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 an 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 knowledge and the cyclical 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 text of 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 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]  so compatibly with the true identity as in Isaiah,  and so contrarily as in John [13]

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,”  [14] is his goodness, be he tribal or racial, primitive or civilised, unlettered or educated. This is why it has survived intact in Bhaaratham,  [15] the land now known also as India, in spite of 1000 years of rule by alien and even semitic races [16]  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.

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.) However, the discerning ethnic western-christian of that land today, a product of the same consciousness both genetically  [17] and historically, [18] is found to be an active by-product and vaporous sewer of sin/guilt, regardless of whether he is informed,  [19] introspective, or pietistic, the same as his western counterpart.

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 interchangeability, a specific object, emotion or concept in an underived state. Further, the object, emotion 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 the word, or its root and literal meaning, and consequently to its message 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 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 the semitic races,   [20] 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.  [21]

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, 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.” [22]

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 at 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,  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. “1”

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 a 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 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 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 two 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, alias 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 pseudoman, along with its inescapable, cyclically rebellious identification as the same bare “kingdom,” minus heaven, as he exposed to Mary of Agreda. Its carriers are the so-called church that he allotted to Peter.


Please like & share: