no form that is seen

[Harjas Kaur]

I am still waiting for you to appropriately explain this concept of yours on Hindu Vaishnav forum and especially in conjunction with the Abrahamic Oneness of God philosophy of Dr. Zakir Naik video and website which you posted in your first threads on this topic.

Yes im a muslim.If you can beleive kali shiva are aspects of god then allah is also god.Will you accept it?
The original question was asking that how can god have a form. and how can there be images of him
That was a different matter.

I asked another question from ranjeet, If krishna's form is transcedental and spiritual or mayic.
That is my question now.

radhe,
dear harjas kaur forgive me again for my comment about you not knowing about vaishnavism ,now i wonder that you even know moe than me.
So this verse of yours=

Don't play games with me. Why are you staging an entire philosophical discussion from the Abrahamic monotheistic perspective of Dr. Zakir Naik interpretation of Islam from missionary websites on Hindu forums? Thank you.

[SANT]

huh?
You have a problem if is say that durga is krishna shakti but you also have a problem if i show oneness between allah and hindu almighty.ojio
you still think im a muslim?
kaurji youve been misintepreting me from the start.
First you criticise me of devta ninda and then claim im a muslim.
ojio

Come with an open mind..
What is your beleif does not necessarily mean it will be mine.


1. the first post was only because i as was confused as how god can have images and murtis of him since the vedic mantra says na tasya pratima asti.
2.the 2nd post in abrahamic religions was to prove to you that if youre not fond of some particular belief then it becomes very difficult to accept them as one with your own god.But you think im doing ninda when you yourself are a big example of this.

[Harjas Kaur]

I did not accuse you of being a Muslim. After you posted link to Muslim missionary websites I thought it prudent to ask if you were a Muslim. I have quoted your own words from your own post that say you are a Muslim. How is that my accusation?

Don't you think the very inclusion of Muslim missionary websites into a Hindu forum topic is a bit odd? What kind of responses do you want?

Whether or not I am misinterpreting you is not the issue. I am discussing the very points you raise with direct quotes from your statements. Perhaps you could clarify why you link Dr. Zakir Naik video on Hindu Vaishnav forum. Do you believe that is engagng in Hindu philosophy discussion or side-tracking into objections of Hindu philosophy which Muslims oppose and disbelieve and exert inordinate material to disprove and invalidate?

1. the first post was only because i as was confused as how god can have images and murtis of him since the vedic mantra says na tasya pratima asti.

That doesn't sound like your confusion. That sounds like Muslim Missionaries aggressive anti-Hindu propaganda. Do you believe in Hinduism or in Dr. Zakir Naik objections to Hindu religion?

2.the 2nd post in abrahamic religions was to prove to you that if youre not fond of some particular belief then it becomes very difficult to accept them as one with your own god.But you think im doing ninda when you yourself are a big example of this.

Why do you always make personal attack against me when I am discussing these issues? I already told you long ago in private PMs where you made same accusations that Guru Granth Sahib Ji accepts that Allah is equal to Shiva is equal to Krishna as a Naam of the God. So you simply go on about what I do not object to. Why? Secondly how am I a big example of nindya? Are you accused here of nindya? Unless you are making criticisms of me personally without supporting it, that is a nindya. How did I so make of you by quoting your exact words and questioning them?

[Harjas Kaur]

You have a problem if is say that durga is krishna shakti but you also have a problem if i show oneness between allah and hindu almighty.

No. I said Durga is Krishna shakti. Why would I have a problem with it? I have already quoted you from Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in private PMs that Allah is just another Naam of the Hindu concept of Divinity. So why do you insist I have a problem with it? If you object to something, I invite you to quote my words directly so you do not insert a false statement and attribute it to me, thank you.

