Chapter IV

Universal Catharsis

vs

Primodial Evil

 

The natural scripture of man classify action exclusively as good and indifferent. The criterion of action is further defined as dharma (positive goodness), with vacuity of dharma constituting the preprimary state. Again knowledge is either phenomenal in nature or false; the first is categorised as jnanam, and the second as avidya (positive false knowledge). Jnanam is intrinsically endowed with potency over the object known. Since now positive evil appears in the christian scriptures, as a novel and third entity, it is necessary and profitable to know its origin. In this chapter we shall deal on one hand with the perceived universal catharsis of the Hindu scriptures and on the other with primordial evil, as it is obliquely sensed by the same scriptures and as expressly deployed into consciousness by the christian scriptures.

            We find in the primordial scriptures an active sense of transcedent dharma in consciousness. As expositor Vyasan himself emphatically says, dharma is not translatable into a different language in its exact subtle sense. That kind of natural goodness existing in man outside christianity cannot be explained under the centric tenet of christianity, which professes that mankind was primordially corrupted of all good parts by the avowed original sin of Adam. The independent existence of a person like Vyasan, who wrote Mahabharatha for expositing dharma to mankind, cannot be explained in the system.

            By system we mean in a general sense a single all-embracing principle that explains all phenomena, “coherent in all its parts and free from all contradictions.” Therefore, any scriptural system that claims a perpendicular and horizontal universal suffrage should be on the one hand internally consistent and on the other comprehensive of all coordinate phenomena from outside. Further, since scripture is underived, there can only be one such system of authentic kind, the other one becoming consequently a counterfeit of the first.

            Cutting across the christian notion of the protesting underterrestrial redeemer and quite independently of him, Vyasan has attained to a transcendent sense of goodness and consequently also to the self-redemptive potentiality that is innate in man, upon and from whom he achieves a universal catharsis. This sense does not treat good and evil as two ever ­seperate compartments, as christianity does by winding up the story on the note, comfortably to its maker in his swa-bhavam beyond the affectation, of damnation of the numerous–maybe even from within the same clan!

            Five unrelated times in the book ascribed to Matthew and a sixth time that of Luke, (Luke 13:28.) the being contrives, as the complusively multiplying vehicle of a single malignant thought, illustrations that differ one from the other, but are nonetheless mutually and universally interconnected in every case by a gleesome final outburst: “This is where your, his, their, weeping and gnashing of teeth will be.” In the one case developed by Luke of a man who, using his own grammer, sharply asks whether only a few are to be “saved” by him after all, he draws in a building with a narrow door and a stern householder barring the way too. The man in his consciousness tells our questor: “I do not know where you are from. Get away. There is where your weeping and the gnashing of your teeth will be, when you see yourself thrown outside.”

            The key archetypal figures of Abraham and Issac are startingly restored here, the same as in Matthew’s prefatory case, in which however the questor here is substituted with an army officer with unmatched “faith” in his affected identity. “I tell you the truth. With no one in Israel have I found so great a faith. But I tell you that many from eastern parts and western parts will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Issac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens; whereas the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be.” By sons of the kingdom-bereft-of-heaven, he reverts to the accents of his ancestor speaking at patalam in the line of vision of Mary of Agreda when short of the sweet-sounding grammer on the accent the same being acquired from the human female Mary by pseudo-incarnation. He is here in fact triumphantly making known the true nature of the reward that he has laid for his intimitable historical followers.

            Even when not sensing positive evil, or only encirclingly sensing it, the primordial scriptures in their compassion towards man in “the predicament of human life and effort upon this planet” (The quotation is from Raghava R.Meneo, ibid., p.12.) in kaliyuga declare that “he who creates differences among individual selves will destroy himself in the cycle of birth and death.” (See Kadopanishad, 2.4.14:.) As for the retaliatory recurring decimal of the weeping and gnashing, its realistic impulse is named by the same scriptures as aavrithisththram, defined as repeated intonation of a line in a Vedic mantra. (See Sreekandeswaram, op.cit., p.294.)

            In Mark of all the three is ensconced, by feedback inhibition, the key to the “secret” of the six illustrations: “To you the secret has been given, but to those outside all things occur in illustrations, in order that, though looking they may look, and yet not see, and though hearing, they may hear and not get the sense of it, nor ever turn back and forgiveness be given them.”

            The primordial scriptures treat goodness as the only positive gene. Just so, Vyasan only perceives the other pole negatively, in the terms of its absence, positive evil not being apprehended at all by the consciousness. To expound this he even sacrifices the image of Krishna at the decisive moment of the Mahabharatha battle. Why is it that Vyasan, who has a transcendent sense of true redemption by intrinsic native goodness and who encompasses the entire history of consciousness, does not all the same cognise positive evil at any point? It cannot be claimed that he was sectarian; he has a sense of the whole of mankind. Further, the genealogy that he designs envelops all possible genes and types in male and female mankind. Putting it generally, why is it that while there exists a highly developed sense of positive goodness in the mass of natural scriptures, positive evil is not found at all in the same mass?

