Kingdom of Torments
God = Lucifer
Coincident use of standard and antithetical particles at one and the same instant, or use of a uniform expression in a commonly rebellious convoluted sense in different proof-texts is the disimulative stock-in-trade of Lucifer in his mariological time. Importantly in this context, he significally exalts maternal poverty (Luke 6:20) in his hilltop speech. The same text is convoluted at Matthew 5:3 as “poverty of spirit,” even though both texts concern a single historical instant. The latter text moreover embodies a contradiction in terms–the same as “love your enemies” at a different point.
The admitted singular enemy of christianity is a being unexceptionally designated by every kind of bible book as “anti-christ.” Therefore, the scriptural and vulgar (from Sanskrit varga) christian approach to this being is the authentic touchstone of the above formula, however atmadushi (self-incompatible) the latter verbally is. This scriptural approach progressively verbalised by John at seven different places at the dissolution of christianity and aimed at pre-designing the medial approach is however the exact antithesis of the formula. It results in open cannibalism self-satisfyingly carried out against the unique enemy by John in his “revelation” from Lucifer.
Moreover, it culminates in a “great feast of the flesh of all mankind” by god. The wide-open feast is actually organised in hurried celebration of the doom of mankind targeted by him and announced through Mary of Agreda (see the Council of Lucifer). As for jesus, he is indivisible from the above god, being the sole repository of the one-piece, one-time, banquet of universal extermination revealed by him directly, exultantly and by name to John (revelation 1:11 ).
This premptory instance befalls when he, while yielding up the ghost, speaks to the singular robber who foreswore to his misidentity as his own terminal thought, even as Theresa did.(See ch.V). Applying the Vedic texts, we have here a communion of terminal thoughts between speaker and hearer. But while in one reproduction of the particular instant, ascribed to Luke (23:39-43), the former spoke devisedly, in the other reproduction of the same instant, and ascribed to Matthew (27:44), he drew it “authentically,” both robbers equally insulting him in this second account. “Paradise” is notably absent in this account.
When both the robbers insulted him in one book, can he possibly award to one of the same two as reward for applauding him in another exposure of the same historical instant, both books being high fidelity by definition. Scripture should be understood comprehensively with regard to all its elements as well as integrally in respect of each element; the dictum applies to subterranean scriptures too. Therefore, the ersatz paradise scene rebelliously integrated in the two books is the rebel’s way of saying kingdom of torments, since the spurious hearer is despatched with positive misidentity as the terminal movement in his chittham (consciousness). [Chittham is the third vertical level of consciousness. On the one side, chittham apprehends the phenomenal world and on the other, ultimate reality. Mandookyspanishad: “When chittham quivers, the phenomenal world; when chittham is quiescent, brahman.” The mode of chittham is anusandhanam (integration). Beyond chittham is the fourth and the last level of consciousness, anthahkaranam. The two surface levels of consciousness are manas (mind) and buddhi (determinative faculity).]
Scripture disposes the ersatz scene with the expression piyati, the devil’s scorn. The fiend concept is thus traced to piyati. In one text he tells the robber that he will be with him in paradise that same day. In the other reproduction of the same text, the date of initiation is dropped by relocation of the comma, making it now the date of his declaration instead. “I promise thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” (Knox bible, p.B4) “I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.”(New World Translation, p.1149.)
Since scripture is comprehensively consistent with its emanational being, two passages and spectacles are only reconcilable on the real identity of the testifier and protogonist as Lucifer, the rebel unto himself and the masked enemy of man.
Lucifer forfieted brahmaanandam at the fall. While Beelzebub reconciled himself with the fall, Lucifer rebelled. Since it is an organic rebellion, he can only conserve it by rebelliously feeding on the memory of what he lost; anything else would be adjustment with the loss. (the question of an alternative course by Lucifer is relative. It does not arise in the absolute sense, since positive evil is not endemic in the system. On the other hand, we miss it in the system of Bhaaratham, [Bhaaratham or Bhaarat, the scriptural appellation of India, is composited of Sanskrit sounds bha, ra, and tha. Bha means “resplendent among all scriptures,” ra, “solicitude towards every being,”and tha, “the pulsation of all sacred rivers.”] which is chronlogicalily anterior in the first place and which in the second place, senses the fall but is still redemptive of those merely fallen. On the other, we find it has been input in the system from outside by primordial christiainity by and through its source-being at genesis 4.6. Since this being can only endure from positive misidentification in consciousness, its realistic identification in the same consciousness will automatically bring about its disintergration, sarvanasham, and simultaneously the termination of evil at the wellspring.*) * cf.,Ancient Mother–III / IV. (Editor’s note: The author intends to take up the mentioned topic in the next volumes of the Ancient Mother series.)
The relevant account, couched inevitably in christian terms, says: “As soon as Lucifer and his followers entered hell, they assembled in general council which lasted to the morning of Thursday.During this time Lucifer exerted all his astuteness and diabolical malice in conferring with the demons and concocting plans to obtain revenge for the chastisement to which he had been subjected (read self-chastisement he had courted). They came to the conclusion that the greatest vengeance would be to impede mankind (in acquisition of correct knowledge). This they hoped to obtain by deceiving men.” (see the revelations of Mary of Agreda, quoted by Cyril Marystone, op. cit., pp. 1 39-40.)
Again “paradise” is kingdom of torments, since it is designed by Lucifer and brandished in human time, which is acquired by him by way of his female (parthenogenetically) and in execution of his manifesto. The “eternal fire” he boldly announces there denotes the fumes of eternal mental anguish. Scriptural anguish of that degree operates at the level of chittham in its most typical agents. For this reason it is capable of surviving beyond their body-death, the brain still functioning after body-death. It is reserved for those who serve him with conscious phenomenal determination. It is this state that christianity rebelliously calls man’s eternal happiness.
Since this objective terminal anguish is presented before man as a “paradise” and subjectively couched in the terms of an unasked for and disproportionate varam (boon), christianity is even more lethal than a killer who meets his quarry in the disguise of his doctor. The victum had been turned already vulnerable by unsuspected doses in small quantity of toxin called sin. The killer now visits as his victim finally lay in hospital. He is robed with the doctor’s gown and armed with a syringe noticeably covered by the label of the best-known antibiotic, but which has actually cyanide inside.
By scripture we mean a body of books that are underived and that provide the entire history of consciousness, from genesis to the end of the particular cycle of consciousness. The Sansrit sacred works are such a scripture since their gamut is from Purusha sooktham, the part of the Rig Veda relating the genesis of consciousness, to the upanishads, which explain the final release of consciousness, or moksha. The later works, most importantly Ramayanam and the Puranas, belong to the same frame but at a realistic secondary level of consciousness; the Mahabharatha on the other hand serves at both levels by reason of its common origin from the author of the Brahma-Sutra (Key to Ultimate Reality) under his alternate name of Badarayana.
The christian scriptures, momentarily so treating them, as proferred, really belong to this secondary level. But since they ostensibly portray themselves as a genesis and since the genesis of the serpent, upon whom the whole book swings, is not included in it, they are a rebellious scripture against the Vedas and consequently against man since the Vedas contain the science of true knowledge that alone leads to moksha, and also since the portrayed serpent is a Vedic being and the symbol of the scriptural compassion towards man. To identify the christian scriptures objectively as what they really are, viz., the self-expression of the consciousness of Lucifer, is true knowledge (jnanam) and to regard them otherwise is positive false knowledge (positive avidhya). Such a false knowledge will estop man’s moksham. That is why Adam and Eve walked out of the place “hand in hand” upon a note of “love regained,” as Patrides says independently of the identity. (Cf., C.A.Patrides, ibid., p.177.)
