PDA

View Full Version : Free will vs Krishna's omnipotence?



prabhupad fan
13 August 2011, 06:03 AM
How are they both logically consistent?

Thanks.

Kismet
14 August 2011, 11:26 AM
How are they both logically consistent?

Thanks.

Well, the standard objection to free will in the West (as far as I can tell) is that it either a) contradicts Divine Foreknowledge, or b) contradicts God's Sovereignty (as the controller of all that is).

Transposing the discussion into talk about Krishna's omnipotence which is not a topic for classical theism (again, in the Western sense) may or may not be more problematic. I don't really know enough to tell. However, I think that ultimately the first problem of Divine Foreknowledge can be more easily defused than that of God's supreme sovereignty over nature.

Imagine God being omnipresent throughout the whole length and breadth of infinite time. God then does not have to "foreknow" our actions. He can simply see them as they are taking place moment by moment, God (Krishna) seeing all present moments at once as it were.

This in spite of the fact that a physical bare-bones description of time is bereft of what philosophers would call "indexical terms." In other words there is no "present" or "here" or "now." Kala is ever-shifting, going full-stop. How this can be conceived itself boggles the mind into submission.

Pranam.

AnrBjotk
14 August 2011, 11:29 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but from a pantheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) standpoint the two are not mutually exclusive. Is it not possible that man has a free will destined by Krishna?

AB

yajvan
14 August 2011, 01:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Let's look to what kṛṣṇa says in the bhāgavad gītā (chapter 2, 47th śloka)
karmaṇi evādhikāras te
mā phalesu kadācana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr
mā te saṅgo'stv akarmaṇi

This says, you certainly (eva) have ādhikāra (claim , right , privilege, control) of your (te or ti) karmaṇi (of your actions) , but never or not (mā) of its fruits (phalesu) .

Just so there is no confusion - 'but never or not (mā) of its fruits (phalesu)' clearly points that the individual cannot control the outcome. You do not have a choice on the level of success or failure that may result from that action that is initiated.


Lets take an example:
Everything on this earth is born of an action. Every thing we do.
You stand up and you walk from point A to point B. That is an action and you arrive at point B. You have just achieved the fruit of your action. You open your eyes ( an action) and you perceive the world ( the fruit of your action). If you perform an action there is a re-action to it. Since you had an intention to do something, you then by the mechanics of this Universe get the reaction to it. That is the fruit. Actions you choose comes with reactions or results, the fruit.

What you cannot choose ( says Kṛṣṇa) is the quality of your result. We have talked of this before and do not have a better example then this - baseball.
My intent, my choice my ādhikāra (claim , right , privilege, control) of actions karmaṇi, to hit the ball is mine. Yet I do not get to choose the level of results that will occur. I wish to hit a home run, but that remains uncertain and outside my control.

But why so ? Chapter 2, 47th śloka, unfathomable is the course of action, says Kṛṣṇa. There are mutiple influences to one's actions: One's past, other's participating in the influence, the universe participating in the influence.

praṇām

Jainarayan
14 August 2011, 02:05 PM
I sometimes think people have a misunderstanding of what omnipotence is. Omnipotence is the power to do anything. It is not control of another being unless the omnipotent being wants to control the other being.

Clearly Krishna does not want to control anyone. But that does not mean He cannot. His omnipotence allows Him to do anything and know everything past, present and future, but He does not control it, like a puppeteer working a marionette. We have free will to do anything we want. Though He knows our intentions and the outcome of our actions, He does not stop us nor does He push us into doing anything.

This is something that, good or bad, I learned in my western upbringing and I believe: God has a "hands-off" approach, though He knows what will happen. Think of it as a spectator at a football game who knows how the game will end. And let's say the spectator can control the outcome of the game, but he doesn't. I think of God as the spectator who knows all, could control it, but doesn't. There's our free will and God's omnipotence. At least it works for me.

Jainarayan
14 August 2011, 02:15 PM
Well, the standard objection to free will in the West (as far as I can tell) is that it either a) contradicts Divine Foreknowledge, or b) contradicts God's Sovereignty (as the controller of all that is).

