The reason for the infinity of the cosmos.
The fundamental unit of the cosmos is space, which is nothing but very subtle energy. The cause or the generator of the space must not contain the space in it. In the case of mud and pot also, the cause may be in the effect but the effect is not in the cause. The mud may be in the pot but the pot is not in the crude lump of mud. Therefore, in the concept [creation from God] also, the space cannot be in its generator. Before the creation of the space, space cannot exsit anywhere and even in its cause. If space exists in the cause, the space is already created before its creation. This is one impossible thing. The other impossible point is that if the space is in the cause, it means that space created space. Therefore, at any cost, space should not exist in its generator. It means that the generator of the space does not have spatial dimensions. The space means spatial dimensions only. Length, width and height are the spatial dimensions and the multiple product of these three is the volume or space.
Your intelligence can never imagine anything, which does not have spatial dimensions. However much your intelligence may be sharp and however much your intelligence may take time, it cannot imagine anything, which does not have volume. Therefore, the generator of this space or cosmos is always unimaginable and exists beyond the cosmos. This is the reason for the everlasting space since its generator, which is the bank or boundary of this cosmos is never achieved by the intelligence. When intelligence itself fails, there is no possibility of the mind or senses to catch that unimaginable boundary of the cosmos, which is the unimaginable God Himself. Except this explanation, no other explanation gives satisfaction to expose the reason for the infinity of the cosmos.
God is not in the cosmos because God does not have spatial dimensions and He cannot exist in the cosmos, which has spatial dimensions. Even if you say that the unimaginable God exists in the cosmos, it is of no use, because such God is never detected even by the sharp intelligence. It is as good as saying that God is not in the cosmos. Therefore, the Veda says that nothing in this cosmos is God, because nothing contains God. If something contains God, you can say it as God. If a wire contains current, you can say such wire as current itself. Since no imaginable item contains unimaginable God, no imaginable item can be called as God (Neti neti… Veda).
Even in the case of human incarnation that contains God, God is still undetectable even by intelligence, even though you call It as God. The Veda (Tvadevanupravishat…) and the Gita (Manusheem tanum…) speak about the special entry of God in human incarnation for the purpose of preaching the spiritual knowledge to human beings with exceptional specific talent in clarifying the doubts. Such special entry cannot be the logical entry of cause into effect during modification like mud in the pot. Such special entry is based on the desire of God and not on the logical principle of entry of worldly cause into wordly effect.
Reason for infinity of universe
Let us analyse it. The boundary means one item on one side and the other different item on the other side. Boundary of the ocean means water on one side and the different soil on the other side. If on both sides water alone is present, it is no more the boundary of the ocean. If soil alone is present on both sides, it is no more the boundary of the soil of earth.
This universe or cosmic space (composed of matter and energy and also some drops of awareness in the forms of souls, embedded in bodies of matter and energy, called as human beings scattered here and there) is endless to the naked eye, to the sophisticated equipments like telescopes and even to the imagination of mind. Therefore, we say that the boundary of this cosmos is endless and unimaginable. Since the cosmos is imaginable in the core up to its edge, we can say that even the edge of the cosmos is imaginable, which is made of the same matter and energy (even the soul is a specific form of energy and hence, comes under the category of energy only). Therefore, the boundary is not unimaginable because there is no difference between the core and the boundary in their materials. The unimaginable boundary of the cosmos means that the point where it ends is not imaginable making the cosmos endless.
Therefore, you have to accept that the ending point of the cosmos is unimaginable, which naturally must be totally different from the imaginable cosmos (like soil differing from water). If the ending point is also imaginable, it is not the boundary of the edge of the cosmos. It means the cosmos is still continuous. If you say the ending point of the ocean is again water only, it means the sea is continuous and the boundary is not reached. Therefore, the essential criterion for the end point of the imaginable cosmos must not be imaginable again and must be unimaginable in which case only we can say that the imaginary cosmos ends there. You must say that the end point of ocean is not water, but, should say that it is the soil, which is totally different from the water. Hence, the boundary of the cosmos has imaginable nature on one side and the unimaginable nature on the other side like the boundary of ocean has water on one side and soil on the other side. Hence, you have to accept the existence of unimaginable nature on the other side of the boundary of this imaginable cosmos.
