586. At this point one might object that the structure of the Universe is indeed constituted like the first description for it is expressing everything which is visible of the Universe from the general viewpoint of terrestrial people. Seen from this viewpoint living beings seem very far from having "equality". Here is found all kinds of privilege, rejection and the consequent forms of "injustice" and "martyrdom".
      But can it be correct that the Universe is not constructed or manifested according to the most perfect and logical plan? Might it not be that there is something wrong with terrestrial people's viewpoint? In any case one has to acknowledge that it only refers to a very small fragment of the real structural plan of the Universe, although an overall solution is believed to be found in the theory of the "forgiveness of sins". But we have already noted in the preceding text that although it has been of great benefit in the form of the "Sacrament" for promoting "divine suggestion" at a time when terrestrial man's mentality could not be guided by intelligence but only by feeling, that "solution" cannot, however, be cleared of being a somewhat densely clouded hindrance for the being who on the strength of intelligence or intellectual ability demands the real and absolute truth or revelation of life's mystery. The above theory of "forgiveness of sins" was only included in the Bible at a later date than many of the really staple truths, for example "Give unto them according to their deeds"; "Put up thy sword again into its place for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"; "Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap" among several others, and it has gradually become so thickly blurred that it completely obscures the basis for the justification of these important life-elements or their identity as truth. The theory of "forgiveness of sins" based on the story of Christ's Passion which endows people with "salvation", quite regardless of what "sins" they may have committed or what suffering and persecution they may have caused themselves and their fellow beings if they just "repent of their sins", makes the fulfilment or observance of those vital laws superfluous. There is thus a conflict between the theory of "forgiveness of sins" and the identity of these vital laws as truth. In this conflict the theory of the "forgiveness of sins" based on the story of Christ's Passion is in an extremely weak position. Alone its insistence that one should "repent" of one's sins is actually a demand for something which is not within one's will to perform. To "repent" is not an act of intelligence or will but an act of "feeling". To "repent" is not something which comes about because one wills it. It may just as well come about when one does not will it. It is a release of a conflict within our mental forces and takes place quite independently of our will.
      The only experience which can give rise to "repentance" is a realization that one has treated someone or something unjustly. If one cannot experience or acquire this realization then any quickening of "repentance" is absolutely impossible. But even the theory of forgiveness of sins is not actually based on giving enlightenment, which is expressed in the idea that "the ways of the Lord are inscrutable". It promises, on the other hand, "eternal damnation" for those who do not "repent" or "deplore" their sins before they die, thereby demanding the fulfilment of an action which is not controlled by the will. This means that the "road to heaven" or "salvation" depends on something the individual is as little able to control as he is able to control the present inborn brown or blue colouring of his eyes. This confirms his own transience or precariousness at the same time as it obscures or conceals that part of the constructional plan of the Universe which renders the aforesaid eternal truths incontestable, namely, that extraordinarily outstanding and important reality in Nature which we define as the "cycle".