• MYTH: Through centuries mankind believes that God--The Supreme Soul is omnipresent.

• REALITY: Supreme Soul God Shiva now Himself reveals that He is not omnipresent.
  ( The omnipresence of God is just a feeling and not a Fact.)

• DISCUSSION: There are three universal beliefs about God—The Supreme soul.

• —that He is Omni-potent—(all-powerful).

• —that He is Omni-scient—(all-knowledgeable).

• —that He is Omni-present—(all-pervading).

The first 2 beliefs are true and hence non-controversial. But let us examine the third belief—that God is Omnipresent—whether it holds water or not.

Today, most religionists and fundamentalists say that God is omnipresent. They have committed the biggest blunder in making this assumption. This single misconception is responsible for leading almost the entire mankind astray from God and snapping their yoga with Him. The word 'yoga' means union, link or connection between two distinct entities namely, the soul and the Supreme Soul (God). Yoga would become meaningless if God were to be supposed as omnipresent.

Most people do consider that God is the Supreme Father and yet they simultaneously believe, strangely though, that He is present everywhere. Evidently, a Father does not pervade his children. Likewise, God who is the Father of all souls cannot be present in them. Those who consider the human souls to be ‘particles’ (‘ansh’) of God should ask themselves as to how an omnipresent entity could be divided into parts or particles because in that case where would be the space to separate the part from the whole? If it is argued that only a ‘sheath of ignorance’ separates the soul and the supreme Soul, then the question would arise as to whether God is present in that ‘sheath of ignorance’ also? If not, then how could He be omnipresent? God, like all souls, is a Sentient Being. If He were present in everything, then there would have been no such thing as insentient ‘Matter’. Even a dead body would have remained sentient. Again, if God were omnipresent, His qualities would also have been present everywhere. This however is not the case. God is the ocean the peace, love and bliss but these qualities are conspicuous by their absence in the world today. On the contrary, the five vices, namely sex-lust, anger, greed, attachment and ego are to be found everywhere in today’s world. Further, God is the Creator and Creator does not permeate his creation. He is always distinct from it. Similarly, God is called ‘Redeemer of the sinful’ but the presumption of his omnipresence would mean that God Himself is committing all the violence, wrongful acts and sins that we see in the world today.

If all human beings were different manifestations of God Himself, then how could God be considered beyond birth and death, pleasure and suffering? Who then would reform and redeem the world when it becomes utterly vicious and unrighteous? In that case how could God play the role of world Benefactor and Liberator? Many people believe that the Divine Fathers of different religions were the ‘Messengers’ of God. If God were omnipresent then from whom and from where would they have brought their messages? In prayers the devotees sing praises of God, as the Holiest of the holy and the Highest of the high and seek divine intellect, peace, health and happiness from him. If God were omnipresent, or were Himself manifest everywhere in various forms-- why should a person be diseased at all or why should he pray to God for relieving him of the pain and suffering or seek boons from Him? Does this not show that God has His existence different from individual souls?

MYTH: The Universe and our world was created by God.

REALITY: Supreme Soul Shiva now reveals that this Universe and our world are eternal --- it was never created and will never be destroyed -- but only transformed, when the world becomes old and vicious into a new viceless world.

DISCUSSION: Since we observe, in this world, that everything has a maker and every event has a cause, religionists conclude from this that the world also must have a maker or creator. They called him God. But their view is as difficult to be accepted as the view of the evolutionists, that life arose by chance. If it is to be argued that everything that exists must have a maker, then that Maker himself also would stand in need of another Maker, and this argument would apply to God also. So, if we say, for example, that A is the maker of B and that C is the maker of A and further, D is the maker of C, then we will go on ad infinitum. There would be no solution to the problem, for we would not be able to know the first maker, because, in the real sense of term, there would be no ‘first cause’, for every maker also should have a maker. If we say that God is the first cause or the original maker, without himself having been created by someone else, then we are certainly contradicting our own argument, namely that every entity must have a maker.

Let us suppose, for a moment the God created man as the bible says or, as any other religious book says. The laws of genetics and reproduction require both a man and a woman to procreate. How could have God created man singly without there being a woman and her man? Is there any other law which God used for the creation or procreation of the first man and woman? If there is such a law, then what is that law? If we do not know that law, then, how in the absence of that knowledge, do we postulate that God created man singly in the beginning. We ought to remember that Nature obeys no laws imposed from without and that things work according to their own innate qualities and potentialities. A seed develops into a sapling and a plant according to an inherent genetic code and potentiality and without any external conscient agent creating it. There are certain laws of Nature which explain its growth. Even so, all forces of nature, work according to certain eternal laws and all atoms have their specific nature or attributes, and they come into play with each other or act upon each other in accordance with these laws, which are known as laws of chemistry or physics or biochemistry or genetic, etc. Each thing has its own specific function which cannot be changed. Water cannot burn nor fire can cool nor anything be created out of nothing. So, man could not have been created except through his parents.

