Identity: The First Definition
Let us trace backwardly the kingdom bereft now of its illusory modes. He uniquely brandishes it monopolistically as a reward from “your father who is in heaven.” Arch rebel that he is, it is proffered confidingly in one place,  mockingly in another,  and fulsomely and finally by Paul, his champion and dissertator. 
We should therefore be capable of finding our way by using this proprietary chip of reward and also by looking out for the signpost of the kingdom bereft of heaven and god. If it leads to a unitary source-being of both the kingdom and the reward, then that being is the invariable all along the way. Since reward is still common in both, it is an additional transcending invariable integrating that being with jesus, his embodied manifestation under a new caption acquired through the medium of his human female. Finally, we should also expect to find an impingement of the two beings at historical level, consistent with his forms prior to, and subsequently from, embodiment.
Objectively perceiving him realistically as Lucifer then, Mary of Agreda inscribed all that he disinterred before her in the vision he caused in her in his beinghood and form prior to his embodiment as jesus. This woman was a nun. Through the inherent power of constant meditation on the same being in his embodied identity, she was capacitated—unperceived and unperceivable by her in any of its authentic notes—to transcend the illusion in those moments of the vision, and tactilely commune with the real being behind the illusion. Existence of such transcending meditation is acknowledged in its positive sense by the Vedic rishis. 
It is our position that the christian devotee, in the desire for reward that dominates him, deliberately institutes in his consciousness as the object of his meditation the being that is the subject of his faith. Since this being is in reality the identical being as Lucifer, the intensity of the devotee’s meditation by a subjective faith in the objective and conscious projection of the affected identity is the measure of her own or his own identification with him. Beings like Mary of Agreda are again “distinguished” from the rest by an overpowering intensity, which is capable of reaching beyond the false and antithetical identity by classically travelling along the protested identity. It is thus that such an individual can capture the being emptied of the illusion that blankets the reality at other times. The consciousness of the seer then is disconnected from normal perceptions and transported to the time and site of the being perceived.
Mary of Agreda went backwards in our time  to the first council of Lucifer and directly witnessed the proceedings as a fraternal observer. The phenomenon immeasurably surpasses in its complexion all hitherto observed manifestations of spirit possession.  in society that stretches from the new testament deep into the middle ages.” ) But its strains can be detected all the same in the writings of the avowed christian mystics of the time. 
The being self-named as jesus comes upon history with a talk that he gives from the top of a hill. This talk includes three dictums. We hold that the being that launched forth with this talk is the same being, viz., Lucifer, who communicated the same three dictums to Mary of Agreda. Between Agreda and the hill, the being has designedly procured unto himself  a transformation from its physical interaction with the human female that it acquired. This transformation transformed too the visage of the dictums by suddenly precipitating each one of them to their antipodal points. Then at a secondary level we hold too that the historical elements contained in the manifesto he deposited in Mary of Agreda are of such a kind of consanguinity with historical christianity as to show the latter to be a realisation of the former and thus to prove even at this secondary level the identity of the being that manifested itself to Mary of Agreda with the being that is the source of historical christianity.
We quote now from the revelations of Mary of Agreda:
1. “We will subject the human creatures to our influence in order to destroy them. 2. We will persecute this race of men and will deprive them of the reward promised to them. 
3. I will gain great victories over them, and I will destroy them all and subject them to my designs. 4. I will sow new sects and errors, and set up new laws contrary to those of the most high in all things.  5. I will raise up from among men false prophets and leaders who will spread these doctrines. 6. I will scatter this seed through them, and afterwards I will assign them a place in these deep torments. 7. I will afflict the poor, oppress the suffering and persecute the meek. 8. I will sow discord, excite wars, and stir up nations against each other. 9. I will raise up proud and arrogant men to extend the dominion of sin; and after they have executed my designs, I will bury them in this eternal fire, with so much the greater torments the more faithfully they have followed me. 10. This is my kingdom, and this is the reward which I will give to those who follow me. 11. And you, you demons who were injured together with me, follow me! 12. Obey me in the pursuit of this vengeance, as you have followed me in the rebellion!  13. Pretend to love men in order to destroy them; serve them in order to deceive them and to ruin them; help them in order to pervert them and to draw them into these regions of Hell!”
Sentences 1 to 6, 8 and 9, and 11, 12 and 13 pertain to action in history. The remaining two sentences, 7 and 10, refer to concepts.
