Destruction of Continuum of Moksha
Christianity claims for its keystone that Adam was guilty of disobedience. However, the individual responsible for the concerned text being Lucifer, the man-creation account in his book is the expression of his affectation. Therefore, Adam was indulging in his right of self-preservation from a malevolent being, acquirement of knowledge constituting the essence of this right.
Dealing latterly now with the same question exclusively and in its own right, as predicated, the relevant data of the existence of the serpent was suppressed from Adam, through scriptural disinformation. On the one hand, the serpent was identified as snake, which is a different being. On the other, this being was earlier comprehensively applauded with the express statement made to man, typified in Adam as the quarry of the whole relevant text, that he found everything that he affected to have created to be in good order.
Moksham is the state of selfhood in which consciousness, having attained ultimate knowledge, as also awareness of such attainment by the siddhi (accomplishment) of asamprajnatha (superconsciousness), at the same time comprehends them both integrally with the anubhava (phenomenal experience) imbibed from sensory existence. It is acquired by its sadhakas (proficients) either in the moment immediately before death, when the jeevan (gene) retires little by little from the various limbs of the body and at last remains ensconced in the region of the hridayam (heart) or hridi ayam (I am atma), or quite possibly even before death is approaching. Individuals of the latter kind are recognised in scripture as jeevan muktha, those who attain moksha while yet embodied.
The sense of scripture innate in the agent or kindled in him by the guru overrides all other factors that contribute to his ability to comprehend experience by reduction to the terms of phenomenal knowledge. The most important factor here is his racial and genetic inheritence, and environment.
In the comprehensive term of environment are comprised such factors as comprehension of concepts, apprehension of scripture in its two-fold characteristic of underivedness and potency as the still commonly ongoing directive component of history, ability to discriminate primordial scripture from the counterfeit while at the same time generally applying to the latter the above-mentioned norms of scripture, and lastly the capability to sense the etymosial content of words and translate it into experience terms (anubhava). (On the concept of anubhava, see Sankaracharya: “The cognition of Brahman (ultimate reality) terminates in an act of anubhava; hence as it has been shown that reasoning is more closley connected with anubhava than sruti is, we have the right to apply reasoning to sruti.”–quoted in note at p.300, Max Muller, ibid.)
In this context, the christian paradise is admittedly the fallout of a redemption from knowledge; therefore, it is the exact antithesis of moksham. Man lost the original paradise when he opted for knowledge. Therefore, he has now been redeemed back to the original state of nude knowledgelessness by christianity!
You exist in a continuum of existence. Wllen you find in Vedic literature the sun, for example, contemplated with passages and illustrations that accord harmoniously with your own perceptions, you sense this continuum to be realistic; you realise that it is the same sun that you see and secondly that both you and the Vedic observers are mutally linked by a chain that can be called commonness of sensiblity. “O Sun! Enlightening all sentient and insentient beings that come into existence in this world, thou dost hold your own in the vast skies, creating days along with nights. O Sun! Enlightener of everything. Seated on the chariot with the tresses of brishtness, thou art transported along by seven horses which are the seven colourful rays,” cf.,Rig Veda,I,50,7-8. When such an objective-cumsubjective continuum can be felt running from those times, far anterior to scriptural christianity, to your own time, it is also sensed to be everlasting. Scripture supports this conclusion independently, since it only senses an eternity of creation. “So that I may be many,” says the creation text. cf., Chandogyspanishad, VI,2.
Christianity has broken this continuum. Therefore, its source-being is the enemy of man, since man cannot exist under conditions of doubt. That kind of enemy cannot but be subterrestrial, christianty calls him supernatural in its rebellion against reality. The only such enemy is Lucifer, as we know from Mary of Agreda and directly from his bible book.
Even a stalwart like Augustine, the guru of western christianity, (See J.R.Lucas, ibid., p.76: “It was Augustine who formed the mind of western christendom.”) definitely pleads the strains of this loss of continuum. “I am not certain about anything,” so says also Thersa of Lisieaux at the door of death. Alphonsa (1910-1946), her eastern counterpart long uprooted from her soil, says the same thing in identical circumstance.
On the other hand, this continuum is uninterruptedly perceptible in East and West–in the East in the scripturally intact races and in the West before the onset of historical christianity. Although peripherally Vedic, the king of Cochin still reflects it when he says, “I expire,” immediately invokes the universal mother-principle, and dies asking her to perserve “the dharma of kings.”
