the very gene that activates the killing of a biological brother, as the scripture of India do tell us. 7. Therefore, when sanctimoniously confronted by the actual assassin, viz., jehovah, with the corpus of Abel in the form of lifeblood, Cain relates it with his own act of assault, and instantly admits himself to the killing. This is how sin and guilt came to be in consciousness and in its history.

Now to relate it graphically. The gravitational fall of Lucifer, alias jesus, is ascribed in the primitive christian memory to his intolerance of man  8.  Afterwards, he vows uncaused vengeance against man at his council held in the innermost regions of the netherworld. He bides time until he finds Moses. Through the subliminally moving fingers of Moses, he begins executing the plan, the resultant book, viz., genesis, constituting the execution of the plan until the time point of Mary and her uterine son in all its essential elements.

All characters at this primary level of execution–Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Ismail, this last the gene of Islam–are either archetypal or even primordial, Adam and Eve belonging to the latter category, both being essential for producing Cain and Abel, Which remains their prime function as far as the plan is concerned.

Using the obscure proper name of "Canithi," which is dropped in all versions save one, Eve lets Cain understand that he is sired by Lucifer. Acting on the suggestion, Cain offers an innocent sacrifice of crops to his sworn begetter. From the beginning Lucifer had very consistently and very characteristically exerted to excite the rage gene in Cain, even at the risk of endangering himself, by expressed favouritism towards Abel and partiality against Cain, presently culminating in the stonewalling of Cain's sacrifice. 9. The stonewalling by the self-affecting god works, according to agenda, as a suggestion to Abel to follow with a different sacrifice.

Attuned as it is to its lying founder, historical christianity lyingly claims in text and illustrations that the sacrifices of Cain and Abel were offered independently of each other, but both at the some moment. However, their own book attests to the contrary from recording Abel's act by a separate verse and division, following the recording of Cain's: "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof."–genesis 4.3-4.

<!-- p.38 -->

Enraged against the god for exerting to instal the gene of discord between Cain and his brother, Cain was about to kill the god in retaliation. His face frowned against the god, as the god admits, in fear: "What does this frowning face of thine mean?" This is the point where Lucifer, as much in deadly fear of man as from malignancy towards him, mutates the rage gene into anger by this one malevolent, lying statement in the direction of Cain. "What does THIS anger mean?" The narrative on the other hand identifies Cain's vibration at and up to this moment as "rage." 10. These are two different genes, "rage" being Sanskrit "rabhas," meaning violence, and "anger" Greek "anchein," meaning strangulation (see Webster's, pp.946,43). Since both swing equally but from different sources, the former from man and the latter from Lucifer, towards the common territory of violence, it is always possible to mutate rage into anger by suggestion upon the unconscious of the subject. 11.

And this is what Lucifer does by enunciating the word “this“–which means “what has just been mentioned,“ viz., rage–to point to “rage“ at the moment the sense breaks in his consciousness and in a simultaneous movement in the same consciousness, but recorded as his next expression, actually mutated into anger in the direction of the consciousness of Cain. Impelled now by the anger gene thus charged into his consciousness, Cain deploys the resulting rage-anger conglomerate against Abel–but still only in the form of assault, with no manhandling–exactly as programmed by Lucifer to deflect Cain’s deadly wrath from himself and, equally, to bring the sin into motion in the direction of man, from its inertial and exclusive existence in Lucifer, alias jesus. Abel runs away in fright. On the way, the waiting Lucifer kills him by strangulation–and the blood spills to the ground–and leaves the body to be seen by Cain as if by accident the next morning. Upon thus seeing the body, Cain is overpowered by guilt, which pursues him afterwards.

Let us go back to the very beginning. Having put Adam in induced coma, Lucifer proceeds to make Eve professedly from a piece of his skeleton. But he does not wake him up once the deed is done–Evidence no. 1. Here is the relevant part of the narrative: “This rib, which he had taken out of Adam, the lord god formed into a woman; and when he brought her to Adam, Adam said, Here, at last, is bone that comes from mine.“

The italicised particles, particularly the semicolon after “woman,“ manifest the occurrence of respite after Eve is professedly formed and the point when she is brought before Adam. The question is: What was Lucifer doing to Eve during the respite? The answer will be evidence 2. Again the answer is obliviously provided by Hindu scriptures, which consistently reflect a conceptual awareness of Lucifer. Just as consistently they stop short of specific recognition of his existence in consciousness history. This feature so abiding and noteworthy in the Sanskrit scriptures stems from the realistic history of consciousness, filled as it was, and as it still is in India, with the gene of goodness, to complete exclusion of sin, prior to interpolation of the same by Lucifer, alias jesus, through the so-called chosen mankind, and subsequently by Peter and his crew to this day. 12.

Accordingly, the Sanskrit scriptures list eight prepositions of Lucifer, calling each one a penchant, or raaga. The first of these penchants, and the foremost if we follow the gradation, is sexuality, which in the case of Lucifer expresses in the form of fornication with married women or with young lasses, as we know from his book. 13.

(A fine distinction between sex and sexuality is maintained both in Sanskrit scriptures and in the Sanskrit literature emanating from the same scriptural basis. For example, Kalidasa positively acknowledges the relevance of sex in one’s youth. In the scriptures, the rishis reduce all the eight luciferian penchants in the same gradation to the level of man, but appropriately call them instead of raagas the eight calamities of man, ashtakashtangal. As for sex, distinguished from sexuality, the same rishis list it among the four objectives of existence (Purushaartha), with pursuit of goodness, or dharma, as the first and foremast, followed by artham, acquisition of wealth, then kamam, sex, and finally moksham, salvation. Apart from sexuality, which is designated indivisibly as kamam in both listings, both in goals of existence

<!-- p.39 -->

and luciferian raagas, the distinctive luciferian penchants are krodham [anger], lobham [covetousness], moham [greed] madham [delusion], maalsaryam [contentiousness], dambham [vaingloriousness] and asooya [envy].)

Evidence 3 is the testimony of Eve after she gave birth to Cain: “I have gotten a man- child by the lord.“ The text varies from version to version and no two texts agree. But words reflecting the activity of Lucifer in the conception runs uniformly through them all, along with the absence of any allusion just therein in those meaningful utterances to the share of Adam in the act. In the above, the word by, which means  “sired or fathered by“ (Webster’s, pp. 150 & 1077), constitutes that positive common thread. Other texts of the same passage are as follows, with emphasis placed in each one on the link words/word:

“She called her child Cain, as if she would say, Canithi, I have been enriched by the lord with a man-child;“

“I have produced a man with the aid of jehovah;“

“By the lord’s help I have acquired a son;“

“I have gotten a man through god;“

“I have gotten a man from the lord;“

In the entire bible book, Lucifer has to do personally with three other females–Sarah, Elizabeth, Mary–before he got transformed into a pseudo-mammalian, 14. absolutely the only such, from the last-named. Each one is feminine biological category by herself, the first from advanced age, the second from infertility, and the third with none of these disabilities, and of the age of 14. All three are either married or ritually married, with spouses alive in every case. In all three cases, subsequent reports by the females concerned importantly correspond with the report of Eve, in sensual particulars universally alluding to their physical involvement with Lucifer rather than, and in the case of Elizabeth along with, 15. their spouses. Sarah after the birth of Issac: “God has made me laugh for joy.“ Elizabeth to Mary upon sighting her very soon after Mary came to be pregnant and six months after Elizabeth herself came to be so, as accurately reckoned by Gabriel: „“How have I deserved to be thus visited by the mother of my lord“ (mate).

Since lord is capitalised, since it was thus pronounced earlier by Elizabeth while explicitly referring to his deeds as her mate (see Luke 1:25), and since the word means husband in the first place, it here refers to jehovah in his function as Elizabeth’s mate. Elizabeth’s words referring to Mary as mother of her mate demonstrate that her mate, who is six months earlier had jointly impregnated her, is now in Mary’s womb. Therefore, Mary’s uterine son jesus is at the same time her mate too.

(Shakespeare uses the word in the same composite sense, capitalised as well as uncapitalised in a single context, typically as spoken by the dying Desdemona–Othello: Act 5, scene 2, lines 85-90, 125-130.)

And finally the words uttered by Mary: “My spirit has found joy in god. He has done valiantly with the strength of his arm.”

As far as the strangulatory spilling of Abel’s blood is concerned, there does exist an exact but unconscious analogue in the Hindu scripture Mahabharatham, the rishi no doubt being well aware of the fall but not taking the heed of the subsequent rebellion. The scene features the strangulation of Keechakan by Bheeman for attempted misbehaviour to his spouse Draupadi with the patronage of his (Keechakan’s) sister, which she,  “afraid,“ dutifully reports to Bheeman. On his instruction a trap is laid by her, and Keechakan is strangled by Bheeman hiding in the rendezvous, blood spilling to the earth as he dies writhing there, the same as Abel’s after he is strangled by Lucifer, alias jehovah. (Facing a similar decision while with the procurer Gabriel, 16.  Instead of reporting to her spouse Joseph, Mary, although initially „“afraid“ as Malini [alter name of Draupadi] was, responds affirmatively–and is forthwith impregnated, 17.  allegedly by a so-called holy ghost.)

<!-- p.40 -->

The so-called jehovah does mention the blood spilled to the earth. And this is also corroborated by the etymos of anger, which is specified as the same strangulation, as we saw.

Since all scripture is couched in transcendent,  as distinct from historical, language, and unfurled in timeless, typifying situations (with the special proviso that starting form the so-called gospels and in the subsequent books of the so-called new testament immediately accruing from them, John’s final book excepted, the dominant strain is historical), the blood of Abel that Lucifer exhibits before Cain with the determinant  “this“ (“What is this thou hast done? The blood of thy brother has found a voice that cries out to me from the ground“), symbolises the body of Abel. So here now is Cain, who typifies man in scripture, Lucifer's scripture to wit, but scripture nonetheless, admitting to the guilt when confronted with the body of Abel whom he had assaulted before by force of the rage-anger conglomerate engineered in him by Lucifer and who had in consequence fled from sight. Just before, i.e., before the body was displayed, Cain had realistically disclaimed about Abel's whereabouts when Lucifer was contriving on him, unsuspected, in exact fashion the sequence culminating in the guilt admission. ("Where is thy brother Abel? I cannot tell, said he [Cain]; is it for me to keep watch over my brother? But the answer came, What is this thou hast done?"–Knox bible.)

Lucifer works further on Cain, now suddenly turned miserable before the spectacle of the body. He, Lucifer, alias jehovah, alias jesus, presently flashbacks to details of the manner in which he had strangled Abel with his hands–as does Bheeman to Keechakan in Mahabharatham– transcribing 18.  "my hand," however, as "thy hand."–Knox bible, p.4. This is followed right away with hopeless deprivation of his trade, in order to summon up in Cain the ultimate anxiety of loss of livelihood, which is termed ''aamayam “ (fumes exuding unbeknown from consciousness) in the Sanskrit scriptures: "Henceforward thou shalt be an outlaw from this ground, that has opened to drink in thy brother's blood. Till that ground, and it will yield thee its fruit no longer."–ibid.

Confronted now with the body and the loss of his livelihood in diabolically formulated perpetuity, Cain admits to the guilt for the assassination of Abel by the so-called jesus, alter ego of Lucifer, and applies to the same murderer for forgiveness: "Guilt like mine is like too great to find forgiveness. And now thou art robbing me of the ground."–genesis 4:13-14.

The "guilt" above is suppressed in all other versions of the selfsame text, and supplanted with sin, translated therein as "iniquity," Which is synonymous with "sin," both in works of lexicography and the bible book.

Thus, the genesis of sin in consciousness is coterminous with the genesis of guilt. And the genesis of guilt is by way of transposition on man of the first murder, done by the so- called god of christianity. A murder emanating from his dominant proclivity of superabundant affliction of those who serve him at all phenomenally. And its transposition achieved fraudulently by exhibition of the corpus, by privation of man's means of sustenance, viz., land, and finally by exploitation of his agreeableness, his innocence, and his biological filial ties. This is why guilt is defined as "feelings of culpability, especially for imagined offences" (Webster's, p.506), and the christian sin, a figment from the same guilt, as "transgression of the law of the god."–-ibid., p.1075. Moreover, since sin and guilt are interchangeable, the distinctive characteristic of the one is also the distinctive character of the other. The distinctive character of guilt being its irredeemablity by reason of its subjective nature, so is the christian sin irredeemable. Therefore, the jesus emerging from Mary and positioning himself obtrusively as redeemer is in reality a pseudo-redeemer, thus the very antitype of redemption or salvation, and the christianity sourced from him a pseudo-religion, in fact the very antithesis of religion. In short, both are the enemy of man, from implanting an

<!-- p.41 -->

irredeemable–and therefore, suicidal–guilt in consciousness. This is why Isaiah calls for the physical extermination of both from history and from consciousness: –Isaiah 14:21.

### Footnotes — Chapter VI

1. For example, Hutton Gibson. He rues over the demise of sin in standard christain phraseology:  “The infamous notion and distorted view that all men are necessarily saved gains increasing acceptance.“–op.cit., p.155. Logically then the author would add: If all men were saved, will it be possible for man to experience remission of sin?

2. Repentance involves admission of sin in the first place, since “to repent“ means „“to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life“ (in the direction of Lucifer, alias [christain] god).

3. The subjective nature of the christain sin is demonstrated at once by its definition– “transgression of the law of god“–and the component of that definitive law, viz., prohibition of knowledge under pain of death.

4. Having taken sin for granted in the first place, Kierkegaard’s work was bound to spoliatory. He had no concept of the anterior scripture of the Vedas. Nor did he perceive the a priori impossibility of Sin. Vide Soren Kierkegaard, The sickness Unto Death.

5. See revelations of mary of Agreda: “All iniquity had its origin in that abominable gathering.

6. Vide definition of assault:  “an apparently violent attempt or a wilful offer with force or violence to do hurt to another without the actual doing of the hurt threatened (as by lifting the fist in a threatening manner).“

7. See Thunjath Ezhuthachan, Adhayatma Ramayaanam, p.133:  “From krodham (anger) comes about killing of father, mother, brother, friends and acquaintances. It is indeed krodham that became Yaman“ (god of death, or Lucifer).

8. Vide revelations of Mary of Agreda: “Immediately after the creation of the angels, god informed them that he was going to create a man in his image, that the word was going to assume this human nature, and that this man was going to be the master of the angels. Then god showed the angels an image of this man, and he commanded the angels to worship him. Lucifer and his angels refused to obey. ... 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. They came to the conclusion that the greatest vengeance would be to impede the effects of compassion which they knew god bore towards man. This they hoped to obtain by deceiving men. No human tongue can explain the malice and fury of this first council of Lucifer and his hosts against the human race ... In it were concocted all of 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. "–quoted by Cyril Marystone, ibid., pp. 137-41, with appropriate adjustments to Vedic perceptions of the same history. For example, the concept of compassion is turned inevitably by mary of Agreda into the rebellious notion of “love.“ Some of the other details in her text also reflect the fundamental christain incompetence to isolate the fall form the rebellion. The fall and the rebellion did not occur at the single site, as christianity perforce claims from its unification of the two for substantiating an original, uniplanar, ideal condition, before the same was allegedly corrupted by man by  “original sin.“ In reality, the fall transpired first and the rebellion subsequently. It is this rebellion– and its rebellious revelation–that goes by the name of christianity, whether incipient or historical. The fall itself resulted from the autonomic gravitational force of failure on the part of Lucifer, alias jesus, to hold dharma, he along with his entourage thereby dropping unanticipatedly to the gravitational centre of the earth–where the rebellion was concocted. The phenomenon is conceptually noticed in Vedas, by these words referring to the genesis and history of the fallen angels: “By the self force of papam (unrighteous act), they dropped to the netherworld.” However prior to the fall, note the same Vedas, asuras (fallen angels) were of the same class as devas (gods).