Infinity of Cosmos Due to Unimaginable God on Other Side
Any imaginable item must be finite as we see in the imaginable cosmos or world. Hence, the imaginable cosmos composed of imaginable and finite items must be also imaginable and finite. But, this imaginable cosmos is infinite since its end cannot be reached. On one hand, you say that the ocean is imaginable and finite and on the other hand you say its end is not reached! Both these arguments mutually contradict each other. The best solution in this critical juncture is that to agree the finite nature of the imaginable cosmos having imaginable end as the inherent concept of this imaginable cosmos. In such case, we must reach the edge of this cosmos. Yes. We agree that it should be reached basing on the inherent imaginable nature of cosmos. We say here that the end of the cosmos is not reached not because of violation of its inherent nature, but, because of the unimaginable nature of the other side, which cannot be reached.
I illustrate this with an example. You stand before Me at a point after 10 feet. As I travel towards you, suppose you also go back subsequently maintaining the same 10 feet distance between us. This 10 feet distance becomes endless not because of the absolute elongation of the distance, but, because of your relative backward movement. If the 10 feet is maintained constant due to the elongation of the gap between us, I do not reach the end of 10 feet due to the infinity of the gap itself due to its constant expansion. But, it is not so. I do not reach the end of the gap because you relatively move backward. If the gap really (absolutely) expands, it is the absolute characteristic of the gap. If you move backward, it is the absolute characteristic of your backward motion by which alone, the relative expansion of the gap appears as the absolute phenomenon of the gap.
Similarly, the universe does not constantly expand in the absolute sense. It appears as if it constantly expands because I cannot touch the other side of its edge being unimaginable in spite of My continuous journey. Therefore, the infinity of the gap or the infinity of the cosmos due to constant expansion is only a relative concept and not the absolute concept. The credit of infinity goes to the other unimaginable side (God) of the edge and not to this imaginable side (cosmos) of the edge. This means that the cosmos is infinite or the boundary of the cosmos is unimaginable due to the existence of unimaginable God on the other side of the edge. Beware, the above simile given by Me should be confined to the concepts presented by Me here, because extension to more concepts is controlled by the limitations like: both of us are imaginable items in the simile and in the compared concept one is imaginable and the other is unimaginable.
The fundamental unit of the cosmos is space, which is nothing but very subtle energy. The cause or the generator of the space must not contain the space in it. In the case of mud and pot also, the cause may be in the effect but the effect is not in the cause. The mud may be in the pot but the pot is not in the crude lump of mud. Therefore, in the concept [creation from God] also, the space cannot be in its generator. Before the creation of the space, space cannot exsit anywhere and even in its cause. If space exists in the cause, the space is already created before its creation. This is one impossible thing. The other impossible point is that if the space is in the cause, it means that space created space. Therefore, at any cost, space should not exist in its generator. It means that the generator of the space does not have spatial dimensions. The space means spatial dimensions only. Length, width and height are the spatial dimensions and the multiple product of these three is the volume or space.
Your intelligence can never imagine anything, which does not have spatial dimensions. However much your intelligence may be sharp and however much your intelligence may take time, it cannot imagine anything, which does not have volume. Therefore, the generator of this space or cosmos is always unimaginable and exists beyond the cosmos. This is the reason for the everlasting space since its generator, which is the bank or boundary of this cosmos is never achieved by the intelligence. When intelligence itself fails, there is no possibility of the mind or senses to catch that unimaginable boundary of the cosmos, which is the unimaginable God Himself. Except this explanation, no other explanation gives satisfaction to expose the reason for the infinity of the cosmos.
God is not in the cosmos because God does not have spatial dimensions and He cannot exist in the cosmos, which has spatial dimensions. Even if you say that the unimaginable God exists in the cosmos, it is of no use, because such God is never detected even by the sharp intelligence. It is as good as saying that God is not in the cosmos. Therefore, the Veda says that nothing in this cosmos is God, because nothing contains God. If something contains God, you can say it as God. If a wire contains current, you can say such wire as current itself. Since no imaginable item contains unimaginable God, no imaginable item can be called as God (Neti neti… Veda).
Even in the case of human incarnation that contains God, God is still undetectable even by intelligence, even though you call It as God. The Veda (Tvadevanupravishat…) and the Gita (Manusheem tanum…) speak about the special entry of God in human incarnation for the purpose of preaching the spiritual knowledge to human beings with exceptional specific talent in clarifying the doubts. Such special entry cannot be the logical entry of cause into effect during modification like mud in the pot. Such special entry is based on the desire of God and not on the logical principle of entry of worldly cause into wordly effect.
