When a mother stops a child from doing something harmful why does Krishna not stop the soul from wrongdoing?
This (the problem of evil) is a profound topic that has got me deeply thinking. What we understand is that the soul has to make choice between spiritual, sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic actions (with the last two (Rajasic and Tamasic) causing maximum misery, but for the conditioned soul, perhaps the most happiness in material terms). Now if we consider Krishna as the mother and father of all souls, then if we take a real example of a kid with diabetes, will it’s mother allow it to take sweets, the mother will rather force the child not to take the sweet at all costs and have the child cry, because it can have devastating consequences for the child if it were to take the sweets, but are we saying Krishna does not behave like the mother, He doesn’t forcibly prevent the child from eating sweets, but only instructs the child about the bad consequences, is that good enough or as effective ? The only difference I can think of is that Krishna knows that the bad consequences have a beginning and an end (and thus insignificant from the absolute state), and for the soul to be deprived of the material pleasure it’s craving for may be much more painful for the soul (than even the bad consequences) as it evolves towards perfection. Is this explanation correct ?