And therein lies the source of "it's God's will" or "God willing". It's forgetting what people learned in Sunday School: God gave Man free will, then tested Man knowing Man would fail the test. The western God is a control freak, and too many people carry that concept with them to their graves.

Why did God test Man, knowing Man would fail? Because there's the perverted western concept of God being a control freak. People pay lip service to the idea of free will, but in the western mind, sure you can do as you please, but God knows you're going to sin and He's going to roast you after you die. That's more than a little twisted.

sunyata07
14 August 2011, 03:26 PM
Namaste,

How does God's omnipotence fit in with the free-will we have to make choices vs. determined reactions of the universe? Is He above both these (i.e. action and reaction), or is actually apart of the freewill? Do we delude ourselves into thinking we have free will, when in fact it is He doing the moving, choosing, acting - if we remember that not a single blade of grass moves without Krishna's will? Surely the same can and must be said of our actions.

So are we really free to choose, or has it been established from the start according to God's will? I have always been a little confused about the free will vs. determinism argument in theology.

Om namah Shivaya

proudhindu
15 August 2011, 02:43 AM
How are they both logically consistent?

Thanks.

They is no inconsistency because The Jivas are allowed to choose their Path.

If the omnipotent(God) chooses your(I.e. the individual's) destiny then there is no free will.

There is a brief explanation at http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=68134&postcount=8

Adhvagat
15 August 2011, 05:02 AM
The omnipotency of God is related to God being the base of it all.

Don't you think God is the very base for every cell and particle of your body (our machinery for actions in this world)? Yet, he gives us freedom to realize him through our own natural path.

We need to let go of this partial and exclusivist concept of God that is present on Abrahamic traditions. Most of the Bible words on God's control are neutral and this poor understanding comes mostly from Christianity's own lack of philosophical clarity.

prabhupad fan
15 August 2011, 07:00 AM
Imagine God being omnipresent throughout the whole length and breadth of infinite time. God then does not have to "foreknow" our actions. He can simply see them as they are taking place moment by moment, God (Krishna) seeing all present moments at once as it were.

The mechanism by which he knows the future is irrelevant. It is fact that right now I'm somehow making free decisions in forward-moving linear time.


What you cannot choose ( says Kṛṣṇa) is the quality of your result

I'm not discussing the results of my actions, only the genesis of action. Thanks for the response, but please use less font/sizes/colors, it was difficult to quote you.



His omnipotence allows Him to do anything and know everything past, present and future, but He does not control it, like a puppeteer working a marionette. We have free will to do anything we want. Though He knows our intentions and the outcome of our actions, He does not stop us nor does He push us into doing anything.


I never said he controls our actions. I'm saying if he knows perfectly what I will do, then I cannot do otherwise (unless Krishna is wrong), hence no free will.

An example: if I choose between orange juice or apple juice, and Krishna knows I'll choose orange, then I can never choose apple juice here. There is no free choice b/c before I consciously make the decision (i.e experience the illusion of freewill), it is already known what decision I will make. We're like predictable, falling dominoes, a third person may not control the dominoes but he knows where they will land and the dominoes have no choice over that.

Kismet
16 August 2011, 02:08 AM
The mechanism by which he knows the future is irrelevant. It is fact that right now I'm somehow making free decisions in forward-moving linear time.


Well, that's the sort of thing with this view held by folks like Boethius and Aquinas. The mechanism for knowing is important, because, depending on whether God knows or foreknows, this has bearing on the issue of whether we are free.

For instance, if I fore-knew you would be at so-and-so place at five o'clock tomorrow than it would be a fact you couldn't deviate from.

But, let's say that right now you were standing in front of me and this very instant pulled out a revolver from your side-pocket. In that moment I "know" you have a gun; I didn't foreknow it. But, what's more, if you hadn't pulled it out, than my knowing that wouldn't have any bearing on your free volition, since you could have pulled out a gun. So in both cases, even though I know the fact, you are free.

So, I'm sure you can argue with this line of thought - but at least it offers something of a solution - or at least a beginning to one - taking into account a truly omnipresent and omniscient God.

prabhupad fan
16 August 2011, 06:58 AM
But, let's say that right now you were standing in front of me and this very instant pulled out a revolver from your side-pocket. In that moment I "know" you have a gun; I didn't foreknow it. But, what's more, if you hadn't pulled it out, than my knowing that wouldn't have any bearing on your free volition, since you could have pulled out a gun. So in both cases, even though I know the fact, you are free.


Can you clarify this thought/example.

Are you saying Krishna knows that I have gun in my pocket, but it's up to me to fire it? I'm not sure if that's consistent with what Krishna says, he explicitly says he knows "past, present and future." Not to mention that me pulling out a gun has enormous effect on the future. If I shoot the guy, it completely alters the future from when I don't shoot the guy.

smaranam
16 August 2011, 10:43 AM
An example: if I choose between orange juice or apple juice, and Krishna knows I'll choose orange, then I can never choose apple juice here.

Hare KrushNa

It is a gigantic board game KrushNa is playing with the jivas. Who rolls the die ? Jiva. What's on the die ? the parameters of prakruti as listed below.
It is like arguing, oh the gravity knew you were going to play a one and not a six. KrushNa knew the wind direction, centrifugal force, your emotions, hand coordination, the energy you had in your body, your tossing and concentration skills...

But *you-the-jiva* particularly the embodied jiva, did not know.

KrushNa-the-engine/system/robot "knows" that you will choose orange juice. Such cellular information (sort-of like at the cell level) does not excite or interest KrushNa-the-Person.

KrushNa-the-Person leaves that on auto-pilot, letting the kArmic system take care of itself - as it is preprogrammed with prakruti-parameters of the three modes of material nature (sattva raja tama), past saMskArs, past actions, surroundings, culture, external influence from others, society etc. etc.

However, the jiva being non-omniscient, does not know yesterday what she will choose tomorrow unless it is merely a known fact that she always likes orange juice more than apple.

Suppose this jiva is really indecisive. Then she thinks back and forth, and finally settles on orange juice. KrushNa is not sitting there smiling - "told ya!" although He knows what she will choose.

So, the bottom-line is , the "knowledge" that the prakruti-system knew and KrushNa knew but did not care, is unknown to the jiva.

This seems a puzzle only because we are time-bound and KrushNa and His avyakta prakruti are not. So within the realm/dimension of time, the jiva thinks she has to choose. It is in the jiva's best interest to make the best educated choice, because if not now, it will be later that she will go back to KrushNa (GodHead).


praNAm

Adhvagat
16 August 2011, 11:33 AM
Since you are a Prabhupada Fan (A.C. Bhaktivedanta, I presume), do you have any sayings of Prabhupada regarding this matter?


The mechanism by which he knows the future is irrelevant. It is fact that right now I'm somehow making free decisions in forward-moving linear time.

An example: if I choose between orange juice or apple juice, and Krishna knows I'll choose orange, then I can never choose apple juice here. There is no free choice b/c before I consciously make the decision (i.e experience the illusion of freewill), it is already known what decision I will make. We're like predictable, falling dominoes, a third person may not control the dominoes but he knows where they will land and the dominoes have no choice over that.

I personally see mental existence as non-linear. It's continuous process of evolution that can drift back and forth with ease, specially regarding memories, experiences, etc. Even If I'm less or more mature, the original observer is just sitting still through all of this.

The sun may set and the night may come and we name it a new night and a new day, but it's still the same sun and the same moon. Existence as we know it is cyclical, not linear.

Therefore when we abandon linear concepts of space and time, here, there, past, future, God is just experimenting the whole of this constant transformation because he's the base of everything.