            Vyasan does not sense any positive evil anywhere along the line from genesis to a universal catharsis (mangalam) indomitably hammered out by him through resolution of the anger gene that had been sprung into consciousness by Lucifer in the pre-mariological and post-mariological time through his self-delineative counterfeit scripture and its odious historical expressions. Vyasan’s work begins from the genesis of consciousness and he strikingly hammers it out, even as Lucifer rebelliously does, at the secondary level, consisting of terrestrial individuals in tangible life who are indiscriminately caught between dharma and its desolation. Never succumbing in the least to positive evil, he resolves the labyrinth of situations and characters on the one notion of dharma as the sole prevading phenomenon. On occassions he introduces extra-terrestrial personae, but not once does he import a being from beyond to keep dharma from perishing. It is on terrestrial Yudhishthira, man, that until the last the fate of dharma depends. Of all the beings introduced in the work, includung Krishna, Yudhishthira alone is responsible for dharma, and he alone emphatically redeems it.

            Since scripture is still all-comprehensive, it follows that positive evil has been scripturally input from outside into the annals of consciousness. When we look around, we find such an importation in the christian scripture. Because scripture is underived, an expressed original concept in a work of genesis is indivisible from its expresser. To say it again, genesis purportedly deals with origins; therefore, when the protesting creator-god tells Cain inaugurally that sin is “crouching” at his door, (see genesis 4:7, New World Translation; Good News bible.) it means that the speaker himself has created and carried it there. Since he also says the sin is “crouching,” meaning inertial, the verbal act on his part and the secretory sin are autonomous and unheralded.

            The admitted inertial state yet at this time of sin and the concomitant reality of its domicile even at this time outside the door of Adam’s son manifest that there is no inheritance of sin in Cain, as christianity rebelliously and constantly asserts. Faced with the evolution syndrome, christianity came out with the observation the the first eleven chapters of genesis could not be relagated to the level of myth. (Cf., B.R. Rees, ibid., p.75.) In fact, however, no part of genesis is mythical, as every part renders the genesis of he self-expression of Lucifer.

            As for eleven untouchable chapters, as far as Lucifer is concerned, they deploy the anger gene, (see genesis 4:6.Knox bible) produce golbal confusion of tongues (ibid 11:8-9) and archetypally secure through Abraham the gene of admission of sin (ibid 18:23-32). They also discharge onto female kind an explicit curses replicating the sorrows of childbirth (“I will multiply thy sorrows and thy conceptions”–ibid 3:16).

            At the moment he devised the self-defeatest ban on knowledge, the sense of an Eve had not germinated in his conscoiusness –ibid., 2:17-18. Therefore, even according to him, Eve is not directly related to his dictum against knowledge. As for giving it to Adam, she still perceived it, even after Sivan had explained it to her as redeeming knowledge, primarily as good to eat, secondarily as good to look at, and lastly and very vaguely as good for knowledge –ibid 3:6 and note in Knox bible. She gave it to Adam just so that he would live longer from its nourishment, since female is responsible for life. This is why the catholic scripture, which is rather more true to Lucifer than others in the body of christian scriptures, says: By woman we all die, (see ecclesiasticus 25:33.) in its convoluted antithesis both to natural sense and to the natural scriptures. There Draupadi is personally responsible for feeding the five Pandavas all the years they were exiled and living in straits. Again Vyasan absolutely says that whatever her offence a woman always deserves pardon. The catholic scripture say here that “man’s wickedness is better than a woman who does good.” ibid 42:14 Knox bible.

            Wherever the christian scriptures impinge on the natural scriptures, they take the form of a reaction to or against the latter. The initial pulsation producing such reaction in the christian side is all coming from the primordial side. This reactive reflex is perceivable both in the general burden of the christian book as a whole and at specific points of detail. The general burden is a reaction against knowledge. The calculated introduction of a tree of knowledge for no reason except to outlaw nourishment from its yield cannot be understood save as rebellion against an antecedent scripture that exalts knowledge. Since in the first place the Vedas are such a scripture, since secondly they are manifest to gods without study, and since in the third place knowledge is a common ingredient in both, in the christian scripture negatively from stultification and in the natural scripture positively from bestowal, the being responsible for the christian scripture is identifiable even at this plane as a rebellious ex-god.

            The obstinate resolve to sit in global survey of human action, voluntarily and unilaterally judging it both individually and collectively, but in the latter case rather more obtrusively as regards alien races than one’s own, from an initial subjective imputation of theistic illiteracy on the one side and a scripture-derived assumption of immunity on this side has been input in the environment by christianity out of its source-being, who so divides consciousness, rebelliously. In this context, India should be taken as the reference point because of the unmatched antiquity of its scriptures, the independent origin and subsistence of the Hindu races there, and a natural tendency that we find in them to tolerate even to the point of self-abnegation the semitic quantity that entered there.

