Chapter – II

Identity : The Second Definition


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

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

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

At two levels are papakarmams destroyed. At the level of consciousness, it is destroyed by jnanam[4] The Scriptures here are not referring to the christian sin, but to papakarmam. Also, the reference to the later and earlier sins connotes the individual as a unitary part of the specie. Sankaracharya has observed that it is with the specie that the respective words of Scripture are connected, not with the individuals, which as being infinite in number, are not capable of entering into that connection. cf., ibid., Part I, p. 202 (Vol. XXXIV, loc. cit.).) At the secondary level, it is destroyed by Sivan.[5]

The accounts given by alien observers beginning from Megasthenes [6] and including litterateures [7]and Latin missionisers evidence an uninterrupted continuum of viceless rectitude in the societies of India. On the other hand, the same authorities, whenever they refer to christianity in this context, unconsciously admit to an ingress in that consciousness, from the affectedly redeeming component, of vices unknown there before. [8]Why, even the ethnic Latin christianity in the country is documented as having imbibed the same unknown vices, so much indeed as to cause them to be denounced officially by the Hindu kings on the score of the dharmic Hindu traditional laws of ethics. [9] More generally, the king writes in the same letter of the “numerous atrocities” committed by the Latins. “Violating all hereditary codes of living prevailing in the kingdom, the margakkars (ethnic designation of the Latins) are now perpetrating such crimes even against women. It is becoming impossible under the circumstances for my subjects to live unmolested.”) The similarly derived ethnic eastern christianity is not thus arrayed. [10]

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

Lucifer came thus long after the protestations. The manifesto he laid out at the meeting we call the rebellion against the protestations.[11] Since it is a double rebellion this time, a rebellion against rebellion, and since at the other side, the protestations are couched in intelligible human terms acquired from the female, the manifesto is the necessary foil on which to examine the protestations. What then is the autograph on the protestations and what are their watermarks?

The first is “kingdom.” Since it is a quantity unknown heretofore in the sense he presses into the word, it fills as his entailed tattoo mark. Rebel that he is, he strictly set this one apart by particularization from two other kingdoms that he devised himself, the territorial kingdom of heaven and the paternal kingdom of god. Also, he has “canonised” it by legal covenant. This is where it is: “I make a covenant with you just as my father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom.”&150;Luke 22:29. The documentary covenant is inclusive as regards the kingdom and exclusive as regards the territorial and paternal kingdoms. Therefore, the first one is the designated kingdom and the two others its sheaths. The kingdom is the knife and heaven and god its covering sheaths.

In the early part of the book, a part prior to the acquisition of the terrestrial human female, the locale of this heaven of his has been characteristically specified to and through Moses: “The lord rained down sulphur and fire from his abode.” [12] Since the critical term abode is universally suppressed in other versions of the same passage, that term is the realistic ingredient and others the rebellion against the reality of the ingredient. To say it historically, his real abode is where sulphur and fire are; by and in rebellion, he labels it heaven. More realistically, the being’s consciousness is all fuming phenomenally to eternity; the same, expressed in analogically actualised terms, becomes burning sulphur.

Since again we encounter a double rebellion in one of those passages (embodying the suppression), one in which heaven is inserted and brimstone and fire are yet expressly retained as its (heaven’s) characteristic effluents, once again specifying that this very locale (having brimstone and fire) is his dwelling-place,  the brimstone and fire is the factor common in all the various passages&151;or more generally, the universal index running uniformly in the whirlpool of cyclical rebellion, and running at the same time in spite of it, just on account of the cyclicalism. Therefore, it is the reality, the other and human concepts added to it differently in different versions being the illusion by the reality is rebelliously covered.

Contextually, this illusional cover, rebelliously and malevolently acquired from the interaction with human female, is progressively intensified in different parts of the monolithic book. [13] Finally, in the book ascribed to Jude, his lineal brother, [14] it is made historical and universal, the first by articulating a judicial “sentence of eternal fire”  [15]and the second by titular extension of the same into universal application.[16] The “book” has more or less 720 words!

Historical christianity represented in Peter has been deliberately exerting from Day One to force this terroristic illusion on man in the garb of reality. Taking its cue from jesus, the incarnate rebel and Lucifer re-captioned, it deliberately calls the deed gospel. Thereby, it also seeks to estop man’s moksha (liberation) positively. [17]

This phenomenal illusion is sensed by the Vedic rishis as Koodam (illusion). Consequently, they address as Koodasthanithyam the moksha (eternal plenitude of consciousness) [18] that becomes perceptible when this illusion is overthrown with correct knowledge of the identity of the being that is the author of the illusion.

After having gratuitously incorporated man into the covenant between himself and his illusionary father by deliberate affirmation on the frame of scripture, he processes further. He first affirms by unilateral proclamation onto man’s scriptural consciousness that the father is “your father,” [19] then in the next step positively ousts from the same consciousness the sense of man’s biological father,[20] and finally imposes upon man the kingdom in the covenant as an “inheritance” from the benighted, outlandish, ersatz father. [21]

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

The distribution of an individual upon death befalls mechanically, depending upon the kind of scriptural being that occupies his consciousness at terminal moment. The scriptural congruity with the being acts as the determining mechanism in the individual’s motion in this direction. [22] Further, such an egress is forever irreversible, through permanent assimilation with the desired being. [23]

Jude’s fires create eternal fumes of mental anguish. They are purported to impel the bedevilled human in the direction of his masked messmate, thus to complete his final assimilation with him in the same fires. [24]

The Sanskrit scriptures even when recoiling from Lucifer do comprehend the same fumes under the term aamayam (fumes of existential sadness).[25]

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