It is Contrary to Nature to Know What the Future Holds?

[Vesko]

From the book:

It is contrary to Nature to know what the future holds, for otherwise, the knowledge would not be effaced in the 'river of oblivion'.

This is perhaps the only sentence in it that I cannot comprehend.
Despite having discussed it with Tom on the forum, I still cannot understand how they can do future prediction (they said they can do it up to 100 years in advance) and yet they say it is bad to know what the future holds. 'To know' what the future holds certainly means 'to predict', since it is impossible for anyone to truly know what the future holds until it has come to pass. What do you think?

[bomohwkl]

'To know' what the future holds certainly means 'to predict'

To predict is to use the availabe current understanding to make an educational guess of what will happen. If the prediction is incorrect, it shows the certain area of understanding needed to be improved. If you know the future, the you already gain the understanding of what you will learn in the future lesson. Then there is no point of understanding and gaining the knowledge.

[Meedan]

I can try to predict what might happen to me next year, certain things are very likely to happen at my college. Am I doing something that is breaking a universal law here? Obviously not. So we know what is not against universal law. Now let's think of something that probably IS against universal law...

Well, the thing TP said was wrong was for Thao to tell Michel things about his life that were going to happen, or if a 'fortune teller' tries to tell you things that are going to happen to you. This is because you would lose your ability to learn from the events, and not have your test on how you will react in those situations.

So, to take my example further: what if I try to predict some major events that will probably happen to me in the next 40 years. With my limited knowledge and especially without knowledge of some other variables that Higher-selves and Thiaooubians have I wouldn't do too well. Is this the difference? Could it be that it is wrong for someone else to tell you detailed events of your life, but it is ok if you attempt to come to these conclusions yourself?

I'm still thinking... these are just preliminary thoughts I've had.

[Vesko]

Thank you. I knew that 'telling' is bad, but thought that Thao had something more in mind. However, now thanks to your posts it seems that there's nothing more to derive from the statement.

So, what seems to be bad is not what they are telling you but your BLIND BELIEF in it.

[Kiran]

Hi guys, hope this finds you well.

I was reading your replies about 'knowing' and 'predicting' the future. One interesting thing that struck me was that in Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda's 'guru' Sri Yukteshwar told his pupil that "the stars had an unfriendly interest in him" or something similar to that effect. Now the pupil, Yogananda, was advised to obtain a special bracelet which would reduce the 'harmful effect'. Now in Thiaoouba Prophecy, when Michel was asking about palmistry and astrology (if i remember correctly) Thao smiled and said astrology has little to do with the reality of the universe. From my reading of "Yogi" Yukteshwar didn't seem to be a charlatan, although one chapter that discussed his death (and what he was saying about 'war' in higher planes of existence) seemed a bit strange to me...anyways what do u guys think?

Kiran

[Kestrel]

I think that war keeps people intrested.

Everyone will pay attention if you can convince them they need to because they are in danger. However, are you really ever in "danger". Danger to me seems quite relitive indeed. I am a free spirit, no material universe shall make value objects so much that I feel insecure.