Again, we observe that in this world, certain individual things are the products of their respective creators, but the world as a whole may not be the final product, having a creator, but rather it may be assemblage of products which have their own respective creators in the form of natural forces and innate nature of each constituent interacting with the nature of others. And we do observe, that certain natural forces are at work which bring about the formation of winds, clouds, glaciers, ice-caps on the mountains, the rivers, the seasons, the wild growth, etc. etc, and it would be man’s ignorance if man says that God is the creator of all these, and such other things, constituting the world. All birds make their own nests and are born from eggs, laid by their parents; all plants grows out of the seeds of their respective species; all things in nature arise by inter-action of various natural forces and elements and the world is the name given to the whole constituting all these and such other beings and objects. In the realm of livings beings, there may be effected certain mutations of different species to produce new varieties; these may be brought about by knowledgeable human agents or sometimes, even by chance, but it would always be in accordance with the laws of nature, the laws of heredity and genetics. So it would be wrong to say that God is the creator of these species or their genes. So certain things in this world may be the creation or product of certain living beings or of certain forces of nature but the world as a whole may be considered only an assemblage of these and not a product of a Creator.

In fact, a strictly scientific and rational attitude does not see God as the creator of thunderbolt, rain, earth, earthquakes or man and women, for the scientific knowledge which we now have in the form of chemistry, physics, geology, astrology, biochemistry, botany, etc explain how these phenomena occur. People, in the remote past did not have this knowledge and this might have been one reason why they considered God as the creator of these. Moreover, no one ever has been able to prove that the hen was there first and the egg came later, or that the egg was there first and hen came later, for, as we observe, each of these is the cause of the other and both of them have been existing as far as our knowledge goes. Seeing this nature of existing things, the hypothesis of a first cause, which is itself uncaused, seems to be self-contradictory. God is the overlord of the world, but He is not the creator of the world in the sense, a pot-maker is a maker or an architect is a designer or a mason is a builder or an engineer is a creator.

If God be called the creator one would like to ask whether God created matter ie. various elements also? Did he create electrons, protons, neutrons, etc? If it be said that God created matter also, then a natural question would be out of what substance did God create matter? If one says that He created matter out of nothing, then it would be more easy to believe that God did not create, rather than to believe that He created all this enormous matter and the grand big world out of nothing. For the former seems to be more logical. And if it be said that He created matter or energy out of something than a natural question would be--who created that "something" out of which matter was created? Thus the question would remain unsolved in any of the two ways.

If it is said that matter existed previous to God's creative activity, than there is no reason to suppose that other objects did not exist but were created subsequently by God. If we consider that God did not create matter and that souls and matter are both eternal, than the world must be the result of interaction between various elements and of souls on matter and there is nothing for God to create in material form.

If we consider that God created the world – then what was the purpose for which God created the world. A thing is created for fulfilment of a purpose. If it be said that He created it with a purpose or a goal, then He cannot be said to be perfect, for a thing for the fulfilment of some goal or purpose naturally implies satisfaction of a want or realisation of a hitherto unrealized goal. But religious people who believe God to be the creator also say that God is perfect; both these beliefs are contradictory. Moreover, from the nature of this world, which is changing every moment and is imperfect, we cannot assume a perfect creator. Therefore, if God is perfect, it would be more logical to believe that He is not the creator of this world. If it is said that God has no purpose in creating the world, than it would be a slur to his fair name, for no wise person would do an act to make a thing without a purpose. If it is said that God has no self-interest or personal want, than one would ask why does he trouble himself with the thought of having creation. If it is no trouble for him but is rather a pleasure then it means that, before creating the world, he had less pleasure. Moreover, every wise person does a profitable, gainful or useful work; what profit, gain or benefit God has from this creation. If it is said that God created the world just for a mere diversion or a play, then he would seem to be like a child who plays for growth, or manifestation of certain instincts. But no one would say that God is child.

