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 faces termination.
By “race of man” we mean the man-gene, in its irreducible prime quantum. Like the symbol of 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 of the East and the West. 
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, but A is well aware that the race has 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, th at the racial self subsists in a progressive and essentially unchanging continuum of abstract reasoning–which is also an experiential objective reality.  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 focussing point for his perceptions (and consequently also for his action), as the former constitute the base from where his 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,  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 in his mind is answered to his satisfaction, either on his own or by a peer who, at that pass, is his guru,  and his actions are integral and positive.
(Exactly this kind of phenomenal internal certitude is exemplified in 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 maneesha [this I declare, absolutely and beyond all doubt].
(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 exis tence 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  of all of christianity unremittingly from Day One.  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 christianit y, individual schizophrenia and exultance over racial extinction are the end results.
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.  The theory regards man’s sensory perception as a “blur,” which is called the “discernment averag e.” This means that there do exist phenomena beyond our immediate perception, which cannot be comprehended nor transmuted as idea as of the 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 action.
The process of origination, development and destruction of concepts is generated by individual perceptional experience, which in certain cases is transmuted eventually into a collective racial experience of the objective self, which is man. As when we say, “Man discovered electricity.”
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 the 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 wort h, 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 symbolic or allegorical, and therefore not paramount, diachronically or even intrinsically, and they are unimportant, ultimately speaking, except as images or hypothesis. 
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 rationally limited 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 then 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 focussing point, which should be as broad as consciousness itself,  is man, the one and only being that cogitates. 
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 cogitation 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 nor mal and slumbering genetic evolution or otherwise in the phenomenon of sport,  both being in any case the only determinants of history, including that of Lucifer too.
We conclude then that the focussing 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.”  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.
“God” is discernible from all 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. 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 logica lly 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 att ributless for being impossible–on account of its essence as pure consciousness, Prajnanam Brahma–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. 
The notion of goodness is thus bifurcated from the notion of a 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 consciousnes s, to man, both conceptually and even biologically, the former by the notion of Easwara, . According to the Vedas, Easwara is the creator of the universe; because it is harmonious, it must be the manifestation of one will.”‘] and the latter in the reproductive concept of Ardhanareeswara. 
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 t hat 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  –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  suggests that the goodness gene in man is coexistent with the abstrac t 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 at least are derived from a pre-christian 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 t urned into sin by mutual genetic inversion This triggers the tooltip in other versions of the same text of Cain’s words purportedly spoken to Lucifer.  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 r ight there all the way from the “primal age.” (See Knox bible, p.274).
Etymos of the 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  –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.”
Objection might 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.  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 unperceivable verity, we would reply that it is based as well on analysis of the bible book, which first appeared in history 3000 odd years ago 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  of the language of consciousness of goodness, and scattering of the race “over all the surface of the earth.” 
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 premises 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 the plural [“They asked, Where is thy wife Sara?” (sic)—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 visibility, is attest 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, for jesus is the unifactorial 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 ori ginated it (vide revelations of Mary of Agreda, infra)–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 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.
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 imm utable.
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 conclu sion 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 pro position.
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, 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 we ll 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.