The equation J = L = THE Devil represents in mathematical terms an objective reality. Ultimately, it will be seen that all human, scientific and historical questions of a phenomenal nature resolve and tally in this equation.
The present pages–and those to follow in subsequent issues of INSIGHT–prove the validity of this equation. It is proved objectively, positively and logically in the terms that totally, mutually and individually satisfy the intellect. However, in this process we ourselves will stand in the position of a mute defendant. Therefore, we will not make prominent use of any of our own sources or documents. We shall instead principally use the sources and documents of the plaintiff himself and still obtain a verdict of positive conviction against him. In cases where we cite a text that is extraneous to the plaintiff, it will be seen that such citation is employed only for the task of developing something proven, as distinct from proving it. (See below for example)
The bible book is the primary document on test in the above mentioned process. The intents and purposes of that book are expressed by it in words of human language. These words possess meanings which are defined in independent books devoted specially to that field of knowledge. We use the definitions made by these books for bringing out the precise meaning of the word or words in question. An example is the word ‘rage’ used to express Cain’s response to the action of the god in respect of his sacrifice. In the next passage the god uses the word ‘this’, which means ‘what has just been mentioned’, viz., ‘rage’, but instead of following ‘this’ with ‘rage’ the god says ‘anger’ which is quite different from ‘rage’. It is thus proved that intention of god was malevolent–a sudden mutation of ‘rage’ into ‘anger’.
In further developing this to show just why the god makes this mutation we have used an external source, in this case a Hindu text derived from the Vedas. But it needs to be emphasised that the fact of malevolence stands proven even independently of that text because while ‘rage’ is just any violence, ‘anger’ is strangulation to death. Incidentally, this was exactly how Abel was killed by the god and the guilt transposed on man–symbolised at this point by Cain–by display of the body!
To go back a little. We said we would make use of definitions furnished in dictionaries. In actual practice, however, it will be seen that we use throughout a single book, the Webster’s New Collegiate, and a single edition of that work, viz., the edition of 1979. In regard to definitions of Vedic terms, we likewise draw from one book only, viz., the Sabdathärävali. We would like to inform readers that we did not choose these particular books from more of the class of dictionaries that were available to us. Rather, they were the only ones available at the time we began the process of putting the equation and its proving on paper.
In the formulations and execution of this work we have mainly followed the guidelines of objectivity, focussing and exclusion of interpretation. The bible book is taken into consideration as an objectively existing reality. Its text is analysed objectively, comprehensively focussing on the nature of the mind of its author. In the case of individual passages the focus is on the momentary point at issue. The rest of the passage is omitted as irrelevant for the time being, the omission being marked by placing dots.
The third guideline we have followed is objective elucidation of the bible book. This is different from interpretation. Elucidation is exposition of the correct meaning. It is free for this reason of subjective interpretation.
In proving the equation we have followed a plan of stating its component or contributory elements at the beginning of the three sections herein, titled alphabetically as A, B & C. (A fourth section with the continuing alphabetical title of D is advanced from a future instalment because of its importance). The first four pages are introductory to all the rest.
Both the introduction and the concise statements at the beginning of the sections are set differently from the rest of the work by use of a typeface different from all those used elsewhere.
Although appearing as footnotes the parts of the work presented in that mode are equally primary with the statements to which they are appended. They are important parts of the proving apparatus and should be so considered and treated. They should not be considered as adjuncts thereto. For this reason they have been set in types of the same point size as the body matter and with the same linear blank.
It will be seen that in numerous places the footnotes are not on the same page with the corpus. In some cases, note 6 for example, they are ahead of the body proper, in some behind, as in the case of notes 11 to 16, note 11 being actually several pages behind. We realise that this will cast a strain on readability but trust readers will understand it as unavoidable in the circumstance of our above mentioned plan of proving and the limitation imposed by journal size and certain other factors. Nevertheless we have tried to reduce the strain as far as possible by setting the footnote numerals boldface both in the body and at the notes themselves.
We shall now proceed to give some specific points of guidance to the reader for more intensely following our text.
The Formula ‘More at corpus, p.’
Quite often in the footnotes you will see the phrase ‘More at corpus, p. ‘ or ‘See corpus, p. ‘ with the space for page number unfilled. We shall first speak about use of this formula and then explain why the page number is currently omitted.
We employ this formula when an important question surfaces related with the question at hand which however cannot be considered at length at that particular point either because the momentary context is on something different or because the question is important enough to be dealt with separately in detail. You will find one or two good examples of this in the present issue at note 6. The question that arises from part i. of that note, the redeemer-sinner equation, is fundamental. Therefore, the question is indicated then and there and then expressly reserved for fuller notice at some later page.
Another example is at part ii. Of the same note. The question there, the origin of the christian evil, is equally important. We have noticed it then and there with three citations, one of them pre-historical, with the exhaustive notice deferred however to a future page.