[Harjas Kaur]

First you criticise me of devta ninda and then claim im a muslim.
ojio

Sorry, but this is an exact quote of your own words from your own post on this thread. I am not criticizing you of anything. If you are engaging in devatay nindya, then it is your own words which say such. As your own words claim you are a Muslim. Were you negating that Kali and Shiva are aspects of God? Then that is your devatay nindya but I did not so claim.

Yes im a muslim.If you can beleive kali shiva are aspects of god then allah is also god.Will you accept it?
The original question was asking that how can god have a form. and how can there be images of him
That was a different matter.

I asked another question from ranjeet, If krishna's form is transcedental and spiritual or mayic.
That is my question now.

[Harjas Kaur]

you still think im a muslim?
kaurji youve been misintepreting me from the start.

Come with an open mind..
What is your beleif does not necessarily mean it will be mine.

Let me repeat since you have not answered,

Why are you staging an entire philosophical discussion from the Abrahamic monotheistic perspective of Dr. Zakir Naik interpretation of Islam from missionary websites on Hindu forums? Thank you.

You have already said you were a Muslim. Why is that? Why, after you say you are a Muslim and quote from Muslim missionary websites and link anti-Hindu Muslim missionary video from Dr. Zakir Naik would I be misinterpreting you unless it was your game to pretend to come across as such?

Now can you answer the first question please, repeated:

Perhaps you could clarify why you link Dr. Zakir Naik video on Hindu Vaishnav forum. Do you believe that is engaging in Hindu philosophy discussion or side-tracking into objections of Hindu philosophy which Muslims oppose and disbelieve and exert inordinate material to disprove and invalidate?

Are you here to object to Hindu philosophy and railroad discussion into Abrahamic version of monotheism based on aggressive anti-Hindu Muslim missionaries interpretations of Hindu scriptures? Is that why you said:

If you can beleive kali shiva are aspects of god then allah is also god.

Do you not believe Kali and Shiva are aspects of God according to Hindu scriptures? And was your intention to belittle this belief in Kali and Shiva to promote a belief in monotheistic formless God Allah as defined by Muslim missionaries from Muslim Koran?

[devotee]

Namaste Sant,

1. the first post was only because i as was confused as how god can have images and murtis of him since the vedic mantra says na tasya pratima asti.

I can only advise you ... if you have to learn your own religion, don't learn it from people like Zakir Naik who have absolutely no understanding of our scriptures. They pick & choose some half quotes from somewhere & try to take out a meaning that suits them. This is no way to prove anything.

"Na Tasya Pratima Asti" : Pratima means image. Pratima also means something which is like the original & that root has been used in Apratim i.e. that which is without anything similar/equivalent to the object being referred to. So, that simply means, "There is nothing in this world which is exactly like Him".

Even if we take the earlier meaning then it would be, "There can be no image which can exactly show Him in all His glory)." There is nothing in this world which He-is-not. So, there is no form which is not His form & he is there in formlessness too. So, if that is true, what exactly is His form ?

Now, you can see that this saying has a much deeper meaning than what has been understood by Mr Naik.

OM

[Harjas Kaur]

Sant wites in PM:

Its stupid to fight over there will loook amateurish.
Please listen carefully-
these were where things started-
Thank you kaurji.

No. It is your thread initiated with links to aggressive anti-Hindu Muslim missionary websites and video by Dr. Zakir Naik. I did not start this objection to Hindu polytheism existing in the All-pervading Oneness of Hindu scriptures denied and reviled by Dr. Zakir Naik.

I did not start this, but I will finish this, even if I am banned because I am deeply concerned about your agenda not being what it appears.

You did not simply ask Hindu's about Dr. Zakir Naik's objections, but you voiced them. So that is my concern on this thread and my right to ask for clarification from you for those statements and not only inclusion of ideology from anti-Hindu Muslim missionary websites, but positive objections to Hindu scriptures in defense of those positions.

I do not care how amateurish it looks or if I am banned. I will not tolerate an anti-Hindu missionary playing games. If you are not that, then this discussion should resolve itself amicably with reverence for Hindu scriptures and deference to Sruti.

You claim this- Quote:
That's why it's not a conflict between Sadashiva and Mahamaya and Bhagavan Krishna who is the greatest, because all are emanations of the One perceived differently as different aspects in world of duality consciousness. But in actuality there are no divisions. Krishna is the ultimate, just as Mahakali Adi Shakti is the ultimate just as Sadashiva is the ultimate. Radharani and Krishna are the same as Shiva and Shakti.
Howewer that is impersonalism.
Why ,because in devi gita devi says she is formless and takes form due to her yogmaya.
Now my question is that if krishna's form also due to yog maya?


This bolded text was my question?
now u ask this-Are you a Muslim trying to gain insights into Hindu philosophy only to refute it as a missionary?
so i joked but you couldnt take it

Why should any HIndu take a joke that someone is refuting Hindu scriptures to promote an Abrahamic monotheism, while claiming to be a Muslim but then denying that it was a joke while linking anti-Hindu websites?

You say this is where things started: then my quote: "But in actuality there are no divisions." Even as I cited Vaishnav scriptures to prove that? So the question arises do you believe in the Hindu interpretation of the Hindu scriptures or are you debating to support Dr. Zakir Naik's interpretation of Abrahamic monotheism? Is that why "no divisions" between devatay and the Absolute One became contentious for you?

[ranjeetmore]

You say this now.

l.

But you had said this.

See you're contradicting yourself now with all due respect.
You decide if devi is the ultimate or yogmaya of krishna.

Dear Sant,

Know that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates have identified Sri Durga,Sadashiva as direct manifestations of Sri Krsna.Actually there are no fights...just like the vaishnavas declare Narayana to be Supreme,so do the Shaivas.
WE JUST CANNOT REFUSE THE SRI VAISHNAVA belief that Narayana is Supreme Person,Who is the centre of adoration of all.Why ?
Because He is an eternal form of God.On Vaikuntha,Naryana is the centre of all adoration-be it vedas,kumaras,narada,etc. etc.

Also,we see Sri Ramacandra as being the centre of all adoration on Saketloka.There is no mention of Narayana,Shankara or even Sri Krsna there.This is due to yogmaya.The form of God(Ram,Narayana,Durga,Shiva) becomes the complete beloved of that devotee.

Tulsidas ACCEPTED in front of Surdas,"Yes,certainly,your Shyamsundara has more qualities that Sri Ramachandra,but i didn't Know my Rama had those many qualities."
and his love for Rama increases and he swoons cherishing his new 'discovery'.

On shivaloka,Shankara is the centre of adoration and on manidvipa,devi is.There is no conflict in the Spiritual realm.

Only one matter remains : that of bliss.rasa.That is another matter and it depends on choices of the individual souls.
WE CANNOT BLASPHEME A TULSIDAS becoz he chose Sri Rama over Sri Krsna.That is inviting million years of hell.

little minded "Vasihnavas" fight amongst themselves or they fight with the shaivas/shaktas.

There have been crores of Shaiva saints even in the olden times.We hear countless saints performing bhakti of Shankara even in bhagavatam,etc.


Chaitanya MAhaprabhu ji brought it all together for us as if it were a piece of cake and He has offered it to us so easily...something which might not happen to us in another kalpa.

In defense of Krsnaites,I'd just say : In Geeta and Bhagavatam(the original commentary on Vedanta) Sri Krsna is identified as the Supreme Person,the be all and end all of everything.

but in the end,you can't say this to a devout Sri Vaishnava or a devout Shakta like Ramprasad,etc. becoz our very own doctrine propagates that Naryana/Devi is indifferent from Sri Krsna.

[ranjeetmore]

rest assured,kaur ji,that sant is not a muslim.I know him since before.

He just has this little snag he can't get around.

I'd like to believe he tends towards Achintya bheda abheda but he isn't so sure i guess.