The sense only celestial bodies seem to have not the human beings

Do you think – to doubt whether what is written in our holy books is sacrosanct, is sacrilegious?

Take the case of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who had discovered that though everybody thought that Sun must be revolving around the earth, it was not so. It is the other way around. It is the earth that revolves around the Sun.

Though it is true that “rising of the sun” and the “going down thereof” referred to in the Psalms 50:1 refer to the “morning time” and the “evening time” only, would you deny that if such discovery about the earth would not have been considered to have been “sacrilegious” by the Pope, he would not have been put by him on trial for publishing a book in 1632, in which he stated that the Earth moved around the Sun, by the Inquisition in Rome where he was found suspect of heresy and was forced to say that all of his findings were wrong?

He was not only asked to say that all of his findings were wrong, but he was also first imprisoned and, later, confined to his house near Florence.

We really feel sorry that during the last ten years of his life, the Church should have monitored his travel and communications with others, and his writings should have been censored and placed in the Index of Prohibited Books.

It is so tragic that all of us are fully prepared to forget that Galileo remained under house arrest, despite many medical problems and a deteriorating state of health, until his death in 1642 and the Church had not accepted that Galileo could have been right till 1983.

Did it not pass on a message across the entire scientific community that the Church wanted it to disengage itself from discovering anything that contravened the Bible?

Though the Pope may have been under a wrong impression that it should have been sacrilegious, a question arises – if it was not sacrilegious, should an astrologer of his calibre have been ill-treated by the Church in such a callous manner?

And if Pope was right – should he not have also declared that it was also false to believe that Jesus should have been the “Son of the God”, as is so clearly mentioned in the Bible in the following words?

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and the only Son.” – John 3:17-19.    

If he should have been the Son of God, as the Bible purports to ingrain in our mind don’t you think he should have also thought of enlightening the world how his father should have created the Universe?

Most probably even Krishna, who claimed that he should have been an incarnation of God by the Hindus, should have known how so many galaxies should have come into existence.

As we know, Neptune and Uranus had not been yet discovered during his lifetime.

But if he should have been an incarnation of God, don’t you think he should have known whether such planets also exist?

If you asked any Hindu about any such thing, he would tell you even to think what an incarnation of God should have known or should not have known is heinous.

But do you think he would have been able to have answered if he should have been asked whether he knew anything about the existence of such planets?

Or even Jesus would have been able to have answered such a question?

If you think they should not have been able to have answered such questions, does it not imply that neither Krishna should have been an incarnation of God nor Jesus should have been the Son of God?

Does it not look funny that we think, they should have known about religious things only?   

So a question arises what should have impressed the Hindus that it should have got ingrained in their mind that he should have been an incarnation of God?

What should have ingrained in the minds of Hindus that Krishna should have been an incarnation of God?

Since Arjuna did not want to fight with his close relatives, there was no other way how else Krishna could have eluded him to give up his reluctance to fight except to have projected himself as a God by hypnotising him so that he thought that he was none else but a “God-incarnate”– the Creator of the Universe.

Just imagine – would Arjuna have agreed to fight had he not brainwashed him by giving him such a strong sermon as he is believed to have given him in the form of what we know as “Shrimat Bhagwad Gita”?

There is every possibility that people must have started believing that he really meant that he was an incarnation of God since he had told Arjuna so about himself, instead of realizing that he had to tell so, perforce, just to bring Arjuna around to change his stance.  

So a question arises what may be the truth – if neither Jesus could have possibly been the Son of God nor Krishna could have been an incarnation of God?

It is not that we don’t know what may be the truth about God.

God is known as “Parmatma” in Hindi, which translates into “Supreme Soul” in English.

Though we know that our soul resides in our body as long as we stay alive and it takes a snapshot of our memory and escapes into the blue the same way as the water of the oceans escapes into the sky in its vaporous form.

It looks as though the souls disappear.

The fact since they get reincarnated – we know they do not lose their identity. They reinstall the snapshot they would have taken when they should have left us, back into our memory when we get reborn.

Though it is doubtful whether He may be “Omnipotent” [1], the following concept, which is known as “Vedantic Concept”, resounds pretty well according to which He is supposed to be:

• “Swayambhoo” (One, who could have born all by Himself),
•  “Anadi” (One, whose life is unending),
• “Sarvavid” (One, who knows everything about everything) as well as “All-Pervading”.

So all that has to be done is – to look for something that may be “Swayambhoo”, may be “Anadi”, may be “Sarvavid”, as well as “All-Pervading”.

If we look back at the fact that all celestial bodies revolve at a speed which keeps them in complete equilibrium unsupported on any firmament – we may have to give such capability also some name of its own before we set out in search of God.

It is not intelligence.

It is not consciousness.

Nor is it intuitiveness though it is a type of sense all celestial bodies seem to have.

It is a unique type only the celestial bodies seem to have – not human beings.

Celestial bodies don’t have intelligence. Nor do they have consciousness and intuitiveness as we have, but they, very much, seem to have this fourth variety of sense.

Maybe, we have only three types of senses – intelligence, consciousness and intuitiveness but God may be having all the four types of senses.

     

______________

[1] Subhash Chandra Sawhney – “Nobody is omnipotent – not even God” at  TheMindsJournal.com