The future and the past can be known by him, because he transcends it. It's all the same. In these terms we need to start referring to creation as a lila or a dance. We are God's way of perceiving himself.

wundermonk
16 August 2011, 01:05 PM
I'm saying if he knows perfectly what I will do, then I cannot do otherwise (unless Krishna is wrong), hence no free will. if I choose between orange juice or apple juice, and Krishna knows I'll choose orange, then I can never choose apple juice here.

Yes, it is a paradox, isnt it? I see one of two ways out:

(1)If God knows the future accurately, free will is an illusion.

(2)If God's omniscience is defined as God knowing past and present, then we have free will.

I would like to think of God's omniscience as that of type (2).

How do YOU like to define omniscience?

sunyata07
16 August 2011, 02:41 PM
If we look at it from the Advaitic perspective, it's not actually all that confusing or logically inconsistent. As we know Krishna to be the complete, eternal and omnipotent Self residing in all, we know already that we cannot separate the individual jiva from God. If we consolidate jiva and Atman together, then there is no need to question which rules out in the end ultimately: God or man's free choice?. If one subscribes that God is bound by time then of course, this is another matter because then it calls into question His omniscience, which is inextricably bound to His omnipotence. Simply, as put by Pietro:

We are God's way of perceiving himself.

Om namah Shivaya

Kismet
16 August 2011, 03:29 PM
My own "pet theory" if you will on this point is that, in the end, God's free will is our own will. There is only one Will, and that is the will of God. The ego or individual I has no free will except by a "participation" in the greater freedom/free will of God.

It's like this: let's say you have a tricycle and a bunch of mouse-traps. God is all-knowledgeable and all-free, so he can maneuver with his big wheel through all the mousetraps and not fall into illusion. But, the back wheels are like us, and even though our freedom is as it were synchronous with God's, we continue to hit the mouse-traps, because, well, that's just where our choices take us. :rolleyes:

http://www.cm.iparenting.com/fc/editor_files/images/1042/ipgraphics/simplepleasures/00075403.jpg

TatTvamAsi
16 August 2011, 05:46 PM
How are they both logically consistent?

Thanks.

The only way this can be "logically" (which still implies reasoning through an imperfect mechanism; the mind) reconciled is that free-will in and of itself is illusory; it only exists as long as the ahaMkArA (ego) exists.

Sri Ramana Maharishi has stated this quite clearly; that as long as one is stuck in samsArA (cycle of birth and death), one has free-will but once one becomes enlightened (attains muktI), one realizes there is no such thing as "free-will".

Although that statement seems contradictory, if you think of it in terms of Advaita, it makes perfect sense. How can something (us) that is a part of something else (Brahman), be independent of that (Tat)? It is the illusion or MAyA of independence that gives rise to the notion of "free-will", which itself arises from the false ahaMkArA (ego).

proudhindu
16 August 2011, 06:05 PM
This is my understanding:

The theory of Karma has to be taken in to account while explaining the future of a individual.

For an individual his Accumulated karma(Fate) decides certain broad parameters regarding what he/she will be; while leaving certain things Open to results of his own future karma (actions).

Since it is God who setup the Karmic system he leaves certain things Open meaning NOT everything is predetermined.

Since NOT everything is predetermined the omniscience of God doesn't apply here, since he chose NOT to know it or FIX it.

Also there are certain requirements in crossing the Karmic barrier and reach the destination(BG 7.28).

yajvan
16 August 2011, 06:46 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



This is my understanding:
Since NOT everything is predetermined the omniscience of God doesn't apply here, since he chose NOT to know it or FIX it.


I find this interesting, yet impossible for me to grasp. Not to know is a deficiency and hence not an option. Not even a blade of grass moves without His knowing.

So then what would be a plausible condition for this whole universe to unfold and all one's actions to fit in with a level of free selection ?

I will leave my opinons for another post.

praṇām

proudhindu
16 August 2011, 07:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
Not to know is a deficiency and hence not an option.

Unable to Know is a deficiency.

Choosing NOT to Fix the fate of an individual is not a deficiency.




Not even a blade of grass moves without His knowing.


So then what would be a plausible condition for this whole universe to unfold and all one's actions to fit in with a level of free selection ?

I am talking regarding future of Individuals and not about the General picture of Universe.

If God Knows about your Fate/future it necessarily means he predetermined it; thus there will be no free will.

Lord Krishna spoke at length to Arjuna explaining the intricacies of karma and at the End (Bg 18:63) told him to deliberate on what he taught and do as he(Arjuna) wish .The Option was kept Open for Arjuna.

yajvan
16 August 2011, 07:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I am talking regarding future of Individuals and not about the General picture of Universe.


Please inform me of the difference...
The universe is composed of 36 tattva ( in the sāṁkhya school they suggest 25); we are composed of the same - where is the difference ?
The univese does not stand still for one moment. We do not stand still for one moment . Even in the deepest sleep, our blood is moving, heart is pumping, we move around the sun and never in the same place twice in our life-times.

praṇām

proudhindu
16 August 2011, 07:59 PM
I don't have familiarity with Sankya or other such treatises.

Understanding the Universe, i think, is quite a tall order for me.

yajvan
16 August 2011, 08:32 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



I don't have familiarity with Sankya or other such treatises.

Understanding the Universe, i think, is quite a tall order for me.


Yes, I must agree it is a life long understanding until the light (prakāśa¹) dawns. But what then happens? One comes to the realization the the whole universe is an extention of one's Self.
It is like this before this awakening, yet after, one sees the relationship with everything else. It is not a notion or an idea say the wise, but a direct personal experience. This is why I suggested we are no different then the Universe, as it is the extention of one's own Being.

The implications are delightful and astounding.

praṇām


words
prakāśa - a name for brahman; clearness , brightness , splendour , lustre , light

proudhindu
17 August 2011, 04:32 AM
One comes to the realization the the whole universe is an extention of one's Self.


What the heck is that?.Whose self ?.

prabhupad fan
17 August 2011, 05:55 AM
KrushNa-the-engine/system/robot "knows" that you will choose orange juice.
...
However, the jiva being non-omniscient, does not know yesterday what she will choose tomorrow unless it is merely a known fact that she always likes orange juice more than apple.

Suppose this jiva is really indecisive. Then she thinks back and forth, and finally settles on orange juice. KrushNa is not sitting there smiling - "told ya!" although He knows what she will choose.


Then according to you, we have no free will then. We're no different than falling dominoes if our actions can be perfectly predicted. Everything is cause and effect.

For free will to exist, i.e make free decisions, there must exist uncertainty in the future, but the fact that the future is perfectly known, implies there is no uncertainty.



Since you are a Prabhupada Fan (A.C. Bhaktivedanta, I presume), do you have any sayings of Prabhupada regarding this matter?

I know what he said about free will, but I encourage people ITT to use their your own thought/logic, not simply believe what they have been told. For that reason I won't bring up what he said until later. But I will say some people ITT are suggesting things opposite of what he said.




Existence as we know it is cyclical, not linear..

"As we know"? This is merely belief. As we know, time is linear, at least in this world.


Yes, it is a paradox, isnt it? I see one of two ways out:

(1)If God knows the future accurately, free will is an illusion.

(2)If God's omniscience is defined as God knowing past and present, then we have free will.

I would like to think of God's omniscience as that of type (2).

How do YOU like to define omniscience?

While I like and follow Hare Krishna philosophy and teachings, I don't hold any beliefs, only logical conclusions ("if this, then that") and empirical findings. My logical conclusion is consistent with that you said, it's either one or the other.

Though we can say that if there exists a spiritual world, and linear time only exists in this material world, then this can be reconciled if everything is simultaneous and instantaneous in the spiritual world. But before people start subscribing to this idea, this thought has to be further clarified and explained.


My own "pet theory" if you will on this point is that, in the end, God's free will is our own will. There is only one Will, and that is the will of God. The ego or individual I has no free will except by a "participation" in the greater freedom/free will of God.

Two things: 1) This theory first has to define how time interacts with God. In our universe, action is impossible without time. So if an omniscient God interacts with time the same way we do, then he also has no free will. 2) If we have no free will, then God is not just: some have poor lives because karma, but they have no free will over their decisions.




Sri Ramana Maharishi has stated this quite clearly; that as long as one is stuck in samsArA (cycle of birth and death), one has free-will but once one becomes enlightened (attains muktI), one realizes there is no such thing as "free-will".

Although that statement seems contradictory, if you think of it in terms of Advaita, it makes perfect sense. How can something (us) that is a part of something else (Brahman), be independent of that (Tat)? It is the illusion or MAyA of independence that gives rise to the notion of "free-will", which itself arises from the false ahaMkArA (ego).

How does someone knowing about free will change whether they have free will or not?



If God Knows about your Fate/future it necessarily means he predetermined it; thus there will be no free will.

Determinism and predeterminism are two different things. Predeterminism means he chose the future, determinism just means you can perfectly predict the future.



Lord Krishna spoke at length to Arjuna explaining the intricacies of karma and at the End (Bg 18:63) told him to deliberate on what he taught and do as he(Arjuna) wish .The Option was kept Open for Arjuna.

Now we're getting somewhere, why did Krishna tell Arjuna to fight if we was going to fight anyway according to Krishna's omniscience at a prior time? It makes no sense.

And if Krishna's intervention was necessary for Arjuna to fight, then Krishna has no free will. In order for his omniscience to be perfect, he was forced to talk to Arjuna.

yajvan
18 August 2011, 01:12 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I wrote,

One comes to the realization the the whole universe is an extention of one's Self.

proudhindu writes,

What the heck is that?.Whose self ?.
This is no less then the wisdom of the upaniṣad-s. We are told there is only One Self at the Universal level. One comes to this conclusion from direct personal experience.
This ~Self~ is another way of calling out Pure Awareness. Some say ' all this is That' . That = Pure Awareness, and the wise have called this Universal Self. I will be happy to point you to the upaniṣad-s that give us this wisdom if there is interest. The one top of mind is the chāndogya Upaniṣad; another is Vivekacūḍāmaṇi of Śaṅkarācārya Bhagavatpāda. Hope this helps.


praṇām

proudhindu
18 August 2011, 05:30 AM
Now we're getting somewhere, why did Krishna tell Arjuna to fight if we was going to fight anyway according to Krishna's omniscience at a prior time? It makes no sense.

Sri Krishna says He(Arjuna) is going to fight anyway because his Kshatriya gunas will implore him to fight once the battle starts even though he is reluctant at the outset.It is dharmic if he(Arjuna) fights adhering to his Duty(Dharma) and not by surrendering to His passion(Gunas) to fight.

That is what Karma Yoga is all about(As explained in Gita).


And if Krishna's intervention was necessary for Arjuna to fight, then Krishna has no free will. In order for his omniscience to be perfect, he was forced to talk to Arjuna.

Sri Krishna is not bound by anything(In his own words) and hence this logic of attributing something to him doesn't arise .Krishna intervened to tell Arjuna to adhere to his dharma as i mentioned above.


Determinism and predeterminism are two different things. Predeterminism means he chose the future, determinism just means you can perfectly predict the future.

Predeterminism means he chose the future?.

Who chose the future?.Whom you are referring to?.The Jiva(ex: Arjuna) or the Paramatma?.

proudhindu
18 August 2011, 05:35 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I wrote,


proudhindu writes,

This is no less then the wisdom of the upaniṣad-s. We are told there is only One Self at the Universal level. One comes to this conclusion from direct personal experience.
This ~Self~ is another way of calling out Pure Awareness. Some say ' all this is That' . That = Pure Awareness, and the wise have called this Universal Self. I will be happy to point you to the upaniṣad-s that give us this wisdom if there is interest. The one top of mind is the chāndogya Upaniṣad; another is Vivekacūḍāmaṇi of Śaṅkarācārya Bhagavatpāda. Hope this helps.


praṇām

I thought the Upanishads tell Atman to Identify with Paramatma.The concept that Atman and Paramatman are one and the same makes the karma theory redundant.Anyhow that will be for another thread and i particularly don't wish to discuss with somebody who edits my posts without informing me.

smaranam
18 August 2011, 06:58 AM
Then according to you, we have no free will then. We're no different than falling dominoes if our actions can be perfectly predicted. Everything is cause and effect.