The first set of sentences are decisively impressed with the image of historical christianity. Sentence 13 covers its entire “track record.” Man is by nature good, as evidenced by the system of Sankaracharya, who derives even phenomenal knowledge from goodness.  In spite of this, it is impossible for a performing christian man to be good in this sense, for its own sake. Always and everywhere, the christian service is permeated by the desire to pervert individuals and races in the direction of Lucifer,  and motivated in the intermediary individual by a more acute desire to excel in his portion of the anticipated paradise. Such a phenomenon suddenly taking hold in history coincidentally with the “rising” of Mary’s uterine son cannot be natural. The endearing pretext, the voluntary service, the deceitful aid—all are palpably imprinted with the same watermark that is apprehended in the netherly world where Mary of Agreda was transported.
The reward figuring in sentence 2 of Lucifer (Being 1) is distinguished from the reward mentioned in sentence 10. The second reward is expressly represented as the exact antithesis of the first. The first reward is for this reason the subjective thesis of the manifesto of Lucifer, and hence the objective antithesis, since the subject is a rebel—as also man’s supreme enemy—by autonomous exclusive definition in christianity, as perceived from the revelations of Mary of Agreda (She visually discerns the genesis of the man specie as the precise moment of the rebellion: “Then Lucifer and his angels rebelled”  in the netherworld by Lucifer’s lineal brother and messmate-in the role of a male-procurer for Lucifer. So too is his master. See Jude 9. )) and from etymosian verbal history. (Vide the concomitant sphotam [etymosian meaning] of “Lucifer”: fallen rebel archangel; the devil.)
The only place where the above thesis appears underivedly, and as objective thesis, so validated by confirmation on the part of the indicter,  is the genesis account in the bible book. This is the statement the serpent (Being 2) made to Eve  and the pretender god (Being 3) later confirmed, This triggers the tooltipcontradicting his original statement that “in what day soever thou shall eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” This confirmatory act on the part of the indicter in, and protagonist of, the bible book reciprocally inverts the given thesis and antithesis of genesis, turning the thesis so agitated there  into antithesis and manifesting the similarly agitated antithesis  as a fraudulent, deceptive, malignant thesis against man. Since this newly derived objective antithesis directed towards, and against, man (“You must not eat the fruit of the tree that gives knowledge of everything; if you do, you will die the same day”  appears in the identical direction and sense in Lucifer’s manifesto laid before Mary of Agreda (“I will deprive them of the reward promised to them”), Beings 1 and 3 are the same by coagulation of antithesis.
Now from the testimony  standpoint. We have two testimonies each from Beings 1 and 3 and one from Being 2. The testimony of Being 2 points to man through the medium of his companion the way that will lead him to immortality: “No, you shall not die the death. For god doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes will be opened; and you shall be as gods knowing good and evil.”–genesis 3:4-5. The second testimony of Being 3 concedes the testimony of Being 2 as valid, and at the same time contradicts with his own first testimony. The second testimony: “Here is Adam become like one of ourselves, with knowledge of good and evil; now he has only to lift his hand and gather fruit from the tree of life as well, and he will live endlessly.”–ibid., 3:22. The first testimony of Being 3: “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.”–ibid., 2:17.
The confirmation on the part of the protagonist of the testimony of Being 2, who was framed as antagonist, turns the said testimony into the thesis. Consequently, the first testimony of Being 3 becomes the antithesis. The mutual internal contradiction contained in the two testimonies of Being 3 externally verifies the newly derived thesis. The first testimony had portended immediate death. The second concedes the mendacity of the first by positive admission to a change of state in Adam–”Here is Adam become …”–instead of portended extinction.
By reason of the above voluntary admission on the part of the protagonist to the veracity of the antagonist’s testimony and the autonomous internal contradiction with the former’s own earlier testimony, the testimony of Being 2 stands bilaterally proved as credible. (Incidentally, the baffling contradiction was effectuated by a piece of responsible action on the part of Eve.) This one fact sufficiently exposes that the consciousness of Being 3 is replete with infernal animus against man.
He had effectively told Adam that he would die consequent upon performing a certain action. In couching his prohibition in terms that made death an impersonal absolute entity—”You will die the death”—he manifests he is dominated by this consciousness of demoniac animosity. Firstly, he himself ostentatiously admits to the contrary, subsequently to the performance of the act that he had prohibited in man under pain of self-extinction. So he does when he admits to a mere change of state in Adam—”here is Adam become …” (genesis 3:22)—consequent to the act. (Far from the death he had portended, this change by his own admission is in opposite direction of eventual deathlessness [ibid]).
Thus too is the change cognised by Adam the victim, as Being 3 postprandially admits: “They [solely] became aware of their nakedness,” and as Adam himself perceives: “I was naked.” Since the change is not on the line that Adam was occasioned to anticipate–”You will die the death”–Adam is now in deadly fear. “I was afraid,” he says. This then is the genesis of christian Fear.
By generating this phenomenal fear, Being 3 stands excoriated by himself as well as identified by man as the phenomenal enemy of man. Further, since Lucifer is the only such enemy as perceived from his own voluntary declaration, Being 3 and Lucifer nucleate back and forth into each other, the former the manifestation of the latter in the mode of scripture, as resolved in his manifesto, and the latter the archetypal form of the former. Since scripture, original or counterfeit, is the criterion of reality yet, the christian scripture arising from an antithesis but pretentiously overlaid with all the forms of a thesis, seeks to liquidate reality, firstly from its very existence under the threatening rebellious label of holy book, and secondly, and even more dangerously, from having been knowingly turned in these 2000 years by the empire of Lucifer working overtime into a component in consciousness, and consequently into the thesis. Only from correct perception of its true nature can this thesis of illusion be overthrown. Since man can only exist under conditions of correct knowledge, and since a sense of scripture is still innate in him as a generality, such a global and universal pretext cannot but cause disastrous consequences to individuals and races and to the specie as a whole.
Frustrated in his malignancy against man (His reaction is embodied in the text “Behold” [genesis 3:22] in the sense of apprehension of the future with alarm), Being 3 immediately launches historical christianity. He first brings the curtain down by closing the scene and the chapter on the self-assuring note that man could “reach the tree of life no longer,” since he “drove him out” and in addition posted armed sentry at the gate. Again contradicting himself, he now still pursues Adam although having been thus driven out, and produces Cain and Abel and, making use of them in unabashed multiple contradiction, engineers into the race by way of his ensuing scripture, and consequently in all his subsequent history through the semitic line produced from Shem, the gene of anger. The original scriptures and the literature arising from them tell us, as far as they can consistently with their insensibility to Lucifer in his rebellion, that it is this Krodham that became Lucifer. 
Now for the fourth being, jesus, uterine son of Mary. This apparently distinct being coagulates into the same mass from existence of the kingdom and the reward as a common factor between him and Lucifer. Because this kingdom is isolated by him from heaven and god and expressly proferred in furtherance of a covenant between him and his father, the covenantal father too is the same being as Lucifer. The kingdom in reward is the common factor between the uterine son and Lucifer who again is the same being as the “father in the heavens” by reason of uniformity of antithesis. Thus the kingdom is the “eternal fire” of mental anguish as realistically described by Lucifer, as unmistakably objectified by his prototype (“the lord rained down sulphur and fire from his abode”–genesis 19:24), as rebelliously served on an enticing plate of heaven and god by jesus, and as accurately repeated by Jude, his lineal brother (“they bear their sentence of eternal fire”–Jude, 7).
By consciousness judged on the running standard of infernal malignancy against man, jesus then spontaneously nucleates into a chip of the old block of Lucifer. Alone in him of all the three, there now operates alongside that chip a new consciousness that he has acquired from interaction with the human female, which capacitates him to diffuse the malignancy in a grammar of overt goodness. (This is the divisive of time, rebelliously labelled by historical christianity as its divider. Lucifer the devil supreme incarnating as pseudo-man! But whenever the consciousness asserts itself, it asserts as the same consciousness as Lucifer, since we see a determination in him to supplant man’s biological father with his own true (from Sanskrit daarana: hard) father, viz., Lucifer. It is pretentious merely from its splendiferousness: “Nor are you to call any man on earth your father, you have but one father, and he is in heaven.” It is also programmed since at its beginning it is merely inclusive: “Our father who art in the heavens,” he tells inclusively to man.
Such as ensemble obviously indivisibly programmed from its beginning to the loud shout at the end–”Eli, Eli” or “Eloi, Eloi,” one cannot be sure which–necessarily points to a beginning before this beginning and thus again inevitably to Lucifer in his council. The conscious pretext even apprehensible in these words at his brain death, which are bodily picked consciously from independent earlier texts that he already knew. 
He concludes: “Deliver us from evil.” We have seen from his anchoress how the positive evil that he here discharges upon consciousness, originated in his own first council that she directly witnessed.  By reason of this symptomatic  coagulation of “evil,” the agent here is the same one as the being of the first council. Since Lucifer is the name proper to that being’s nature as creator of positive evil, it is the name proper also to its rebellious discharger here.
Afterwards, he identifies the aerial father exclusively as my father.  “My father who is in the heavens.” Yet more, he unifies himself with this father: “I and my father are one.”
Again he is realistic in using the term “my father” to address Lucifer. The fornication of Mary, daughter of Joachim, by Lucifer in paisacha vivaham,  known already to the Vedic writers, capacitates him on one hand to discern a sonhood whenever the consciousness so operates and on the other to sense his unifactorialness with Lucifer whenever the consciousness is so directed, universally subject to rebellion, which is the preponderant nature of the being in any case. Further, an extrinsic sense of this double consciousness, a sense acquired from the terrestrial female, also capacitates him to choose one or other of these moments from his will. The will of man with its tendency towards goodness is feminine in source.
The inflexibility towards malignancy in his case  in him as its inheritor and masked carrier in a continuum of consciousness from his archetype and prototype, with rebellion the cohesive substratum throughout. The rebellion is perceptible in the archetype where he says he will persecute his followers with so much the greater torments the more faithfully they follow him, in the prototype where he directly asks Cain to murder Abel,  who admittedly pleased him with a bloody rite,  does the deed himself,  and then confronts Cain to account for the body,  and in the typifying carrier where he cleverly reveals the site of the assassination while simultaneously diverting the corpus delicti to man.
The bible book ends with an autonomous, sworn statement by jesus of his identity as Lucifer (revelation 22:16). By reason of the kingdom having been already commissioned at this point,  he reverts to delusion and glee, which are constituent dispositions in the psychological anatomy of asuras, 
as the fallen angels are sensed by the Vedic rishis. The same as he did to Mary of Agreda, he reveals himself now to John, the follower he particularly liked,  as the same being she nominatively identified as Lucifer. In the place of the nominative designation recounted to Agreda, this time the autonomous identification with that being is communicated to John in a similar encounter through the sphotam (etymos) of “Lucifer,” which is the morning star. Morning star is the literal or actual meaning of the word Lucifer at its origin. But organic rebel that he is, jesus in no wise would say even compatibly that he is this. He says consistently with the rebellion that he is still the “bright morning star” and simultaneously rebels, cyclically, against this very consistency in other versions by this anaclouthon, “bright and morning star.”
This harking back is compatible however with the phenomenon of his interaction with the female, which produces in him an apparent human consciousness, which is definitively obliterated at the same moment as its expression by the simmering ancestral consciousness of malignant rebellion. “Blessed are the poor,” he begins to say euphemistically, and immediately reverts consciously in the same breath and sentence to the ancestral mode, “for yours is the kingdom of god” (Luke 6:20), and simultaneously rebels against this by pronouncing “kingdom of the heavens” (Matthew 5:3, New World Translation) in its place and also, simultaneously, “kingdom of heaven” (ibid., Knox bible) in the place of the second article. Since each one of these different proof-texts equally is the unerrant “word of god” and relates to a transaction unique to this being, their requiste conflation is only possible from the realistic integrator of his identity with Lucifer, absolutely the only scriptural being that is a composite rebel. (See also infra, ch. VI).
The dictum adorning poverty is found in two separate reports of a talk given from a mountaintop. Of the two apparent scribes reporting this very instant in one and the same speech, Luke restrictingly quotes “you poor” instead of the definitive “the poor” of Matthew. But in Luke, the auditors are limited to twelve persons, his “disciples,” and he pronounced the dictum “lifting up his eyes on them” The duplex proof-text of Matthew is inclusive also of “the multitudes,” and he spoke here the same text “opening his mouth.”
We are thus confronted with two varying sets of data formed from the same instant of a common history by an apparently indiscriminate utilisation of pieces. Since these pieces are phenomenal, the invariable should be sought at the level of scripture. But while Matthew directly quotes him as offering “kingdom of the heavens,” as we saw, Luke quotes the same verbal instant as “kingdom of god.” Once again, “kingdom of the heavens” reads as “kingdom of heaven” in another proof-text of the selfsame instant from an actual delivery.
The evocation of the lost brightness is also compatible at the level of the aftermath of his embodied existence, which historical christianity calls eastertide. He fancies here that he had regained the old brightness. As to the possibility of his redemption, the orthodox christian consciousness itself definitely rules it out.
The Vedic rishis also make a deliberate anacoluthon. This is incorporated in Mundakopanishad in the mantra, Sathyameva Jayathe / naanrutham (Truth wins ever, not falsehood), a grammatical anacoluthon from the syntactic sathyameva jayathi. 
But while it is consciously made here by the rishis to reassure man impassively of the final triumph of truth beyond all differences of language, the uterine jesus employs the selfsame mode to revel in the genocide of truth under an overtly protesting garb of truth “schematized” (from Sanskrit sahate  by his most favored pupil. (The multiplicity of language is itself contrived by the same being.  What then is truth and what is it in the christian milieau? The Vedic rishis define truth as the concept made valid in righteousness by man–Sabdhatharaavali, 15th ed., p.1680. On this side, a realistic apprehension of truth is missing. Considering that mankind is one, whether East or West, this lacuna should be laid at the door of the western scriptures, which are the self-expression of Lucifer, the original and real sinner, who still stands towering in their consciousness as the embodied truth, so self-proclaimed, and man as the original and historical sinner. They would rather discard his book than its centrepiece although his beingness remains singularly petrified in the book.
Let us now consider what portion would have been left to man had he followed Being 3 and had Eve spurned the data proferred by Being 2 after he unwittingly briefed himself on the proceedings against man in Being 3’s consciousness. For, Being 2 had come in unpremeditatedly: “What is this command Being 3 has give you, not to eat the fruit of any tree in the garden?” “Any” in the universal sense evidences that Being 2 is unaware, on principle of universal goodness, of the particular prohibition by Being 3.
Being 3 had said in the beginning that they may eat the fruit of every tree except of the tree of knowledge. “Of every tree of the paradise thou shalt eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat.” The tree thus permitted to be eaten from include the tree of life, or the tree of immortality. (This is a further tree extant at the same site, of whose accessibility, however, they were not specifically or comparably informed.) This means that grasping and nourishing from the fruit of the tree of life is unconditional, from comprehensive clearance. But Being 3 admits after they ate the fruit of tree of knowledge that this was not really so: “Now, he has only to lift his hand and gather fruit from the tree of life as well, and he will live endlessly.” “Now” refers to the new circumstance of their having acquired knowledge. “Only” signifies in the context Being 3’s postprandial acknowledegment of the underived fraud immanent in the prohibition. In the wide context, it also means—unbargained for by the particular speaker—firstly that immortality is obtainable from knowledge and secondly that it is mechanically obtainable from knowledge.
The artificer of underived fraud that he is, Lucifer effectively in his consciousness foreclosed jnanam to man by misrepresenting that its dividend was death, instead of deathlessness. On the contrary, he admits after the outcome precipitated by Sivan that the foreclosed jnanam all along had been indispensable for attaining deathlessness.
Christianity still claims to be a system for redeeming man from mortality. In that case, at the end of christianity, we should, at least, find the fruit of the tree of life relinquished by the tree and dropped down to the ground below in the garden which, according to christianity, was reopened by the so-called act of redemption. John has a direct vision of this tree at the end of the bible book. He saw the tree was still bearing its fruits even at that date beyond the dissolution: “On either side of the river, mid-way along the city street, grows the tree that gives life, bearing its fruit twelvefold.”—revelation 22:2, Knox bible.
Therefore, if Being 2 had not intervened, if Eve had not taken the first step of boldly plucking it and eating herself, before serving to Adam and eating together with him, if Adam had heeded him in “faith,” man would have been utterly bankrupt. He would not have had the knowledge, nor would he have had life. All he would have had would have been the fear of an entity that the christian god named as death, which would have killed him anyway. Since this prospect is only manifested at the end of christianity, with escape now hopeless, the entire course of christianity from genesis to dissolution is discerned as a scheme for ultimate corrosion and liquidation of man, before whom it is pretentiously arrayed and hawked about globally as his redemption by the empire that Being 4 the so-called jesus set up, and discharged on him.
This is also the same pretext that Lucifer announced in his council witnessed by Mary of Agreda. Therefore, Being 1, 3 and 4 are all one and the same being, all commonly engaged moreover in gleefully executing this deadly pretext at different stages of an identical operation, which is simultaneously relayed to their genetic historical empire. The first is the archetypal stage, the second prototypal, the third typal, and the fourth, the trio’s so-called church, culminative and physical. The final and terminative operation will be from man; it is the dismantling of the amphitheatre itself. The being knows too that this will come to pass. But malignant rebel that he is, he has at once covered for it and vented the malignancy against man by instituting the ultimate fear of end of the world. It is the typical grammar in which the rebel reacts to his own end.
These then are the vignettes of primordial and incarnate antipathy against man and of a diffusive being that is so saturant with it that it goes to unabashed lengths of self-contradiction even at the risk of eventual detection. Pursuing this dominant gene, we can discern the being in all his manifestations. We find the identical misanthropy in Lucifer when he reveals himself classically to Mary of Agreda. Instead of jehovah and jesus, the name there is Lucifer, but the personality configuration in all three is the same. Scanning the configurations, the different names are discerned as of single being, viz., post-rebellion Lucifer, and his manifesto laid in Mary of Agreda the archetypal mould of the bible book in its so-called old testament, and the so-called new testament the overtly transformed type accruing from the above prototype by way of her namesake.
We find in a word identity of consciousness between the being of the two books and the being summated by Mary of Agreda after she reverted to her own time: “No human tongue can explain the malice and fury of this first council of Lucifer and his hosts against the human race.” On the details of the pogrom, she quotes directly from the council: “Pretend to love men in order to destroy them; serve them in order to deceive them and to ruin them; help them in order to pervert them and to draw them into these regions of hell.”
This is the same consciousness as that of the being standing behind and in the books of Moses, as also that of the subsequent being—minus the transformation obtained from the human female.—see also infra, ch. VI. The pretext to love, to serve, to help, which is here so intimately announced by Lucifer in his true name, in fact comes shrouded there in the garbs of scripture and a bearded impresario monitoring the whole prospect under the presently assumed nomenclature of god.
Christianity claims that its scriptures were decreed by interference on the part of an extraneous being in an otherwise faultless order. This compulsion having now been perceived as baseless from the admitted credibility of the serpent, the whole book falls to the plane of a self-appointed necessity on the part of its maker. Such an internal compulsion necessarily coalesces with that of Lucifer in his pretexts elaborately unfolded and intensely sold. This is why Lucifer is an identifiably compulsive physical component in the christian Greek scriptures. This is also why jesus announces at the end of the book after wishfully imprisoning Sivan from human consciousness  that he is Lucifer.
Whether Siva or Lucifer, we are dealing with extra-sensory beings. Each one is a specie by itself. Each one can be conclusively identified from his attributes as known from Scripture and scripture. There can be no ambiguity as to this identity nor any question of the data encountered possibly referring to any other being. If what we find are relatable to known individuals, then those individuals are in fact the ones related.
Because Lucifer is a scripture-fabricator rebel, his scripture will necessarily traverse the original scripture of the Vedas. The attributes of Sivan in the Vedas are “chalad-uraga-haaram” (ornamentation with the serpent that crawls on the belly), “mrithyunjayan” (preemptor of fear of death),  and “jnanamurthi” (concretised phenomenal knowledge).  The three attributes are accurately discerned in the being portrayed in the bible book as serpent. The protagonist in the book acknowledges the first attribute at genesis 3:14—”Thou shalt crawl on thy belly.” Since this attribute is already known to him from prior existence of the Vedas with which as an ex-god he was acquainted, the objective existence of the attribute is re-impressed by the affirmation on the part of the protagonist, and the imprecatory form of its articulation by him coalesces with his own attribute as a rebel against the Vedas.
Again the attributes of emancipation from fear and from positive nescience are acknowledged in the verbal history pertaining to the serpent and narrated by the protagonist. The verbal passage—”No. You will not die the death. You shall be as gods knowing everything”—exactly replicates the primary Vedic attributes of Sivan of which the protagonist was already informed during his own history before his fall from goodness.
The bible book therefore falls back into an auto-necessitated rebellious exertion by Lucifer in his diabolic antipathy against man whom he senses at this stage in Sivan, who typifies the man specie. Only in this way can he vent it if he also wanted to make it at the same time a component of history, as he did. Compulsively then he brings Sivan into his scripture, which is stamped thus from the beginning as a counterfeit of the Vedas. Rebelliously, he installs a tree whose fruit however is not to be eaten but whose accessibility he needs must expose bewitchingly in his programme if it is at all to find a start. Only thus can he come a second time as redeemer by programme from the consequences of having eaten this fruit.
Historical christianity inescapably fall into the same system because at the end of the book beyond the dissolution, Sivan, imperatively interposed now for the second and last time, is specifically identified by his Vedic designation of “Aadi Seshan” (serpent of the primal age) beyond the mere symbol at the beginning of the book, and “put in bonds, thrust down to the abyss, locked in and sealed there.”–revelation 20: 2-3. Here is Lucifer enjoying himself over the long-fancied suffocation of goodness, Sivan being the embodiment of all goodness; unlike mind-body beings, a mind-being, after having, in a manner of speaking, developed a scripture, simultaneously converts the wishful phantasy into actuality, whereas we upon coming to, sense it realistically as a dream.
But organic rebel that he is, Lucifer at once rebels against this conversion and goes into the motions of a voluntary and unsought release of Sivan for a specified term of 1000 years.–ibid.,7. This is reminiscent of the ultimate pardon uniquely reserved to certain political presidents as the touchstone of their authority from man. But here there is further rebellion. Sivan got the release just so that he can “go out and seduce the nations. “—ibid. Lucifer, alias jesus, senses goodness as seduction and its antipode as a gospel. Compassion, the touchstone of goodness, is only sensed by him as seduction to evil, to use a term from his vocabulary. It is from compassion that the upright Sivan picks up a being crawling on its belly and makes it his sole ornament. It is from the same compassion that Sivan meets man trapped by Lucifer in an enclosed park, with a forbidden data involuntarily fed to him.
Why does Lucifer pursue Cain and Adam beyond the park?
More than everything from history, music is the one sure palliative. Man’s capacity to create authentic music proves definitively that he is no original sinner. Specifically can this be proved from the phenomenon sensed in the Indian singer K.L.Saigal (1904-1947) of a beinghood and a consciousness that is “all music.” The “unsurpassed internal certitude” that Raghava R. Menon has further perceived as a musicologist in the swara  and sangeetham of Saigal and that anyone at all can similarly perceive proves the unimpaired existence in man of an integrant consciousness. Since our phenomenon is uniformly untouched both by historical and incipient christianity, how does he fit into the christian system, which claims that man by nature is evil and that his existential situation abstractedly signposts a redeemer from outside—who, in unrelated reality, is the selfsame being that contrived that situation. If then there does exist such a natural evil, how can one explain the above phenomenon of a natural internal certitude subsisting in man at the ascriptural plane of music? How can one explain for that matter any similar but unrelated creative phenomena even within the province and frame of christianity and its pretentious claims of redemption from a scripturally engineered illusion, since in this case the creative consciousness will be in conflict between the two mutually antipodal streams, which would have destroyed internal certitude anyway.
Christianity claims that Cain is the first murderer. On that claim, everything derived from Cain will carry too the gene of necrosis. Why then does he remarkably derive the gene of music from Cain? Why does he take music into his notice at all?
Lucifer works upon Cain to engineer the gene called Enoch whom he particularly immortalises by having a city named for him. This signifies in his consciousness the immortalisation of the anger gene that he had earlier translated to Cain by mutating his (Cain’s) innate rage gene, which was apt to kill this affecting god. In Enoch therefore there is now immortalised, most importantly for the pretender, the gene of murder, this being the intrinsic direction of anger.
It is from this Enoch that he finally engineers the gene called Lamech who is immediately shown physically propagating through two females whom the pretender names comprehensively as Adah and Zillah. It is also this same Enoch-gene that served him most of all by conserving the gene of guilt, otherwise called sin,  and wishfully carrying it to all of mankind. As announced at the very outset by Lucifer in his manifesto (“After they have executed my designs, I will bury them in this eternal fire, with so much the greater torments the more faithfully they have followed me. This is my kingdom, and this is the reward which I will give to those who follow me”), Enoch was rewarded with execution by his master and pontiff.
From the two combination, he proceeds to engineer three genes; each one is identified by its operational feature. Adah mothers Jabal and Jubal, the first the gene of tent-dwellers, the second the gene of musicians. Zillah mothers Tubal-cain, gene of war-making. Tent is now the foremost product because he needs it to effectuate the eventual fornication of Abraham’s wife Sarah.This is the template of the historical fornication of Mary by the same being, now metastasized into “holy” ghost through uninterrupted interaction with the son archetypally begotten from the paisacha vivaham with Sarah.
Music remains the only gene that is not reactivated through Seth, Adam’s third son, from whom the pretentious universal redeemer gene is engineered at the end of 77 different operations, inclusive of the gene of Cain as translated to this side. By the consequent solitary canalisation of the gene of music towards Cain, who according to him is the killer gene, the god of christianity stands self-excoriated as the supreme enemy of man. For, both East and West agree on the redemptive potentiality that is inherent in music.This potentiality is accredited by the Vedas. There music is recognised as a science and included among the four upa-vedas (supplementary Vedas) with the title of Gandharva-veda, along with Ayurveda (science of longevity), Arthaveda (science of wealth), and Dhanurveda (science of archery).
From Seth he forthwith engineers the same Lamech as before, out of a process that is all too visibly complicated for him. On the one hand, there is now in him the pressure to shield himself self-guardedly from the looming, and deadly, rage gene, and on the other the malignant compulsion to interpolate into the new line with the genes of fornication, war-making, and sin. And this he cannot do unless he brings Lamech to this side and with him inevitably the old rage-gene, which would kill him. He knows this too from memory of the reaction of Cain. 
So the Cain-gene now emerges as Cainan, its suppressed mutant. And Cainan itself emerges from Enosh, who is a variant of the Enoch-gene transcribed from the other side. From Enosh emerges precisely after four different operations the identical gene of Enoch. So now we have the whole of the pretender god’s professed mankind brought under sin through the bilateral Enoch. As far as he is concerned, the way is cleared for the redeemer-gene to be engineered. The process would necessarily include Isaac as the product of the archetypal paisacha vivaham. It includes as well as the visitant gene of Joseph, which smugly gives the cover of licity to this part of the operation.
And this is what christianity has sworn to legitimatise by the label of incarnation.
From this replicated Lamech is engineered Noah and immediately thereafter the fiend auto-cogitates as he prepares himself for the meeting with Noah. No longer is he the faltering being that confronted Cain. We see instead the same deliberate pretender  in a crocodilian new visage, now animated all the same with the gene of sin, universalised, so he thinks, by Enoch, who thus made the redeemer perpetually viable. “So, smitten with grief to the depths of his heart, he said, I will blot out mankind, my creature, from the face of the earth, and with mankind all the beasts and the creeping things and all that flies through the air; I repent of having made them.” Thus the catholic text of genesis 6:7. In the protestant text “the creeping things” are omitted from planed decimation. The protestant text: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, from man to domestic animal, to moving animal and to flying creature.” The omitted expression stands for Sivan in the speaker’s consciousness. Both texts being scripture (so authenticated internally by generic certification),the omission is by obligation. Such an obligation admitted, preempts the creative claims in the text.This triggers the tooltipTherefore, the speaker is an affecting god. Such an affecting god by autonomous definition in christianity is Lucifer.
Also in Noah, the rage-gene would survive. So he says self-assuringly in the very next movement of consciousness that “Noah found favour” in his eyes. Like the rest of the kind, the whole deluge narrative constitutes merely the indivisible imprint of a turmoil taking place in his consciousness out of dread of this gene. This makes him eliminate the entire line up to Noah and then contrive a new line from Shem, which is the line of christianity.
The message to Noah at the end of his mental deluge (genesis 9:2) shows him struggling in vain against the mortal dread of man, typified in Sivan. We have seen how the protestant stream was monolithic at genesis 6:7 in regard to Sivan. We now see the identical stream breaking into two divergent segments on the very point. One segment in the protestant stream of his book has him telling Noah and his sons, Shem most intendently, that “everything that goes moving on the ground” will thenceforward live in terror of them. The other segment omits the moving things on the ground from the same message of terror.The catholic stream, on the other hand, is still monolithic here in its own rebellious compass, holding the “creeping things” as of old.
We have seen the contradiction that this being makes and translates unbeknown into the consciousness of Moses. In regard to the christian deluge, this contradiction is even to be seen historically. It materialises in the mutually contradictory chronologies computated from the protestant and catholic streams, the difference between the two chronologies in this respect being of the order of more than 900 years. Sensing the preantiquity of the Sanskrit scriptures and the realistic deluge of consciousness apprehended in those texts,  It is definitely stated in the Markandeya-purana and in the Bhagavatha that this event caused the destruction of all mankind, with the exception of the seven rishis.” Another great personage called Mann was also saved along with the seven rishis.” The abbe unconsciously uses instead of the authoritative pralayam the loanword jala-pralayam (flood of waters) from his books. (Pralayam is to be distinguished from mahapralayam, super deluge of consciousness. See supra. n. 6.) )professed christian apologists missionising in India for their lord and pontiff have yet tried to bridge the gap in their own scriptures, not realising that the deluge related there is a reaction and a counteraction, in Lucifer’s consciousness, against man’s perennial rage gene. In so doing, they have, on the one hand, unwittingly used the Sanskrit texts as the standard and on the other subordinated their own particular scripture called vulgate!