9. The partiality against Cain and the feigned favouritism towards Abel are expressed, respectively, in the following passages at ch.4 of genesis: i. “Abel became a shepherd, while Cain tilled the ground.” (The expression “while” in referring to Cain’s occupation is discriminatory against Cain, since it means “on the contrary.”); ii. “On Abel, and his offering, the lord looked with favour, but not upon Cain, or his offering.”

10. See genesis 4:5: “Cain was much enraged, and his looks were lowering.”

11. Vide definition of "suggest“: "to evoke."

12. Vide Matthew 16:18: “Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (ch., etymos of  “Peter” : “rock”).

13. See Insight, ibid., pp.46-49: “christianity proved as paisacha vivaham/fornication by  the devil.”

14. The pseudo-mammalian physiology of jesus is even proudly announced, for one, by the synod of Diamper (1599) which  definitively affirms in canon 6 of its 3rd session in all details that he was “born without the placenta ever having been formed.” For further details on this, cf., Insight, ibid., pp.6-7, quoting from the proceedings of the synod.

15. John’s paternity is effected together by the christian god and Zacharias from the common female Elizabeth. Zacharias is stuck dumb in his old age by the procurer Gabriel, effect of the occasioned curse to last until an issue is “accomplished” by him from impregnation of the old woman. He is also the only one who knows that the son born is to be called John. Since he remains dumb until after John’s birth, Elizabeth could not have learnt of the name from him. Nor from anyone else, since no one in the clan had the particular name (“the neighbours and kinfolk were for calling him Zachary; but his mother answered, No, he is to be called John.”–Luke 1:59-60) that was intimated to Zacharias in all secrecy when he lives in a different place from her. Since Zacharias is still dumb at this time, she learnt the name from the “lord” who, says she in the meantime, “visited” her “at his own time” and “did this” for her–to take away her “reproach among men” for barrenness. Since Zacharias regains his speech after Elizabeth’s delivery, as announced before by Gabriel, he is co- begetter of John along with the christian god.

16. See in this connection Cyril Marystone, ibid., p. 148: “god is like the manager of a large corporation; for when he wishes to do something, he often commissions subordinates to carry out his order.”

17. Vide Gabriel’s words to Mary: “The holy ghost shall come upon thee.”–Luke 1:35. Vide also Matthew 1:18: “Mary was espoused to Joseph, but they had not come together, when she was found to be with a child, by the power of the holy ghost.” cf., definition of “upon”: “used as a function word to indicate a position over and in contact with.” cf., meaning of “power”: “ability of a living being to perform in a given way or capacity for a particular kind of performance.”

18. transcribe: “to cause (as DANN) to undergo genetic transcription.”

19. See definition of “iniquity”: “sin”–Webster’s, p.589. See also Dublin bible for selfsame genesis 4:13: “My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon.”–p.7.

20. The text specifying “guilt” is contained in Knox bible, the same book consistently recording Isaiah 14:21 likewise as “guilt” where it speaks of Lucifer. (“For the guilt they have inherited, his sons too must be slain.”) However, the same text of Isaiah reads in equally authoritative other versions indiscriminately as “iniquity” and “sin,” demonstrating the scriptural identity of the two concepts and the constant interchangeability of either of them with “guilt.”


## Chapter VII

**Assassination of Abel: The Site Configuration & jesus' Conviction**

The murder of Abel by hand of jesus, rebellious alter ego of Lucifer, 1. and the foisting of the crime upon Cain, is the point of deployment of the sin gene that originated from the self same being. After wishfully transplanting the deed onto man, and engineering continuedly on the "banished“ Cain gene, he smugly closes the section. But before, he makes two verses (genesis 4:25,26 ) in which he retrieves Adam, who had been irretrievably banished from his presence, 2.  to produce Seth and from Seth, Enos. The most important fourth chapter of his book closes here, but after the murder of Abel is re-affixed by him once again on man, this time through words inscribed as coming from Eve. 3.

(Ultra-clients of the bible book nevertheless state that its chapter divisions are insignificant. At the same time, they would also contradict the statement, when they cast about, all through these 2000 years and even beyond, looking for the slayer of J Lucifer among historical personages who nearly identified him, or positively will. They also dutifully call each one the anti-christ 4.  and wait impatiently to see "the future misery of the [anti- Lucifer] wicked.") 5.

Why does he compulsively retrieve Adam if even by contradicting himself? He is not even aware of this, as he exactly repeats the same contradiction when he begins ch.5 after pausing. Therefore, it has issued from a genetic drive, a dominant. 6. The motivation of the drive can be seen from its consequences, Enos being a variant 7. of Enoch, who as donor 8. and carrier of the sin gene, takes christianity –wishfully, though–to all of mankind. 9.  Secondly, from the resuscitated Adam is derived Seth, and immediately from Seth, Cainan, variant of Cain, and finally his own alter ego, incubated by Mary and named jesus by Joseph on orders of Gabriel, 10. obviously a pupil of Lucifer in the craft of procurance for fornication. 11.

So now we have the guilt/sin imposed on man by display of  body of Abel after he had been murdered by the so-called jehovah, we have it now calculatedly osmosed into the whole race by genetically engineering upon the gene of admission procured from man in Cain and later on from woman in Eve through proclamation contrived from her 12. while giving birth to Seth. (Incidentally, this also shows the christian god far from almighty, and a slave of the gene besides. On the other hand, Sivan transcends the gene, by simultaneous destruction and regeneration.) 13.

After having thus self-assuredly implanted his essential sin gene in the race, the christian god, alias Lucifer, alias jesus, produce swashbucklingly now to destroy it. 14. However, again he turns to repetition, this time in regard to the progeny of Noe, viz., Shem, Ham and Japheth, expressly stipulating that all four bring their wives too, although Noe was still himself productive. 15. It is from Shem and his progeny thus realised for sure in the mind of Lucifer and consequently in his book, and from the christian races scripturally derived from that same gene stock, 16. that the sin gene exclusive to Lucifer is racially implanted and materially and historically diffused.

Rebel that he is, but at this point not yet a cyclical rebel, three time in ch.6 he does lucidly transpose his own iniquity on man 17. –and historical christianity dutifully took over the identical task from him from Day One. 18. Driven now to outright blindness by virulent animosity against man innate in him and alone in him, 19.  he unwittingly discards for a moment even the ego of the godship that he had irretrievably lost and then impossibly self- assumed, rebelliously, 20. (Just that sort of self-replicating 21. spasmic reflex uniformly constitutes the DNA fingerprint of both "father" and "son," 22.  proving them one and the same being, 23. and Mary the mate-mother of a single male in consequence.)

<!-- p.44 -->

The Corpus

Let us go back to the central question of the first murder and the identity of the being responsible, examining it this time mainly from the notion of corpus delicti. 24. Since the killer transformed himself after the deed into a different and antipodal personality under an assumed name–to which was later added the word christ 25.–the person itself remaining intact by reason of indivisibility, the corpus delicti will be dissipated to the two levels, the corpus itself remaining at the primary level and the configuration of the assassination site at the second and final level.

Let us say once again that the bible book embodies the self-expression of Lucifer. Secondly, the book incorporates all of him; nothing of him is omitted. Consequently, nothing directly pertaining to Lucifer is perceivable in other scriptural works. On the other hand, the phenomenon of his rebellion has endured in man’s collective memory, concretely in the case of the scripturally semitic races and consequently in the Hindu races. John Trapp for example correctly spelled out from this memory when he wrote: "Some say [the sin of Lucifer] was pride in affecting divinity.“ 26. The Vedic rishis 27. rather sense Lucifer conceptually, encirclingly and negatively. 28. They instinctively recoil from such a spectacle of primordial evil that nevertheless affects to be underived goodness. Incidentally, it is the same phenomenon of positive evil that is articulated in the pages of his bible book as incarnate godship by affectation.