            Of those three then what is the scriptural record of the flagrant one? Western christianity entered India only on account of a bountiful sufferance on the part of the Hindu kings. But as soon as it got seemingly entrenched through a respite acquiesced in by the same dynasty, (The reference is to the Hindu ruling dynasty of the Cochin kingdom, which persuaded itself to befriend the portuguese traders and missionaries arriving in the territory, and in India, amid long political troubles for it from a neighboring Hindu king.) we find the most typical cleric of the time expressily striving to subvert that very Hindu King on a self-made warrant that he was looking up rather more to Beelzebub than to Lucifer, and finally imprecating his person and imposing on him the judgement of the latter in end.time. (See K.P.Padmanabha Menon, History of the Kingdom of Cochin, Vol.I, pp.399-404, for archival account of the meeting, which took place in 1599 in the town of Cochin. The account is hardly creditable to the Portuguese cleric. In addition, it is a record of perverse disinformation on his part where he says the king is “world-renowned as a religious illiterate.” Here is the climaxing point of the talk: “Seething with anger and drained of all self-control, the archbishop, hoping that he could terrify the king, cursed him to suffer everlasting damnation on judgement day. ‘O, let it be. About that we shall talk on that day,’ the king replied lightly. ‘That won’t do!’ came the answer. That place is not for chating. You are going to be sentenced on that day to abide for ever with THE Devil you worship.'”)

            This is the moment that the primordial scriptures had always been warning against in their compassion towards the victim, here rebelliously called Cain and there realistically called Dharmaputra, son of dharma, or in nominative phraseology, Yudhisthira, one steadfast in battle against a-dharma.

            As he reached swargaloka (heavenly world) with the dog he would not exchange even for brahmaanandam, Yudhisthira espies Duryodhana, the clan brother whom he had just vanquished in the battle for dharma, already sitting there on the throne, but none of his own biological brothers who had followed him in the battle. Shocked to oblivion, he demands to see them and is transported to narakaloka (netherly world) by attendants. There, he despatches these beings since he would rather be here with his devoted brothers than in swaryaloka without them. Upon this, the darkness rolls away and the sufferings were no more to be seen. The god of dharma: “This is not naraka. It is swarga. It was an illusion designed to prove you.” Thereupon, Dharmaputra was transfigured. The mortal frame was gone and he was a god. Then Yudhisthira saw there, in the universal catharsis, all his clan brothers who had ranged themselves on the opposite side in the battle, “all serene and free from anger, having attained the state of the gods.”

            It is the identical state that Lucifer bars from man after obligatorily admitting to it in his genesis book, ensuing from the intervention of Sivan and the responsive act on the part of Eve. “You will become like gods. This the god knows,” Sivan had said in his compassion. “Here is man become like one of ourselves, knowing everything,” the pantomimic ex-god said alertingly to himself afterwards. Coming now in malevolent reaction against the universal catharsis of the primordial scriptures, he self-cogitates against the inextricable divident from knowledge. “Now,” says he, meaning to say, “under the present circumstances,” “man has only to lift his hand and gather fruit to eat from the tree of life as well, and he will live endlessly.” So that this should not be, narrates now his amanuensis picking up from him, the ex-god spectacularly drove man out, and self-contently placed an incendiary at the entrance with a revolving combustibles, “so that he could reach the tree of life no longer.” “This was,” so goes the smug explanation to the passage in a second book, “to keep anyone from coming near the tree that gives life.” (see: Good News bible, note to genesis 3:24.)

            It will be improper even to begin to consider this being from its iterative claims of godship. Those claims are proper to Lucifer, the only being that auto-estimates himself as god, so much so that it is his swa-bhavam from and after the rebellion. God cannot be an unknowable quantity since he exists through and in man. The primordial scriptures sensibly tell us that that being made the specie called man for his own self-realisation; this is why the first man is Manu, reflectional knowledge. Confirmatively, the West defines it, at the secondary level, as “perfection of goodness.” see Webster’s, op.cit.,p.489.

            By manufacturing a new commodity codenamed as faith and setting up his empire for vending it, Lucifer was out to destroy the specie, as he told Mary of Agreda, since faith is but the hijacker of knowledge. But man is no lamb as he wishfully fancies in his illustrations.(See Jawaharlal Nehru, op.cit., p.33: “How amazing is the spirit of man! In spite of innumerable failings, man, throughout the ages, has sacrificed his life and all he held dear for an ideal, for truth, for country and honor. Because of that, much may be forgiven to man, and it is impossible to lose hope for him. Plaything of nature’s mighty forces, he had hurled defiance at the elemental powers, and with his mind, cradle of revolution, sought to master them. Whatever gods there may be, there is something godlike in man, as there is also something of the devil in him.”) After all, he killed him, even at the risk of having back a robber in their midst.


Please like & share: