alwayslearning

What none of you seem to see, from your perspective of insecurity, is that I am not challenging your religion. I am not challening any devotee, non-devotee nor God Himself. I am simply asking a question. So far the best answer I've gotten is "Don't Ask." Are you truly in a service mood to Krishna by expressing Vaisnavism in this way?

Religion is a fashion and not a belief if the answer to a question is "don't ask."

The attitude you express does not often sound like the Bhakta Krishna describes as being free from pride, ego and compassionate towards all beings. This is Christian elitism.

Bishadi, I'd like to discuss ideas, not fall onto petty condescensions. My conception of what God must be in order to qualify as such is simply this: the Controller of all things. This does not make God a seperate entity sitting on a throne, but an extremely intimate and direct entity.

A mother has influence over her child, therefore she uses it to protect the child from pain. God's influence is TOTAL, meaning that He controls environment (spiritual and physical), beings (spiritual and physical) and actions (spiritual and physical). Even if you argue that the third, actions, are independent, He still has to control the first two to be God. And controlling the first two would be sufficient to remove any possibility of suffering.

I'm trying to figure out if one thing or the other has to give: All-Powerful or All-Loving in order to accomadate the reality of sensing pain. Unless you are still arguing that it's just "tough love." Why would there have to be any "tough love"? Is that really the best All-Powerful can do?

Omnipotent does not mean isolated. True omnipotence means All-Powerful and All-Pervasive, that there is Total Power interacting with us on the most intimate of levels at all times, in all circumstances, always. And splitting hairs semantically doesn't argue the sense of suffering. Whether real or not, we experience real pain. And with omnipotence, that pain is being allowed to happen. I am not logically trying to contain God, I am merely logically explaining what each of us experiences frequently and trying to figure out the relationship of God to our subjective experience in a way that is logical rather than just blind.

My intention is not to insult anyone's beliefs. This is a problem of religious elitism. I am going through a legitimate spiritual crisis, and I'm being responded to with condescension.

Every argument I've received in response to my question puts God at the whim of natural laws, not as the All-Powerful Source and Controller of those laws, and limits the definition of God greatly.

No such thing as all-powerful? God is not All-Powerful? He is not in control of everything? Including us?

I don't have an inner bias, Bishadi. I want to solve this obvious contradiction to become closer with God. I am being reacted to negatively on this forum because I am using intellect and logic and simply not relying on blind faith. Please just tell me why Krishna would not stop of from suffering and why an omnipotent God would have to fall back on secondary tactics of putting us through suffering in order to learn when, as omnipotent, He could instantly rearrange all of existence effortlessly, resulting in our loving Him, being happy and being full of knowledge? Why, with omnipotence, would we be allowed to 'fall' into physical existence at all? Why would physical existence exist the way it is, entailing suffering? If prema is the greatest goal, if a serving relationship is the greatest goal and the greatest joy, why would He ever want us away from that joy if it is what is best for us?

any loving human mother would choose to educate her child without her child having to experience pain. it's just that she doesn't have omnipotent power to prevent that all of the time. but Krishna does, and are we really supposed to conceive of a God that is less humane than a simple human parent?

You're applying your human rationale to excuse the truth of reality. The truth of reality is that if I came up to you and stabbed a knife through your foot, you would hop around howling in pain while I discussed the finer philosophical aspects of time. And Krishna could, as omnipotent, have immediately stopped me from hurting you.

Why do we have to learn? Omnipotence means ALL-POWERFUL, which means that anything our tiny human brains could imagine are not only included in that, but it goes infinitely beyond our largest possible speculation. God can simply MAKE us wise from the beginning. There is no possible reason an ALL-POWERFUL God would have to "put us throught the hoops" to 'learn us.' Why would All-Mighty use a secondary, long, involved and PAINFUL (to the sentient being, almost ETERNALLY, unimaginably painful) educational system? Our brains are chemical produced to be ignorant to be filled with knowledge, why not chemically produced to be filled with knowledge? Are you telling me that that is outside of Krishna's ability? Everyone is telling "Because God isn't powerful enough." There has to be an answer outside of this. Why are we born into the physical at all, if the pure spiritual existence is so wonderful? That would also require Krishna deciding that it be so. Choosing for us to suffer, when He has the power to do otherwise.

I'm already familiar with this concept. It's a cop-out. Human suffering is the most fundamental experience of human life, from which we develop spirituality. If we didn't suffer we would never even think about developing spirituality. However, if we cannot answer why a loving, omnipotent God would allow us to suffer in the first place, then there's a basic illogical aspect to the entire religion. If a boss came up to you and started beating on you, would you continue to work for him, if you had the choice? If someone came up to you and asked, "Why do you continue to work for that abusive boss?" Would you answer them with, "Because he's loveable!" This is the mentality of the abused wife who constantly forgives her husband.

OK, if a parent is watching a child stick his/her hand into a fire, that parent will prevent the child from being burned, no matter how much the parent may think, "Oh, if she gets burned, she'll learn her lesson." It would be sociopathic and sick for the parent to just sit back and watch. Krishna is like our parent, except He's omnipotent (otherwise He couldn't be God). He's ALWAYS watching, He ALWAYS has the ability at any moment to intervene and stop our suffering. But He doesn't. You continue to answer my question from the perspective of why we're suffering. That's not exactly what I'm asking. I'm asking why God is willing us to suffer when He has the ability to stop it at any moment.

All-powerful means that all of existence (including every soul) is in His control. Period. In this context it is His will that we suffer. Your answers are, at the most basic level, regurgitated Christian duality theory.

"Just go away" is not an answer to this question. It's OK if you don't have a logical answer. I can accept that there is no logical answer to it, I was only asking if anyone had scripture answers to this particular question of how God can be expressed as both all-powerful and less-than-all-powerful simultaneously, or at least as all-powerful and willing our suffering.

This is the simplest, most fundamental and most initial question of Divinity... there has to be a more logical answer ready.

No, I wouldn't prefer. It doesn't have to do with my preference. It has to do with the most fundamental question of Divinity. Yet, in actuality, if my being a robot would mean that I would never experience suffering, then yes, I'll take robot. And why would we have to necessarily be robots, anyway? Why not be beings in which loss, pain and suffering is simply kept away from us, with Krishna as the Protector of All Beings? Does lack of suffering necessitate being a robot? This is not an argument. You are saying suffering = individuality, not suffering = robot. Well, you also say that not being ignorant of Krishna and engaging in Bhakti is the cessation of suffering. So is the Bhakta a robot, by that logic?

Your argument is that Krishna is enforcing dualities... that He is saying that we can be aversed to Him, and as a result we will suffer. He is not only allowing us to suffer, but is the Controller of the entire stage in which suffering is taking place. Unless you argue that he is not the Controller? That He lacks Absolute Control over existence?

Prabhupada said that the purpose of human life is enquiry into the Absolute Truth. That is what this discussion is. Are we to accept it on faith, then? Prabhupada also says that Bhakti is a science with no loose ends, and we should never believe in anything that is illogical. I'm simply asking what the logic is of the All-Powerful God allowing us to suffer through aversion and lack of surrender, when, as All-Powerful, it could be solved instantaneously?

If we are capable of being ungrateful to Krishna, then that means that we are logically outside of His control. This conception of free will is not in accordance with the idea of omnipotence. Basically the first two paragraphs of what you included state that we are outside of Krishna's Control, and need to be "broken" in a sense to not be aversed to Him again, through very indirect ways, which is also not in accordance with omnipotence. In fact, Krishna employs Maya in this service, when, if God were omnipotent, He would simply say, "You are not aversed to Me," and the jiva would not be aversed to Him. Basically we have existed outside of Krishna's control in the form of avidya, ignorance, or aversion since "time immemorial" according to the above transcript. Why? Why would we be allowed to suffer, even in the form of avidya, ignorance or aversion? How can the Controller allow this? Unless it is in Krishna's Will that we are to suffer. Meaning that Krishna wills us to suffer. When, in reality, if Krishna were omnipotent He would reign us in instantaneously, without all of this extreneous circumstance, whether we are independent or not. I am not saying Krishna is not omnipotent, I am simply discussing this issue.

I understand that, but that answer requires one of two things: 1. That we are outside of Krishna's control. You said that we would reconnect to a suitable function, but that implies that there is something spiritually dysfunctional in Krishna's Totality in the first place. 2. That we are inside of Krishna's control and He allows us to feel suffering as a result of our separation. You are saying that Krishna is therefore neutral to our happiness and wellbeing, because He would allow us to be seperate and therefore suffer.

Hi Skippy, Thanks for the response, but I can't see the video. I was curious, though, why we would be allowed to falsely identify, if that led to suffering? Surely Krishna doesn't want us to suffer, and therefore we couldn't ever suffer via his omnipotence?