Since Lucifer is a rebel, his exclusive self-expressive work too will obligatorily spew the rebellion at pivotal moments. The rebellion is endogenous  by the very nature, being a rebellion against the reality of his fall. Lucifer, alias jesus, is aware of this reality as the inseparable and centrifugal catalyst of the rebellion. 29.  As the sole carrier of the rebellion, the bible book therefore partakes too of this awareness. The assassination of Abel by hand of Lucifer, alias the christian god, and the transposition of the deed onto man are the pivot of the entire schema of execution of Lucifer’s rebellion in the mode of a scripture proffered before man.

By definition admitted by christianity, Lucifer is specifically distinguished from his peers in the fall by the one characteristic of superabundant affliction of those who serve him exceptionally. 30

(A third characteristic distinctive to Lucifer is his murderous animus against Sivan, instead of loyalty towards that being animating the other fallen angels. The positive affectation of divinity in Lucifer, alias jesus, outflows, basically, from his rebellion against the memory of its loss.) It is also admitted bilaterally that of the brothers Cain and Abel, it was the latter who preferentially served him by a relished bloody rite, 31. consequently but unwittingly he courted too the advertised exceptional affliction, paying with his life in the process. The transaction involving Abel is unmistakable for the disposition characteristic of Lucifer towards those who are persuaded to remarkably serve him, and towards those as well who persuade themselves to so serve him in anticipation of reward. Abel belongs to the first category since he is a pre-christian archetype of the follower of the historical Lucifer, viz., jesus. He is thus persuaded to follow with a second sacrifice when Lucifer tarries with the first sacrifice, given by Cain. Abel makes a blood sacrifice, inevitably alternating to the particular mode after Cain’s rebuffed sacrifice of corps from the land. Mechanically then Lucifer is pleased with the bloody rite of Abel’s, so much indeed as for him to verbally pontificate over the sensation even in the direction of Cain, 32. Who connotes man-specie in Lucifer’s consciousness. The very next movement in his consciousness takes the direction of assassinating Abel for the service rendered, exactly as in the fashion of the classical Lucifer, 33. And quite unlike that of Beelzebub, who serves back those who serve him. 34.

<!-- p.45 -->

The christian old testament of the bible book, particularly its most typological part named as genesis, is the transcribed embodiment of the consciousness of the classical Lucifer. It is in this sense that we call it the exclusive medium of the self- expression of Lucifer. The soliloquies, characters, and incidents featuring in it are emanations of this consciousness– the first at its indivisible primary level, the next at the fundamental operational level, and the third at the secondary operational level. It is at this third level that the consciousness of the devil supreme infiltrates generally into that of a particular community of people accomplishedly centered around Moses.

The fourth and final stage of the bible book named as new testament embodies the historical delineation of the same consciousness, now extrinsically transformed by paisacha vivaham (Fornication by the Devil) with the female Mary of the same community.

Both catholic and protestant codices of the bible book are agreed that the words ascribed to Cain at genesis 4:8 in the christian version of the old testament (“Let us go out in the fields”) are wanting in the Hebrew text, 35.  which constitutes its indivisible original. Since the fields mentioned constitute the site of the conventional assassination of Abel, they are indivisibly linked to that act. The dissolution of this indivisibility for want of scriptural support on the one hand dismantles the structured comprehensiveness in Cain’s action, as alleged in the christian scriptures, 36. and on the other disentangles him from the act of beckoning Abel to the site of the crime, and thus of the crime itself, to which the act of beckoning is indivisibly linked.

The surviving part of Cain’s action is the act that the christian scriptures describe variously, and insecurely, as “rising up,” 37. “turning on,” 38. and “proceeded to assault.” 39. The christian insecurity in these texts exudes unmistakably too in the expression assault; in fact, however, the expression exonerates Cain also at the level of intention, 40. in contrast with the proclaimed homicidal intentions of the jehovah (see below). As for the alternate definition of “assault,” 41.the same fails to apply, by reason of the established dissolution of indivisibility.

Now for the corpus of the victim. We find the corpus of Abel in the form of his lifeblood held by jehovah (see last chapter, q.v.), and this agrees too with the onstage emplacement, Cain having been exonerated of having even grazed Abel, and there remaining consequently only a single surviving agent, viz., the christian god. “Listen,” 42.  exclaims he to Cain after having strangulated Abel. The expression is Sanskrit at its etymosian origin (from srosati). Since it means in the context “to be alert to catch an expected sound,” for example, the sound of a step, thereby the christian god is approaching Cain immediately after having strangled Abel and with the sound of the dripping blood still ringing relishedly in his ears. By sharply and suddenly uttering “Listen!” he is trying to have the same deathly sound ring in Cain’s (man’s) ears, thereby to secure an admission from him of the deed of assassination that he (the christian god) had himself perpetrated, firstly under impulsion of his inherent proclivity against those who serve him, and secondly, but equally, for discharging an irredeemable guilt into man’s consciousness. And yet he cannot get the guilt realised for sure except through environment. So he promptly revamps the blood of Abel that he had forced out to the ground by strangulation, relates it sensationally before Cain now with the same ground ("the earth has opened its mouth“), and effectively intimidates him finally by a spectacular projection of phenomenal poverty ("When you cultivate the ground, it will not give you back its power“). It is at this point that Cain is sufficiently overpowered to admit himself to the guilt for the homicide of Abel by the christian god.

<!-- p.46 -->

The Configuration Introductory:

The distinctive configuration of the site of the assassination of Abel is known to jesus.

Also for this reason, the statement of Cain disclaiming information about Abel’s whereabouts when dissemblingly questioned by the true assassin, is realistic. the text of the interrogation (what is this thou hast done?–genesis 4.10) bespeaks the interrogator’s self- consciousness of his own deed of assassination. And before, this questioner had urged the same Cain to perform the identical deed: “Meanwhile, he–Abel–is at thy mercy and thou canst have thy way with him”–ibid., 7, Knox bible. Since this decisive text is suppressed in all version save this one and supplanted with a seemingly alluresome countertext (“If you do not turn to doing good,” etc., etc.), and since in both instances the texts are incontrovertible by autonomous declaration of the inviolability of the book both wholly and fragmentarily, the unique text signalise s the antecedent homicidal consciousness of the being who subsequently confronts Cain as indicter.

The configuration is divulged alone by jesus. Contextually, this exclusive knowledge he (jesus) holds of the characteristic “signature” of a murder committed in underived secrecy by the being he now calls his father constitutes them one and the same being. As for the fatherhood, such an invocation is warranted from the pseudo-sonhood the same being obtained in the meantime from the female Mary.

The gleesome advertisement of the configuration of the site under external pressure of identification, however comprehensively sensed at that moment by his maternal countrymen, and the sinistrally 43. rebellious mode of distribution of its text in a single version together with a rebellious suppression and supplantation of the same evidence in all other texts of the same talk (see below) once again mark jesus out–this time from destruction of evidence–as the perpetrator of the crime and thus, all over again, as the same being who interacts with Cain in the so-called genesis.

We find an intricate and devious design dating to centuries in the past but well subsequent to Moses to institute a deflective cover over the evidence constituting him the assassin of Abel. Some of the components detected are so far ulterior in nature as to proclaim even independently of the identity the direct operation of a diabolic mind all through these books styled as old and new testament and even further on in history accounted to them.