Late classical Europe too stressed on “the peaceable continuity between the Self and the divine.” It did so by presenting the self, much as in the East, “as the last link in an unbroken chain of intermediary beings.” The identity of a person again was thought of “as sharing in the calm order of the universe.” However, by the end of the fourth century, continues Peter Brown, a profound change had taken place throughout western Europe in the late classical sense of the stability of man’s identity.
We have two other spectral episodes picked up by Brown from the archives of the beginnings of historical christianity. The Roman lady Macrina sits upright in bed gazing at the setting sun, and prays the long, somber prayer of the dying, which “put into ancient words a sense of perilious uncertainity.” Brown adds that Augustine broke out into the same “somber language of risk” when his mother was on death bed. He also cites Augustine’s disciple as telling Apa Daniel then: “O my father, do you fear also, you who have become perfect in such measure?” “O my son, if Abraham, with Issac and Jacob were in my presence now and said, ‘you are just,’ I would still have no confidence.” Brown cites these types as signposts of the general and novel crevasse that was inserted by christianity in western Europe in the fourth century, and that came to open wide at individual’s death, since “no one could be secure at that awful moment.” (cf.,Peter Brown, op.cit.,pp.67-68.)
The christian paradise is like a cheque made out to the amount of all the wealth in the world by a dismissed executive on his old companie’s cheque book that he managed to take out. Thus far the analogy appears correct, except that the executive got self-dismissed by reason of a contrivance in the system in his old office which he could hardly imagine. This contrivance is gravitation. In scriptural terms, it is called dhri, the root-sphotam of dharma. The sense is “to hold,” from which it follows that the moment you let go of dharma, you fall. “What?” Isaiah exclaims upon seeing the fall in scriptural time in all its unprecipated precipitateness, “What, fallen from swargalokam, thou Lucifer?” Isaiah 14:12.
The analogy can be made a little more complete by adding that the drawer puts a nebulous date on the cheque, which keeps advancing day by needed day. He explains that the amount is so huge that the company’s owner himself will arrive one day and put the real date.”But as to that moment, none but the owner knows, not even his closest colleages nor myself his only son.”(see Matthew 24:36) He finally signs on the cheque by the name he designed after he got self-dismissed, avoiding his true name, which is known to many.
From that day onwards, professed christianity has been waiting in tremulous expectation of the arrival. The tremulousness can be sensed running at all times and in every one without exception beneath all the self-satisfied ebullience, notwithstanding the controversies, which are confined to aspects of its decor. Occassionally, the tremuliousness surfaces under the responsive charge of extraordinary turns of temporal, political or clerical history. Its intensity varies in degree according to the reception of the concerned individual or the reacting segment in christianity, with the more resceptive and the more wishful expatiating in the following serious vein:
“At his coming in the air, we will experience a transformation at the same time we defy gravity in our ascension to the great meeting in the air. We will be snatched away to meet him in the air.” See Anis A.Shorrosh, Jesus, prophecy and the middle East, pp.90,93.
More seriously, scriptural christianity affords no basis either organically nor even in respect of the freely enlisting individual for a semblance of assuredness of the professed reward. Committed christianity too, typified by certified exemplary polestars like Theresa of Lisieaux, does not furnish any other picture even from their terminal moments when the senses no longer operate and pranan (life) is withdrawn to the heart, which is the abode of aanandam (happiness). On the other hand, we do perceive the unmistakable signs of a ruthless internal warfare going on there in such sensitive cases at those moments, so evidently reflected in the words they articulate. Theresa: “Is this the reward you give to those who serve you?”
The more impressible the subjects, the more they serve him. The more they have served him, the more is the terminal struggle. All the more then is the lone, plaintiv, feminine, compulsive final effort to reconcile the reality of the experience with the sanguine proportionate reward so confidently anticipated all this while from service sedulously and desperately rendered on the lines of a dearly held scripture. Such a contary outcome at the end of such hope cannot be rational. Therefore, once again, we must seek out the cause in the phenomenal world, the world rebelliously opened out to Mary of Agreda. He utters a sentence there that is the key to the whole macabre scenario: “I will persecute the meek, oppress the suffering and afflict the poor with so much the greater torments the more faithfully they have followed me.”
Of the brothers Cain and Abel, the latter served him more than the former by expressly pleasing him with the endearsome sacrifice of blood. Just so, he was assassinated by the being whom he satiated.