If one says that God creates the world out of compassion and for providing the souls with an environment for spiritual and moral development, then this argument is untenable and unsustainable, for one finds in this world, lot of sorrow, suffering and moral degradation. One cannot reconcile the heart-rending facts of this sorrowful world with a loving, compassionate and omnipotent God as its creator. If a perfect and kind God is the creator, He must have created another kind of world, full of righteousness and happiness and his act of creation would, in that context, have had a different meaning. Yes--creation for moral and spiritual upliftment and for happiness should be not gross but of different kind, for the mere creation of the stars and the seas or the earth and the elements does not bring about moral and spiritual development and happiness. So creation of this gross world with some protean magic or mysterious maya is not a benevolent God's creation who desires spiritual improvement of souls. A world which is imperfect must not be the creation of a perfect, kind, loving, almighty, knowledgeful and compassionate God; it must be the result of man's own Karma(action). It is not to deny that this world does having a meaning--its history does have certain lessons for man, but in the usual meaning of the term 'creation' in which sense an engineer is considered to be creator of a machine, this universe was not created by God.

In view of this, it would be only proper to think that the words—"Creator and Creation" have a different meaning than the one in which they are generally used. In philosophical sense, it means creation of a moral and enlightened man out of a sinner or a vicious person. It also means transformation of the world from 'tamsic' to 'sattwic'. God is creator of the world only in this sense. When the world becomes anarchic, He brings order to it. He gives a spiritual or a mortal birth to living beings by imparting true knowledge to them. He is Father of mankind in that spiritual sense.

It has been explained in the chapter of World Geneological Tree, that during the kalpa (world cycle), a human soul can take maximum 84 births all of which are in the human form. There are some people who hold the view that the human souls are reborn in animals species also. They believe that there are 84 lakhs[8.4 million] of different kinds of living species in the world out of which the human being is the superior-most. Their opinion is that the birth of a soul in non-human species takes place to make it suffer punishment for its bad deeds. There are two schools of thought in this regard. First, is the cyclical theory of rebirths in which it is believed that a soul has to pass through the full cycle of births in all the eighty four lakhs species before it can get a human body; secondly, there is the theory of limited inter-species transmigration according to which a man’s rebirth in a particular animal species depend upon the nature of his sins and after suffering due punishment in one or more animal forms, his soul is reborn as a human-being.

Let us first consider this cyclical theory of rebirth. The advocates of this concept believe that the birth of a soul in the form of a human being takes place only after completing a long cycle of rebirths in 84 lakhs species. According to them, birth as a human being is a rare opportunity provided by God to a soul for liberating itself from the world drama forever. It is in the shot-span of a human birth alone, that a soul can make effort and achieve liberation (mukti)--should a soul fail to do so, it will have to again pass through the ordeal of rebirths in all the non-human species before it gets the next human body and thus another chance to liberate itself from this world. For this reason the human birth is to be considered as very precious. A little scrutiny would show that this fantastic concept is grossly illogical. We are supposed to presume that a soul gets human body after taking one birth in each of the 84 lakhs species. Had it been the case, the population of all species in the world would have been equal viz. the monkeys and the mosquitoes, the cows and the crows, the snakes and the sparrows, the fish and the flies, etc, would have all been found to exist in equal numbers. But is it so? Besides, the transmigration of a soul, in that case, would be taking place automatically on its having completed one birth in each of the species. Then what about the principle the transmigration of a soul into ‘lower’ animal species taking place due to evil actions or sins. Does it not amount to throwing to the winds, the indisputable law of 'karma’ --how it is possible to explain the duration of 2 or 3 day’s existence of a soul in the human form i.e, infant mortality, after undergoing a long cycle of rebirth in 84 lakhs animal species. Again just one human birth after millions of births in other species would mean that this world is a source of great misery for the soul. But why should the creator, who is the most benevolent being, want it to be so. Moreover, who has done the counting to prove convincingly that the total number of species is exactly-eighty-four lakhs, neither more nor less-- the protagonists of this theory do not have satisfactory answers to these and similar other questions.

The second theory of limited inter-species transmigration is just a variation of the cyclical theory. It is an attempt, though futile to avoid the basic shortcoming of that theory by trying to establish a link between inter-species transmigration and the law of karma. Thus, merely on the basis of the preponderance of a particular vice in a man it has been stated that a human-being’s particular bad trait to this rebirth in a particular animal body. For instance, it is said that a sexy person would be reborn as a dog, while a greedy man take rebirth as a snake. A person having too many childern would become a pig in his next birth while a man who secretly overhears other people’s conversation would be reborn as a lizard and so on. But what is the proof that in all these cases, the rebirth of a human being does certainly take place in the animals forms so specified.

The fundamental question is--how can any of the human beings, who do not know anything about even their own past and future births, say definitely that a human-soul does take birth in animal forms also. On the contrary, the revelations of God Shiva that there is no inter-species transmigration, is supported by empirical evidence. There has not been a single case in which the subjects remembering his or her previous birth has stated that he or she was in any animal species. All cases verified so far confirm that the previous birth was in human form only. It may be added here that astrologers while referring to the previous and the next birth of a person always relate it to the human form only.

The fact is that those who believe in interspecies transmigration do not fully understand the nature of the soul. Human sanskars are basically different from animals sanskars. Man is a rational being, whereas animals are guided by their instinct. For instance, birds and insects will always make their nest and hives of the same pattern as they are guided instinct only. Animals cannot therefore, pursue an intellectual pattern of life as human being can do. Further, man can be much more addicted to sex-lust, anger, violence etc., than any animal. So the souls that are in human bodies are in a class by itself--if human-souls were to get an an animal body, an anomalous situation would arise. Man’s intellectual traits [sankars] cannot be expressed through an animal body. Man was never a beast, nor will he ever become abeast, but he has become worse than a beast in the present time.

Animals also experience pain as well as happiness in their own respective species. If the animal species were meant only as a vehicle for punishment of the human-soul, then the animals should always have been found to be suffering. But it is not so. Some animals are found to be much happier than many human beings. Wealthy people keep their pets in great comfort. Rich man’s dogs move about in cars and have milk and bread whereas millions of poor people are starving. Human-beings are engaged as servants to look-after race horses and there are doctors also to take care of their health. But there are men who do not get any milk or medicine. Furthermore, if human souls were to be reborn as animals then with the growth of sins and sinful living, animals population would have increased and that of human fallen drastically. In that case, in kaliyuga, the present epoch, the world would have been a veritable zoo. But in reality, human population is rapidily increasing and not decreasing. Thus, the view that for undergoing punishment the soul changes its species in it's various lives is utterly wrong. The operation of the laws of karma does not demand transmigration into other species. Suffering and enjoyment can be experienced in the same species. If human being were to be reborn as animals as punishment for their misdeeds, there should be no suffering in human form. People are born rich or poor, healthy or weak, normal or abnormal, depending upon their past deeds. Some have congenital defects and some lose their limbs during their life time. So birth, death and other events of life occur in accordance with the laws of karma.

It may be asked that if there were no inter-species transmigration, then what was the need for animal species----this needs to be explained. Even for performing an ordinary drama we require a stage, various sets and a number of actors etc.---this world is also a drama in which the earth serve as a stage [called ‘karm-kshetra’] the oceans, mountains, rivers, different types if vegetation, etc., not only add loveliness and scenic splendour to it, but serve to regulate its system because on these depend the variety of climatic conditions etc. Similarly, numerous animals, birds, insects etc., also have their own respective functions to perform and maintain nature’s ecological balance, besides adding variety to this grand drama of life on this earth. Thus in its own way, every-body and everything has its own usefulness and part to play in this cosmic world drama.

The Absolute truth can be revealed by Supreme Soul God Himself--for He and the world exist eternally, with the difference that the world of Matter is ephemeral and ever-changing whereas He exists in his unchanging nature eternally. He says that life also is uncreated and eternal--only life reproduces life. He has not created any living forms. He only guides man when he forgets his real identity and loses his morals and thus brings about an order of righteousness, happiness and peace. In this eternal World Cycle—the duration of which is 5000 years—there are 3 imperishable and eternal entities—God, Souls and Matter and the world Drama is the interaction of these three entities. From Golden Age to Iron Age is the Cycle of World History. At the end of every Iron Age, God descends again to put back the world again on the right track. He imparts Godly knowledge and teaches spiritual discipline, to transform human beings. This is the Absolute truth. ( TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION )--om shanti.

	Advance Godly knowledge--(For BKs only) Difference between Philosophy and Truth
	Soul-body---Supreme Soul---Divine acts of God---World Cycle (Swastika) World Tree (Kalpa Tree)---Science & Spirituality---Law of Karma Renunciation &Worship---Rajyoga Meditation
	Misconceptions-- in Science--in Religion--in Geography--in History--in Medicine The Entropy Law: The current state and the future of the world Revelations from the Holy Bible----vis-a-vis----Godly knowledge Queries & Comments ------------------Home