To anticipate for example, the books describing the paternity of Zacharias, son of Joiada, go by the name paralipomenon, word etymologically related to preemption. However, the same books are titled differently as chronicles in the other stream. Again the paternity is sought to be muffled in both catholic and protestant streams by representation of Zacharias at Ezra 5:1 as son of Iddo/Addo and also simultaneously as grandson of Iddo. It is further obfuscated in both streams in the text that is again misleadingly captioned, the catholic 2 Esdras and the protestant solitary Nehemiah. Here the name “Joiada” is given in parenthesis immediately after “Joiarib.” However, “Joiada” figures as “idaia” in the Latin original, and this is termed a “seeming copyist’s mistake.” 44. Finally, each one of these entries, title and all, is shielded by generic certification as the minutely impervious script of a god!

Rebel that he is and gleesome by swa-bhavam, as the Vedic texts do tell us in their apprehension of the anatomy of asuras, he does bare this cover himself firstly by this reason of innate nature, secondly by reflexive angst excited by his falling under identification by the Jews as Beelzebub, 45. thirdly by the malignant complex against Sivan along with its methodic drive to collocate it to man, and lastly by sinistralism that cyclically feeds on the rebellion at every step. (Since we find the identical angst in his father at genesis 3:11 and its manifestations there in a like manner, again both father and son are one and the same being.)

Although merely encircling, the identification is realistic as far as he is concerned, since it corresponds with his speciational rating as a fallen ex-god, or fallen angel, or fallen

<!-- p.47 -->

archangel. He shares this epidemic misattribute of being fallen commonly with Beelzebub and with all the rest in the class of beings that the christian lore identifies generally as fallen angles or again as “chief devils.” 46. At the same time, he is marked from these others by rebellion, which remains frozen uniquely in him. While rebellion is his distinctive mark, it is also for this same reason the element-cohesive of his id that concomitantly keeps the same id from disintegrating. In this case he would fall back into pre-rebellion, post-fall, original state, a prospect and process that he resists autonomously, 47. but also consciously too after embodiment from Mary.

We have seen that Hebrew books disentangle Cain from the assassination of Abel. The historical jehovah is now confronted by the same Hebrews who squarely interrogate him regarding the nuts and bolts of his paradise. (Matthew, ch.22)

The interrogation is meaningful for its aftermath in the subject. We have seen how the reflective angst surges dominantly and monopolistically in him as well as in his father under such encompassingly identifying external charges and how in the latter case it affords a connective to perceive father and son to be one and the same being. 48. Whereas in the father it materialises as a single surge, but a typical surge of consciousness for all  that, in the son the same impulse in the face of identification surges classically in waves upon waves 49. that inexorably culminate in an objectively self-defeating, and self-revelatory, defiance. On the one hand, it is self-defeatist, but on the other, the same defiance is sought at the same time to be covered by rebellion, in the case even against his own text. (see below)

The House of Abel:

The christian scriptures in its parental Greek text, as distinct from the ancestral Hebrew text, dislocate the site of the murder of Abel by removal to the fields where Cain, as alleged, drew him out. Since the ongoing christian scriptures, the so-called new testament, boldly and gleesomely announce the true site, new different from the site parentally announced, and since this new announcement is expressly accredited to the source-being of historical christianity, scriptural christianity in its entirety is shown to be man’s enemy, firstly by devising the maiden scriptural murder, committed by the same source-being, then by transposing it in its Greek texts onto man, and finally by challengingly mocking him with clues for identifying the true assassin when such identification, so he thinks, would no longer make any difference by reason of the scriptural acceptance of guilt by Cain. 50. He can well afford to do this now as he also makes the duration of the world coterminous with that of his scripture.

Let us now consider about the actual site of murder of Abel as it is finally and virginally announced by its perpetrator in the ongoing segment of the christian scriptures. “Between the altar and the house,” announces jesus knowingly at Luke 11:51. 51.  But he also criminally interposes another victim from a different murder–equally, but not uniformly, in all text of the announcement. Since this other murder is historical, distinguished from scriptural, and recognised in the land from notice in the Hebrew scriptures, jesus in interposing it here is classically rebelling against the compulsive advertisement of the clue to Abel’s assassination. He can also afford the advertisement at this point because of the cloak of redeemership from guilt that he has acquired in the meantime from the female Mary.

The second victim, in addition to Abel, is one Zacharias, son of Joiada, this latter having been in his time a priest in the Jerusalem temple. The son was killed within the temple courtyard for a good reason by the people who stoned him on orders of the king. 52. Zacharias had engaged them both when he tried to subvert them by his preaching, himself under possession by jehovah.

<!-- p.48 -->

The objective feature distinguishing the assassination of Abel from that of Zacharias, son of Joiada, consists of the disparate physical configuration of the site of the deed in the two cases. This remains so even if we were to take the parental christian scripture momentarily at its word as proferred since the assassination of Abel is specifically placed by it upon the fields where allegedly Cain beckoned him (“And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go froth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him.”–genesis 4:8).

Jesus is first of all concerned with a summary removal of this distinction, because only in that way can he “homogenize” the two histories. By thus clubbing them together–“from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah, who was slain between the altar and house,” Luke 11:51–he seeks to turn them into a single lump, so that the element of historical responsibility in the second murder, which man anywhere would own at all times under perception of the true identity of the being, viz., Lucifer, that Zacharias was trying to impose, is transferred to the primordial murder, that of Abel, for which he (jesus) and alone he is accountable by sole responsibility.

But it is a distinction that is impossible to remove, on account of objective existence as a reality unchangeable (nischalathathwam). Therefore, jesus, alias Lucifer, aware of this verity all the way from his pre-fall history and now moreover from the extrinsic consciousness acquired from Mary, brings a second Zacharias, also historical. This man is sufficiently documented in the Hebrew scriptures as author of one of its books and further as grandson of Addo and son of Barachias. BUT HE DID NOT PERISH FROM BEING KILLED.

But fraudulently and criminally, jesus conflates the two Zachariases, picking the fatherhood of the second Zacharias, son of Barachias, and falsely affixing it upon the homicidal death of the first Zacharias, son of Joiada. The distinctive configuration of the violent death of the first Zacharias, son of Joiada, would still remain the question, since it occurred in the courtyard of the temple and not in the fields, like Abel’s assassination. (“On the king’s orders the people stoned Zechariah in the temple courtyard. The king forgot about the loyal service Zechariah’s father Jehoiada had given him, and he had Zechariah killed.”–2 chronicles 24:21,22.) So he has the same words of his at Luke 11:51, sinistrally repeated at Matthew 23:35, where he utters them incongruously with those in Luke: “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachias, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”

Since he expressly applauds Abel as righteous, it is the same being here, by indivisibility of consciousness, as the being that identically favoured Abel at genesis 4:4 by reason of the bloody rite he inducingly offered, and each of the two beings the same, whether jointly or severally, as the being in the manifesto laid to Mary of Agreda, who therein announces the principled assassination of Abel for service rendered all too uniquely.

Considerations of sinistralism apart, the clinching text as far as jesus' culpability is concerned, is Luke 11:51. Unlike Matthew 23:35, the paternity of Zacharias is altogether unrecited in Luke. In Matthew, the paternity is specified as Barachias. But Zacharias born of him did not die from violence, as dishonestly affirmed by jesus.

The omission of Zacharias' paternity in Luke and its inclusion in Matthew together with the other data in it that is factually dishonest when applied to the one or the other Zacharias, as sought by jesus in his criminality, and the quick breakdown of the whole patter ("the jargon of criminals" –Merriam Webster, p.834) when applied as the camouflaged clue to detection of Abel's true assassinator, and only when so applied, are the factors in jesus' conviction.

However differingly objectified, again both texts mutually coalesce firstly by common scriptural constituent of Abel and secondly by a colonnade of imprecations, seven of them in Matthew and five of the same seven in Luke, but all uniformly worded in its imprecatory part

<!-- p.49 -->

and all directed in both cases against his comprehensive identifiers whom jesus grandiosely projects–by reason of beinghood as cyclical rebel also now from the extrinsic terrestrial consciousness–as his detractors!

The seven anaphoras have the culminative effect of reverting him wholesale to the parental consciousness in the “garden,” and inevitably thereupon to Sivan. Thus they are followed immediately with an eight paragraph of vituperation against man as “serpents and offspring of vipers.” For the same reason of indiscriminate reversion of consciousness, the clue to the assassination of Abel by his hand drops out in his eight paragraph in Matthew, irrepressibly, but still speciously, after the vituperation, and the same further ejects definitively in Luke, like “from the mouth,” 53.  at the end of the fifth anaphora of imprecation therein.

To say it again, the consciousness pitches back from the “garden” upon the terrene by reason of the extrinsic factor acquired from the terrestrial female. But this factor is merely expedient and does not affect, much less modify, the malignancy running from the ancestor and the parent in an uninterrupted line. Whereas in the parent a new operational mode can be identified, 54.  newly from the ancestor but activated and administered by the same rule of pretext laid in the manifesto, likewise in the progeny too a new operational mode is perceptible, but in this case nonchalantly acquired from the female, 55.  under necessity of the ancestral pretext. It is thus that the consciousness while reverting to the “garden,“ criminally moves also to Abel and his house in a different book, viz., Luke, and simultaneously to the terrene in the form of the intended Zacharias, as distinct from his namesake.

Both “Zacharias” and “Zacharias, son of Barachias” having been perceived to be criminal subterfuges, the former by the site given, which does not apply to the former, so admitted autonomously even by christianity, 56.  Luke 11:51 nucleates into the site of the assassination of Abel since the true configuration known and flaunted alone by jesus and alone in that text of the non-catholic streams–New World Translation, to repeat, witnessing genuinely to jehovah–ecactly answers to each of the specifications and to all of them, Abel being a householder, he having made a sacrifice on lord’s table, and Lucifer, alias jesus, by definition having to strangle him before he reaches his house and after he had pleased him with the rite in blood characteristically relished by him–areally, in between the altar and the house.

The other red herrings encountered, like the suppression of this critical text in the catholic stream as also almost totally in the non-catholic stream, the titular subterfuge in both streams by which paternity of Zacharias, son of Joiada, is sought to be obfuscated by placing mutually differing twin titles upon the concerned pairs of textually identical books–to repeat, 1 & 2 paralipomenon in the catholic stream and  1 & 2 chronicles  in the protestant stream– the planting of an extra imprecation in the catholic Matthew 23 to institute a false lead in respect of the prescriptive amount of seven, together with its punctilious suppression by erasure in the protestant version, 57.   the same wary preoccupation with the crime as before that runs in Paul, 58.   Jude, 59.  and John, 60.  together with a new, sly, triumphalism even in regard to Abel the favourite (“jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s blood,” 61. Hebrews 12:24, New World Translations), the vituperation of Cain that endures to the very last breath–all massively signpost by sheer insidiousness and overtness in every case the culpability of the christian god, and alone of him, in the death of Abel by homicide.

Envoi

Apart from the passages that we have noticed for their common vulnerability (pp. 92- 93), there is no evidence forthcoming from the text of the bible itself that would implicate Cain in the murder of Abel. On the contrary, the observed text smartly immunises Cain, and at

<!-- p.50 -->

the same time goes on to indicate, even if furtively, the identity of a real, and different, culprit. Such a mode, involving the compulsive ejection of the reality along with a rebellion against the ejectionary  text, which amounts to a rebellion even against the ejection, is endemic in Lucifer by reason of his swa-bhavam as rebel against reality, specifically the reality of his fall.

The observed text, genesis 4:8 reads as follows: “When they were in the fields, Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”–Dublin bible, p.7; King James version: Gideons, p.4

The comma interposed after brother in the above is meaningful for two reasons. Firstly, the particular rebellion against it found in other versions that have uniformly suppressed it. When so suppresses, and only then, Cain becomes the common subject of both the clauses in the text. However, the comma is an independent entity, from positive existence in scripture. Its nonpresence in the other texts is a relative factor, substituting only by negation of this entity. Therefore, the first text merits independent consideration.

By authoritative definition and illustration, 62. exactly this kind of comma followed by a conjunction would separate the two clauses and introduce a different subject for the second clause. Therefore, Cain is not the subject of the clause relating the assassination of Abel. Since by reason of indivisibility no distinction can be drawn between the words of scripture and the things they signify, the release of Cain from the clause automatically releases him also from the act signified, viz., assassination of Abel.

We have seen that the enticing words "Let us go out together“ are altogether lacking in the Hebrew original. New World Translation, however, puts the same words in brackets to intimate, as the compiler says, that they have been "inserted to complete the sense in the English text.“ But even then the words are featured within quotation marks, the same as they are in Good News bible, etc., which however do not similarly enclose them in brackets. Since firstly the text and quotation marks occur identically in both books, since secondly the sentence immediately following in New World Translation is indivisibly connected to the parenthesised words with the word "So,“ 63. and since thirdly the principles of scriptural exegesis propounded long before christian exegesis by Badarayanan and followed by Shankarachraya similarly construe the expression "then“ (adha in Sanskrit)  occurring as the first word of Vedanta-Sutras, 64. the exclusion of parenthesis on the part of Good News bible would nullify their admitted interpolation in New World Translation, and thus would make the parenthesised words redundant, equally as in Good News bible considered in the light of footnote. 65.

### Footnotes — Chapter VII

1. alter ego: "second I, second self.“ See also his cyclically rebellious confession of his identity as Lucifer at revelation 22:16: i. “I am the bright morning star.”–new World Translation; ii. “I am the bright and morning star.”–catholic truth society bible.

2. genesis 3:23-24: “so the lord drove him out of that garden; banished Adam, and posted his cherubim before the garden, with a sword of fire that turned this way and that.”

3. cf., ibid., 4:25 –Knox bible: "Seth was the name she gave him, as if she would say, Seth, the lord has secured a line of issue for me in the place of Abel, now that Cain [read the lord] has murdered him." See also, e.g., New World Translation, which drops the conjunction "as if," to rebelliously foist the comment upon Eve. Note also that Knox bible consistently renders the same construction, at genesis 4:1, to words purportedly coming from Eve while giving birth to Cain: "She called her child Cain, as if she would say, Canithi, I have been enriched by the lord with a man-child."

4. The Expression christ is a literary word of the Greek language. His name jesus, compulsively self-assumed though Gabriel (vide Matthew 1:21), is derived from the similarly assumed lecherous word Issac; his archetype, Issac standing for “laugh for joy.”

5. cf., Anis A. Shorrosh, op. cit., p. 99.

6. dominant: “a dominant genetic character or factor.“

7. variant: "one or two or more persons or things exhibiting slight differences; one or two or more words of essentially the same meaning differing only in the presence or absence of an affix."

8. See in this context the Vedic definition of daanam (donation or gift), under which it is to be accepted in all cases without question.