You will now see why it is not possible to give the pagination alongside the formula as of now. The process of exhausting our prime equation will take many many issues of INSIGHT. Ultimately the contents of all of them together will be encompassed in book form–as distinct from journal–comprising one or several volumes. The current pagination blanks will be finally filled then and there. In the meantime, forthcoming issues will carry a special section which will indicate the page numbers now omitted, as and when the questions now held over at those points are resumed or concluded.
You will find brackets used in two different modes, the normal mode and the boldface mode. The normal mode is used when the matter is set within the brackets is etymological and when it is so printed within brackets by Webster’s. The same mode is also used for standard interpolations including editorial notes and interjections like ‘sic’.
The boldface mode is used in all other situations, but most importantly for direct interpolations into the text, for definitional data directly cited from Webster’s, Sabdathärävali and other such works and for uni-word interpolations in the midst of a string of definitions from the same works. Where simple parenthesis is used in any of the above-mentioned cases, they also will be set in boldface. You will find several examples of the first two of these cases at part i. of note 6. As for uni-word interpolations, a good example is the word “and” set within boldface bracket at note 7. The particular word is interpolated at that point to signify that the definition immediately following exhausts all definitions of the word under consideration, in this case ‘meek’.
Citations from Webster’s appear in these pages in two different modes as to quotation marks. All normal definitional citations are directly reproduced without being quoted within quotation marks. In all other featuring any other kind of matter in the reproduced material like illustration, etymology, etc., the whole of such matter including the definition is set within quotation marks.
You will find all these various features in note 2. The first part of the citations on line 1 (journal page 1) of the note, is directly copied without quotation marks as it is entirely definitional. The second part appearing on lines 2-3 (jp. 2) is set within quotation marks as it is not definitional but illustrative. (Incidentally, being the first case of its kind in the issue, the illustrative quotation there is separated from the definition and the words ‘illustrative quotation’ spelled out. Further, to show that they are an interpolation, those words are set in boldface square brackets.) To go back now. Again on line 3 of our note (line 2 on p 2) the definition of the word ‘primitive’ is reproduced sans quotation marks. The next definition is under ‘genesis’. This comes within quotation marks since etymology is also given. The fourth word in the note is cited for its synonymous cross reference which is directly reproduced but again the words ‘synonymous cross reference’ are spelled out for being the first of its kind in the issue, and again set in boldface square brackets.
You will notice that in all these cases the entry words cited are invariably set in quotation marks. This will be so throughout the journal in all cases of citation of entry words from any lexicon in any language.
Italics and Capitals
Except for titles of sources quoted from, the italic mode is used in the text invariably to create or express meanings at certain key textual points where the normal roman type mode will not produce all that meaning. It thus functions as an important tool in the proving apparatus and is to be so viewed whenever seen in the text. It is used most often in quotations from outside, and rarely also in own text in the same function.
Capitals are used most often in the latter kind of script in the same function, and rarely also in texts quoted.
Page 8 features many of these various uses of italics and capitalisation.
Sometimes the italic is used in the same proving function on the final letter of a word or proper name. You will find an example of the first kind of use in the character ‘s’ of the word ‘parents’ at note 15, ii (p 13). The same mode used in the same function in the case of a proper name can be seen at note 19 (p 19) in the final character of the spelling of ‘Isaiah’.
Sometimes also the italic is used in the above function of creation of meaning on the ultimate punctuation mark of a word. You will find several examples of this type of italicisation used on exclamation and interrogation marks in the two sets printed on page 19.
Sometimes again a single connecting word is capitalised in quoted or own material as a means to draw singular attention to the concepts that follows. You will see an example of this kind of capitalisation on page 23 where the word ‘and’ is used in this sense on the last line to draw attention to the concept following, as it opens out to an abundance of phenomenal new knowledge on Siva. Another example can be seen on p 38 where the word ‘mine’ is interpolated in boldface brackets in the same sense.
You will find featured on three pages (5, 10 & 37) excerpts from the writings of some others. A change of style from the proving mode to a somewhat more simple literary mode was desirable at those points, the questions under consideration there being without quite the same precedent anywhere or (as at p 37) so clever on the part of J Lucifer as to make a supplementary note advisable. The texts are excerpted from actual or partial manuscripts as yet unpublished. One of them is to be published soon.
The editor’s own use of change of style you will find them on p 36-37.
Glossary and Bibliography
Only such data as is relevant to the equation is included in the glossary as a rule. Entries have been limited to unfamiliar terms and topics figuring in the text and warranting somewhat fuller treatment for a greater understanding of the situations therein.
The bibliography is exhaustive in every respect except in one or two instances where all the required data was not readily available. The entry had to be omitted for the time being in that singular case. In another instance the date of the work is incomplete by one figure which was missing in the text we used many years ago.
These notes are not exhaustive. The idea was to make you briefed beforehand on some modes of presentation or expression that automatically formed while we were on these pages and in which they are couched. Any point not covered herein or anything not yet clear enough we will clarify directly with those readers if they would but get in touch.
As to the larger reality of the identities contained herein, readers who require further data are welcome for conversation with us at any time.