Reason for infinity of universe
Let us analyse it. The boundary means one item on one side and the other different item on the other side. Boundary of the ocean means water on one side and the different soil on the other side. If on both sides water alone is present, it is no more the boundary of the ocean. If soil alone is present on both sides, it is no more the boundary of the soil of earth.
This universe or cosmic space (composed of matter and energy and also some drops of awareness in the forms of souls, embedded in bodies of matter and energy, called as human beings scattered here and there) is endless to the naked eye, to the sophisticated equipments like telescopes and even to the imagination of mind. Therefore, we say that the boundary of this cosmos is endless and unimaginable. Since the cosmos is imaginable in the core up to its edge, we can say that even the edge of the cosmos is imaginable, which is made of the same matter and energy (even the soul is a specific form of energy and hence, comes under the category of energy only). Therefore, the boundary is not unimaginable because there is no difference between the core and the boundary in their materials. The unimaginable boundary of the cosmos means that the point where it ends is not imaginable making the cosmos endless.
Therefore, you have to accept that the ending point of the cosmos is unimaginable, which naturally must be totally different from the imaginable cosmos (like soil differing from water). If the ending point is also imaginable, it is not the boundary of the edge of the cosmos. It means the cosmos is still continuous. If you say the ending point of the ocean is again water only, it means the sea is continuous and the boundary is not reached. Therefore, the essential criterion for the end point of the imaginable cosmos must not be imaginable again and must be unimaginable in which case only we can say that the imaginary cosmos ends there. You must say that the end point of ocean is not water, but, should say that it is the soil, which is totally different from the water. Hence, the boundary of the cosmos has imaginable nature on one side and the unimaginable nature on the other side like the boundary of ocean has water on one side and soil on the other side. Hence, you have to accept the existence of unimaginable nature on the other side of the boundary of this imaginable cosmos.
Infinity of Cosmos Due to Unimaginable God on Other Side
Any imaginable item must be finite as we see in the imaginable cosmos or world. Hence, the imaginable cosmos composed of imaginable and finite items must be also imaginable and finite. But, this imaginable cosmos is infinite since its end cannot be reached. On one hand, you say that the ocean is imaginable and finite and on the other hand you say its end is not reached! Both these arguments mutually contradict each other. The best solution in this critical juncture is that to agree the finite nature of the imaginable cosmos having imaginable end as the inherent concept of this imaginable cosmos. In such case, we must reach the edge of this cosmos. Yes. We agree that it should be reached basing on the inherent imaginable nature of cosmos. We say here that the end of the cosmos is not reached not because of violation of its inherent nature, but, because of the unimaginable nature of the other side, which cannot be reached.
I illustrate this with an example. You stand before Me at a point after 10 feet. As I travel towards you, suppose you also go back subsequently maintaining the same 10 feet distance between us. This 10 feet distance becomes endless not because of the absolute elongation of the distance, but, because of your relative backward movement. If the 10 feet is maintained constant due to the elongation of the gap between us, I do not reach the end of 10 feet due to the infinity of the gap itself due to its constant expansion. But, it is not so. I do not reach the end of the gap because you relatively move backward. If the gap really (absolutely) expands, it is the absolute characteristic of the gap. If you move backward, it is the absolute characteristic of your backward motion by which alone, the relative expansion of the gap appears as the absolute phenomenon of the gap.
Similarly, the universe does not constantly expand in the absolute sense. It appears as if it constantly expands because I cannot touch the other side of its edge being unimaginable in spite of My continuous journey. Therefore, the infinity of the gap or the infinity of the cosmos due to constant expansion is only a relative concept and not the absolute concept. The credit of infinity goes to the other unimaginable side (God) of the edge and not to this imaginable side (cosmos) of the edge. This means that the cosmos is infinite or the boundary of the cosmos is unimaginable due to the existence of unimaginable God on the other side of the edge. Beware, the above simile given by Me should be confined to the concepts presented by Me here, because extension to more concepts is controlled by the limitations like: both of us are imaginable items in the simile and in the compared concept one is imaginable and the other is unimaginable.