9. See Malayalam bible, ecclesiasticus 44:16: “Enoch pleased god, and he was taken away.” See also Knox bible, ibid: “Enoch there was, that did god’s will, and was taken away to paradise, repentance his gift to mankind.” Note the cyclical rebellion against paradise by suppression of the term in the first text

10. Matthew 1:21: "You must call his name jesus."

11. See for example the ravishment scene at genesis, ch.18, Knox bible. The christian god, alias Lucifer, gets himself invited to Abraham's house along with two anonymous accomplices. After eating the meal cooked in part by Sarah and served by the unsuspecting Abraham, the three suddenly ask in unison: "Where is thy wife Sara?" Informed by Abraham that she was near enough, Lucifer takes charge of the conversation to notify that he would come again next year–to consummate the fornication of Sarah in paisacha vivaham–and that "Sara shall have a son then." Sarah is merely incredulous at this point; she laughs "to herself" since both she and Abraham ("this lord of mine") are grown too old for parenthood. Lucifer beholds the cerebration in Sarah and announces: "Can any task be too difficult for the lord?" he goes on to repeat that he would "come back to thee," meaning Sarah; "live she till then," he adds as though addressing Abraham after pausing. "Sara will have a son." Immediately Sarah is "overcome with terror," but she still denies, realistically, that she had laughed before Lucifer. Confronted with the female's principal rebuttal, Lucifer applies force ("Ah, but thou didst laugh") upon the terror-stricken Sarah and classically effects paisacha vivaham, in exact conformity to its specifications as found in the Vedas. (The specification constituting paisacha vivaham and differentiating it from seven other marriages acknowledged in the Vedas comprise the application of force over and above, and along with loss of consciousness of the female. The eight marriages are collectively known as Ashtavivähangal.) All this while the accomplices stand by as mute witnesses. However, Gabriel when meeting Mary for the identical purpose in behalf of his lord and boss carries the answer ("For there is nothing that god cannot do"–Luke 1:37) of what was originally communicated to Sarah in his presence by the latter in the form of question. (The name Sarah is spelt to terminate in h as in Hebrew language and protestant rendering. Catholic bible books rebelliously suppress the letter h while rendering the name. Catholic books similarly suppress the same letter of h from the name Isaiah. In the Vedas and in Sanskrit, the sound ha of which h is cognate, signifies Sivan)

12. See note 3.

13. Vide definition of Sivan: "the god of destruction and regeneration."

14. genesis 6:13: “The time has come for me to make an end of all mankind; their coming has filled the earth with oppression; I mean to destroy them, and earth with them.”

15. ibid., 5:32.

16. cf., Luke 3:23-38, for the genealogy of J Lucifer traced from Shem.

17. cf., genesis 6: 5,7,11-13. The lugubrious monologue of Lucifer outflows on the one hand from his "malice and fury" against man as recorded by Mary of Agreda and on the other from the rebellious compulsive urge for auto-apotheosization by iteration.

18. See romans 14:23: "Indeed, everything that is not out of [christian] faith is sin."

19. See revelations of Mary of Agreda: "No human tongue can explain the malice and fury of this first council of lucifer against the human race." cf., Cyril Marystone, op.cit., p.141.

20. see genesis 6:7: "Smitten with grief to the depth of his heart, god said..." See also Knox bible, p.5, for the commentator's apologetic observation at n.4 on the "attitude" of god. Knox writes that god's "repentance and grief" in this passage are "attributed" to him analogically, presumably by Moses, and that his "attitude" was the same as that which would, in human agent, be dictated by such feelings. Knox here is in outright contradiction with numbers 12: 6-8 where the ex-god personally attests that to Moses of all his scribes ha did not speak analogically, but directly–from "mouth to mouth."

21. self-replicating: "reproducing itself autonomously."

22. The so-called son displays the identical reflex as his so-called father. Cf., Matthew 23:25.

23. See in this connection John 10:13: "I and my father are one."

24. Vide M.C. Menon, Indian Express, January 2, 1989: "Corpus delicti was vague and assumed; even if produced, there was no evidence that Cain killed Abel. Seeing Cain going into the fields [even assuming the witness testifying to the same can be believed] does not prove that he murdered his brother. Why, Adam, Eve, or god himself may have been the offender." See also ibid., December 20, 1988, featuring report of mock trial held in Venice, December 18, 1988, by biblical scholars, historians, magistrates, and criminologists, which exonerated Cain of Abel's murder.

25. The term means "anointed."

26. C,A. Patrides extracts the quotation from John Trapp,  A commentary upon the Epistles,  a work of 1647. Cf., C.A. Patrides, Milton and the Christian Tradition, p.93, and note.

27. Rishis form a class of beings distinct from devas (gods) and humans. To them were the Vedas revealed. The Sanskrit scriptures mention among others seven primal rishis. They are collectively called saptarishis (septet of rishis), the names being Marichi, Athri, Angiras, Pulahan, Pulasthyan, Krathu and Vasisthan. Manu, the lineal father of the human race, calls them Prajapatis (precursors) of mankind. The Brahmins of India are descended from rishis.

28. The negative perception of Lucifer is embodied, for example, in concepts that disapprove, in however detached a manner, the affected “transubstantiation” and an alleged “eternal life” resulting from action. Relatably to the former, the rishis say positively that in sacrificial rites, the idea of divinity (a concept ensuing from perception of a class of mind- beings called devas) is to be transferred to the sacrificial item, not vice versa. For instance, the udghita is to be viewed as Aditya, not Aditya as udghita.  Compare the catholic “transubstantiation,” defined as the change by which the alleged eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Lucifer. Relatably to “eternal life,” the rishis say that only moksha is eternal, being different from all the fruits of action. “this moksha,” says Katha- Upanishad specifically, “is eternal in the true sense.” It is described as Kutashthanitya, eternity of consciousness that lies behind the illusion of the christian paradise. Its attributes are omnipresence, freedom from modifications, self-sufficiency, integrity and self- luminousness. Going further, Isa-Upanishad declares: “The real and unreal, he who knows them both together crosses death through the unreal and attains immortality through the real.”

29. See the spontaneous relief expressed at genesis 18:5 where Abraham invites Lucifer presenting himself outside his dwelling as the “lord.” The text of the Lucifer’s answer reads: “Thank you; we accept.” Once inside Abraham’s tent, Lucifer proceeds methodically to force the archetypal paisacha vivaham on Sarah. The archetypal of this ravishment is Issac, whose historical type is jesus. The historical type of the archetypal paisacha vivaham  itself is the historical fornication of Mary by a certain holy ghost. Historical christianity rebelliously calls this “incarnation.”

30. See supra from revelations of Mary of Agreda.

31. Vide genesis 4:3-5: “Time passed, and Cain brought the lord an offering out of his crops the land had given him. Then Abel brought the first lamb born to one of his sheep, killed it, and gave the best parts of it [fat] as an offering. On Abel, and on his offering, the lord looked with favour, but not upon Cain, or his offering.”

32. See genesis 4:7, Knox bible: “If thy actions are good, canst thou doubt they will be rewarded? If not, canst thou doubt that guilt, thenceforward, will lie at thy door?” Ibid., New World Translation: “But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance.”

33. See supra from revelations of Mary of Agreda.

34. Belief in the credibility of Beelzebub as a dependable ally of man in his fortunes is both ancient and widespread. It is discernible for one in a work called The Book of the Persian Medicine, which the Malabar christians anciently possessed from their Persian affiliations. Among prescriptions in the work is a formulary with the name “Beelzebub” repeated for seven times, which will ward off all calamities if worn by client. Dutifully to Lucifer, the synod of Diamper imprecated this work in 1599. Among the generality of the people in Kerala, Beelzebub is known as chathan; he is viewed by them as upasanamoorthy (figure of adoration). Practising oblates also regard him as sathyamoorthy (embodiment of truthfulness). They assert that he never failed a sincere client. Favours commonly sought of him relate to success in business, law suits, and love, besides the undoing of enemies.

35. See note, Knox bible, p.3: “The words ‘Let us go out together’ are wanting in the Hebrew text.” See also note, Good News bible, p.7: “Some ancient translations ‘Let’s go out in the fields;’ Hebrew does not have these words.”

36. “And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him.”– Dublin bible, genesis 4:8.

37. ibid.

38. Knox bible and Good News bible.

39. New World Translation.

40. See definition of “assault”: “an apparently violent attempt or a wilful offer with force or violence to do hurt to another without the actual doing of the hurt threatened (as by lifting the fist in a threatening manner)”–Webster’s, p.66.

41. “A violent physical of verbal attack”–ibid.

42. cf., New World translation, p.12

43. sinistral: “having the whorls coiling counterclockwise down the spire when viewed with the apex toward the observer and having the aperture situated on the left of the axis when held with the spire uppermost and with the aperture opening toward the observer.”

44. cf., Knox bible, p.415.

45. Matthew 12:24.

46. cf., Cyril Marystone, ibid., p.142.

47. See the equivocation over his identity at exodus 3: 13-14. The form of his name that Moses manages to exact differs from version to version. New World translation has him answering Moses with the futurely sensible appellation: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” This is curtailed immediately as “I shall prove to be,” Moses being expressly asked to tell his followers that “I shall prove to be has sent me (Moses) to you.” Other versions quote the same answer variously as “I am that I am,” “god is who is,” “I am who I am,” or “I am who am.” The equivocation repeats when the identity is demanded of him all over again by man at John 8:25: “who are you?” they ask. NWT has him now replying lamely: “Why am i even speaking to you at all.” Others differently word the same reply: “The beginning, who also speak unto you” (Dublin bible); “I am who I am” (God News bible). Knox carries the note: “Several other interpretations have been proposed, but none of them throws much light on a very obscure passage.”

48. See supra, pp.87-88.

49. see infra, p.100. Vide also the advancive malignancy in the classical lucifer: “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” (phenomenal mental anguish).–Cyril Marystone, op.cit., p.140.

50. cf., genesis 4:13.

51. cf., New World Translation, p.1132.

52. cf., chronicles 24:20-22.

53. Revelation 16:13. In his uniformity of consciousness with Lucifer, John, however, seeks to channel the remark against the so-called “anti-christ.” See also n.60, Infra.

54. Vide genesis 2:16: “From every tree you may eat to satisfaction.”

55. See the nonchalance at John 2:4: “What have I to do with you, woman?”

56. cf., note, p.25, Knox, disclaiming the paternity of Zacharias from Barachias. Knox writes that Barachias “will have been  the name of some ancestor of Zacharias, son of Joiada; there can be no reference to the person mentioned in Is, 8:2, Zach. 1:1,” (The person mentioned at both texts is Zacharias, son of Barachias.) In assuming, however insinuatively, against the direct statement in the text cited, Knox makes the fault (dosham) mentioned in the Utharamimamsa of Badarayanan and noticed by Sankaracharya as “the fault of abandoning the direct statements of the text in favour of mere assumption.”–Max Muller, ibid., p.22.

57. New World Translation here stops short of the text with a long dash. Good News bible turns the corpus into a footnote. But both still tae it into account in the enumeration.

58. Hebrews 11:14

59. .Jude 11.

60. I. John 3:12: “not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother. And for the sake of what did he slaughter him? Because his own works were wicked, and those of his brother were righteous.” The measure of righteousness preemptively applied by Lucifer, alias jesus, is krodham or anger (See its articulation at genesis 4:6: “What does this anger mean?”–Knox bible), which is also the ultimate cause of his fall. By transference of consciousness as the result of his infernal love-pretext towards him (cf., John 13:23, and supra from the revelations of Mary of Agreda), John is standardised at this moment with him upon the same measure. The Sanskrit scripture Mahabharatham centrally highlights the demonising potentiality inherent in this gene of krodham.–cf., C. Rajagopalachari, Mahabharatham, p.375. Man can become a superman free of all bondage by the ultimate cognition of this gene, at which it is to apprehended as the input of the christian god in the system.

61. The word blood is given in brackets in referring to Abel to indicate that the sense is rendered incomplete in the original.

62. cf., Webster’s, p.1515: “Comma separates main clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (as and, but, or, nor, or for); She knew very little about him, and he volunteered nothing.”

63. The sentence reads in full: “So it came about that while they were in the fields Cain proceeded to assault Abel his brother and kill him.”

64. See Max Muller, ibid., p.9.

65. See n.35, p.92. Jesus is the Murderer of Abel  Zacharias, son of Johiada, died of murder. But jesus says Zacharias, son of Barachias, died from murder. However, Zacharias, son of Barachias, was not murdered. He died a natural death.  Therefore, jesus lied.  The motive for the lie is found in its circumstance.  In the first part of his statement jesus refers to the assassination of Abel. The site of assassination, "between the altar and the house," is accurately known to him. This is in Luke. The site is known to him alone. In Matthew he omits the site of Abel's assassination, but mentions the actual site of the murder of Johiada's son Zacharias while referring to Barachias' son Zacharias who however had a natural death.  jesus' conduct involves destruction and distortion of evidence. It also involves the rebellious proclamation of the evidence constituting him the assassin of Abel.  In short, it corresponds with what one would expect from a murderer of Abel who is also a rebel against himself.  Therefore, jesus is the murderer of Abel.


## Bibliography

Abhedananda, Swami, The Word and the Cross in Ancient India (Calcutta: Ramakrishna Vedanta Centre).

Aitareya Upanishad, tr. Swami Gambhirananda (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama).

Ayer, A.J., Language, Truth and Logic (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1 990).

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

Gandhi, M.K., An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth, tr. Mahadev Desai (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1945, 1st ed. 1927) .

Gibson, Hutton, Paul Vl's Legacy: Catholicism? (Cochin: L.P. Publishers, 1979).

Hardy, Thomas, Tess of the D'Urbervilles (London: Penguin Books, 1985).

Hosten, H., Antiquities from San Thome and Mylapore (Madras: Diocese of Mylapore, 1936) .

Iyer, Seshadri, P., Sri Sankaracharyachantham (Trichur: Sri Ramah-ishna Madhom, 1984).

Jacobs, Joseph, Barlaam and Josephat (London: 1896).

James, Williarn, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: New Amencan Library, 1958).

Kierkegaard, Soren, The Sickness Unto Death (London: Penguin Books, 1989).

King, Archdale A., The Rites of Eastern Christendom (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1942).

Laqueur, Walter, Europe Since Hitler (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, revised ed., 1982).

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

Maurice, T., The Indian Sceptic Confuted (London: W. Bulmer & Co., 1812).

Max Muller, F., Sacred Books of the East. The Vedanta-Sutras, tr. George Thibaut (I ondon: Oxtord University Press, 1896).

Moraes, George M . Reneual, it.s Notion, Means and Ohstacles (Mangalore: Laity Congress, 1976).

Munclaka Upanishad, tr. Swami Gambhirananda (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1978).

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

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

Plus, Raoul, Progress in Divine Union (New York: Frederick Pustet Co., 1941).

Premanand Bharati Baba, Swami, Sree Krishna, the God of Love (New York: William Rider & Son and Krishna Samaj, 1904).

Radhakrishnan, S., 2500 Years of Buddhism (New Delhi: Government of lndia) .

Rajagopalachari, C., Mahabharatha (New Delhi: The Hindustan Times, 1950).

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

Sankaracharya, Bhaja Govindam (Kodungalloor: D.V. Devarajapai, 1988).

—— , Maneeshapanchakam, comm. G. Balakrishnan Nair (Tnchur: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1984) .

——, Saundaryalahari, tr. T.R. Nair (Kottayam: National Book Stall, 1986).

——, Sivanandalahari, ed. Swami Tapasyananda (Mylapore: Sn Ramakrishna Math, 1985).

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

Shakespeare, The Complete Works (London: Collins, Tudor Ed., 1951).

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

Sivapuranam (Guruvayoor: Santha Books).

Sivathathwarahasyam, comm. Neelakanta Dikshitar, tr. A. Sankara Sarma (Vaikom: Vivekabharathi, 1987).

Sreekandeswaram, Sabdathaaraavali (Kottayam: S.P.C. Society).

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

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

Thomas, M.K., Knanayas and the New Gospel (tr. of Prof. G.A. Wells' Jesus of the Early Christians, Pemberton Publishing Co. London).

Thunjath Ezhuthachan. Adhwahna Ramavanam (Kottayam: S.P.C. Society, 1980).

Tirtha, Bharathi Krishna, Sanatana Dharma (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1985).

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

——, Swami, Raja- Yoga or Conquering Internal Nature (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1982) .

——, Swami, The Complete Works, Vol. I (Mayavati: Advaita Ashrama, 1 950).

*The End*