The record of his history in mariological time is consciously assembled in a haphazard pattern by the four supposed narrators in four, or five, different books of vastly mismatched sizes, each divided one knows not when and by whom into quasi-chapters that do not confirm to any norm except the intension to deceive by chronological and documentry subterfuges. The same scene is ingenuously cast about in apparent disdain in different books over numerous codices. The effort at apparent guilelessness is so far overworked and circumspect as to make you so much as feel the presence of a common overvalent mind working at the back of the whole composition. Such exercise is even more to be perceived over those code words that on the one hand hide and on the other deviously reveal the identity in a whiripool of the obligatory rebellion syndrome.
For another, all four writers uniformly misemploy and one of them in addition glosses a passage of Isaiah in a patent effort to devise a scriptural antiquity for the lord. Isaiah had writtern about 700 years before a vague little piece about how two sites that he identifies as Zabulon and Nephthalim were weighed down by affliction after they had in fact lightly borne some burden at an earlier date. The four writers, Matthew in all detail and the rest less so, relate realistically that the lord “withdrew into Galilee” upon hearing that the bapist John his forerunner had been constituted terminal prisoner, deservedly. He then willfully came to live in Capharnaum on the borders of the very places mentioned by Isaiah, so “that it might be fulfilled which was said by Isaias (sic) the prophet,” (See Dublin bible, Matthew 4:14) says the writer on the utilitarian presumption that Isaiah’s text where it spoke in the last verse of the chapter immediately preceding in the Hebrew original, omitting a sentence that connects the original passage with the one preceding. The connecting sentence would change the entire tenor of Isaiah’s words as they are now found in the Greek or Latin translations or in both of them, since it speaks particularly of the ruin that was to come to the race. And this Greek and latin translation is what passes for scripture.
The “Lucifer” expressly registered by the catholic scriptures is not identifiable with the serpent of the same books, nor with Beeizebub. Of the three, only serpent has to do with knowledge. Nor is he a contentious being, as Beelzebub is in the latter-day christian scriptures, rebelliously labelled as new testament; he appears and disappears simultaneously by reason of his siddhi (faculty) known as thirobahwam, evanescence. Incidentally, this power is imperceptible to the protogonist as he in his malevolence keeps repeating the string of imprecations even when the serpent is not scenically present.
Whenever he mentions the real kingdom bereft of heaven, he couples it with a mysterious being whom he addresses variously as the father, or his father, or even “your” father, and of whom nothing is known independently from his book. Contrariwise, whenever the father is introduced in this context, he drops heaven and reverts to the bare kingdom: “I make a covenant with you just as my father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom.”–Luke 22:29. There operates a covenantal relationship between himself and the being that he verbally discharges into environment. In furtherance of such relationship, he endeavours to bring man unsought into the same covenant. Directly and patronisingly he makes the same endeavour in another context: “Little flock, have no fear, because your father has approved of giving you the kingdom.”–ibid., 12:32.
This is underived scripture. Therefore, we must explore the being at the thematic level as jesus speaks here as the being’s alter ego.
Amidst all the welter of verbal rebellion and cross-rebellion, this one data of the bare kingdom is alone sustained unrebelliously as the common factor as between pre-mariological (The catholics mandatorily read back Mary all the way to Lucifer’s genesis. Cf., note in Dublin bible [p.7] and Knox bible [p.3]) and post-mariological Lucifer. “This is the reward,” so says pre-marioloyical Lucifer in the revelation to Mary of Agreda. The christian salvation of mariological time is likewise bespattered with the sense and expectation of personal reward for the action of believing the affected identity: “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”–Mark 16:16. On man’s part the criterion of eligiblity is nucleated to swallowing the garrulously protested affected identity, which is enlarged by regulated activation (cf.,John 17:1-5.) into a novel as supereminent son of god.
We fully grant that there functions a pseudo-sonhood in him now from incubation by human female through paisacha vivaham, and also from the scriptural absence of any such sonhood notion in works prior to this female’s time that have been brought into the same body of books.