For free will to exist, i.e make free decisions, there must exist uncertainty in the future, but the fact that the future is perfectly known, implies there is no uncertainty.

Hare KrushNa

It is like a graph with a critical path. Since the jiva (particularly the embodied jiva) does not have a bird's-eye-view of the graph, she does have to choose from her side. KrushNa "knowing" what she will choose because HE knows His prakruti (but not actively considering it - system left on auto), is of no consequence to the fact that jiva has to choose.

It is still in the jiva's best interests to make an educated and wise choice to make her journey back to KrushNa smooth and as pleasant as possible. Whether she stays on the critical path or not.

The choosing becomes minimal to the point of nil when she is a pure devotee serving KrushNa in Golok/VaikuNtha. It is then that the jiva's actions are completely aligned with KrushNa's Will. They dance in step in synch. TadAtmik bhAv. Your happiness is my happiness, your viraha is my viraha, your lila-problem is my lila-problem.
So, although by nature she is marginal potency on the shore of material and spiritual, in that realm she is safe and secure on the hlAdini side (spiritual potency).

Often KrushNa would say to devotees , "I already know what you are going to say but would like to hear it from you " (He does not say 'horse's mouth' )

praNAm

Adhvagat
18 August 2011, 07:20 AM
"As we know"? This is merely belief. As we know, time is linear, at least in this world.

No, this is not merely belief and I explained with details this stance with more than one line of thought.

I'll be happy to continue discussion if you'd provide more than one line of thought on why time is linear.

If you want to encourage people to think by themselves, then start by setting an example.

All that you've been doing is disagreeing and making very short counter-answers with disagreement, this is a very suspicious stance and in fact you look like a troll, specially being rude to other members with dry sarcastic posts about how they should format their posts.

I see no problem in promoting people to think, but you can't call an opinion based on a line of thought a simple "belief", this way you're just being unreasonable and in fact, since you presented very little of your stance, one would be more inclined to think that you would be the one oriented with simple non-thought out belief. It's also nice to be clear about your intentions, specially in a forum so attacked by trolls and haters (abrahamists, muslims) like this one.

proudhindu
18 August 2011, 08:35 AM
No, this is not merely belief and I explained with details this stance with more than one line of thought.

I'll be happy to continue discussion if you'd provide more than one line of thought on why time is linear.

If you want to encourage people to think by themselves, then start by setting an example.

All that you've been doing is disagreeing and making very short counter-answers with disagreement, this is a very suspicious stance and in fact you look like a troll, specially being rude to other members with dry sarcastic posts about how they should format their posts.

I see no problem in promoting people to think, but you can't call an opinion based on a line of thought a simple "belief", this way you're just being unreasonable and in fact, since you presented very little of your stance, one would be more inclined to think that you would be the one oriented with simple non-thought out belief. It's also nice to be clear about your intentions, specially in a forum so attacked by trolls and haters (abrahamists, muslims) like this one.


The trolling is becoming apparent slowly.He is shifting the discussion regarding Free will of Jivas to bizarre claims about Free will of Sri Krishna.

Moonlight
22 December 2011, 01:53 PM
I was just Reading an artical about the bible god and free will and I had a brainwave. The logic of the bible god makes no sence at all since he knows who will fail and who will pass etc. Now with Krishna, he comes when the earth needs to be balenced. 
He gives us a guide on how to get to him and in our own time we will one day in many live times will follow the guide and be with him. That to me is free will even if he is Omniscience, he is willing to wait forever for us to reach him ^.^ 

So in this sence we have free will, we can ither follow our sences and come back on earth million times or follow the source and be with spiritual beings who have reached the supreme goal.
We have 2 realitys (spiritual and phyical) and it's our free will to choose which one we want.