On the other hand, Alexander when leaving India monumentalised on the original concept of a plurality of gods. (cf., Flora Annie Steel, ibid., p.41.) In France even in the fifth century, we notice the same concept. (cf.,Peter Brown, op.cit., p. 117.) In Ireland we see the spontaneous notion of natural fatherhood engraved on tombstones of the same date and the Rome pope deliberately estopping and replacing it with his father. (Cf.,B.R.Rees, op.cit., pp. 116-17,121.) Why, even Lucifer himself admits in genesis, under panic, that he is one of many. (See genesis 3:22: “Here the man has become like one of us.”)
By his act of sundering moksham by making it contingent upon action, specifically the action of believing the affected identity, the being prevalently called jesus passes out of the definition of god as perfection of goodness and automatically passes into the definition of Lucifer as affecting god.
Action, which is illusiory, cannot be the criterion for a phenomenon like Moksham. Because something happened, something else happened. This means that every happening is essentially fortuitous. The solution is to know yourself as the immutable perceiver of this illusion, on whose consciousness all of it is registered. God is not the solution since he is Lucifer.
God, alias Lucifer, has been forced upon man by christianity. The rebellion of Lucifer after having become self-expelled from the class and the abode of gods consists not only in regarding himself still to be that which he lost, but also in auto-affecting himself now to be even superlatively so, the only son of god. By systematic autistic replication of this auto-affectation of godship for a pre-fixed amount of 28 times in the course of the first 27 verses of genesis, he is sufficiently impressed with the notion as to perceive it as a seperate image of himself. At this point he can contrive the next step. This is the genetic transcription of the sensed image onto man. Therefore, along with the 28th replication, he senses man as he wants him to be, viz., the image of Lucifer, in the same 27th verse, in which he has Moses write: “And god created man to his own image: to the image of god he created him: male and female he created them.”–genesis 1:27. He is in contradiction here with genesis 2:18 and 2:21-22, where the female is originated all over again. This contradiction evidences a compulsive drive in him to re-pose excellently as god, so that by transference of the image scripturally inlaid by him, man would be demonized.
This being then is the god that christianity has imposed upon man.
The whole obligatory process shows the christian god, far from almighty, a slave of the gene. On the other hand, Sivan transcends the gene by simultaneous destruction and regeneration.
Lucifer does not exist in any scripture expect christian scripture nor in any consciousness except the christian; he is thus unique to christianity. The serpent is not unique to christianity; he exists in Hebrew scripture. On the hand, the Hebrew consciousness recognises him as an upright being; the serpent is so mentioned in Hebrew books. “Just as old,”says Patrides, “is the tradition that before the Fall the serpent was beautiful and could walk upright in his feet.”(C.A.Patrides, op.cit., p.107. The tradition cited being christian, it embodies the reaiity in compulsively rebellious form.) The serpent is not Lucifer since he is a being frorn outside christianity: “Why, who told you that you were naked?” –genesis 3:11. The introductory expression Why followed by the searching words show that the speaker is not aware of the whereabouts (“His present whereabouts are a secret,” writes Webster’s, p.1324, in illustration of the term.) of the serpent.
But all the books whatever the stream invariably afffirm upon serpent in the end. This is done at revelation 20:2, which pretentiously relates the imprisonment and suffocation of the “serpent” (from Sanskrit sarpati, he creeps)–who is Sivan– besides self-consciously imputing and re-imputing to him (“whom we [christians] call the devil, or Satan”) the connotation of “satan,” which is proprietary to the source-being of the bible book in its old and new formulations.
Since Sivan is the only one being that generates the principle of goodness in consciousness, the course of christianity from genesis to dissolution is discerned as an undertaking for the suffocation of goodness from consciousness under the pretext of redeeming it.
Again Lucifer is not the serpent since Lucifer does not exist outside christianity. Since scripture is underived and the christian scripture counterfeitively underived, consistent with its rebelliuos and affectatious origin, Lucifer is, and is in, christianity.