Avinash

Please read again what I wrote above. "There is none like unto Him" does not necessarily mean that God has no form though it is definitely one possible interpretation.

fayarus,

The verses 112.1 to 3 do not say anything about the form of God. Now consider 112.4:

"And there is none like unto Him."

This verse does not say that God has form; it also does not say that He has no form. It says that there is no one like Him. This may mean two things:

1. God has no form.

2. God has form but His form is completely different from that of anybody else.

Moreover, it may not be correct to assume that this verse talks only about the form of God. When it is said that there is like unto God, then it may also mean that nobody is as poweful as God.

Posted by fayarus:

Regarding the form of God according to Islam, let me just quote a small chapter from Quran Chapter 112.

1 Say: He is God, the One and Only;

2 God, the Eternal, Absolute;

3 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

4 And there is none like unto Him.

This thread is just to discuss the form of God according to Quran. Let us keep the discussion relevant to the topic. All the arguments must be substantiated with appropriate verses from Quran.

11 million Mormons can't be wrong

Why are the words mormons and morons so similar?

Didn't Krsna take his conch shell with Him when He left the Earth?

I was thinking of posting this.

It seems that the words 'under God' will not be removed.

Isn't scary if the departed souls who come to visit are your wellwishers.

But I am very much afraid of bhooooooooooot.

While reading the English translations of Hindu scriptures, I have found that sometimes different words of Sanskrit are translated into the same word in English even though these Sanskrit words do not mean the same thing. As an example, both 'atma' and 'jiva' have been translated into 'soul'. But when I study the details of these two given in the scriptures, I find that these two are not the same. In fact, the word 'soul' is used in so many different meanings that this word is often confusing.

Jrdd ji,

It is OK. You do not have to search for it if it is troublesome. Please take rest. I was just following the thread. So, I asked that question.

P.S. When I asked if you displayed some of Radha's quality of cleverness, it was not meant to draw attention to you, but rather to showcase yet another of Radharani's qualities.

Just out of curiosity, can you point me to the url where you have asked this question? I could not find it.

Are you talking about Kalki incarnation mentioned in Puranas? Don't worry. Just wait for a little more than 400,000 years.

Are you talking about Kalki incarnation mentioned in Puranas? Don't worry. Just wait for a little more than 400,000 years.

Why did Prabhupada have to use these words?

But intuition is intuition irrespective of it being pure or impure.

[This message has been edited by Avinash (edited 07-02-2002).]

The writing style of Shashi ji is very different from that of Talasiga ji.

I was ignoring same.

What a shame!

What a beautiful rhyming! The words 'same' and 'shame' rhyme.

The word theist is not his name but his username. A username can start with lowercase letter which is the case with the username that theist ji has chosen for himself.

Karthik ji,

I went through the site mentioned by you. But, in the translation of the verse 1.50.4 of the Rg Veda that I have read, there is no menntion of how much distance Sun covers in a given time interval.

Atma,

You are way off any kind of moral content, Be careful of your use of language.

I do not see anything wrong in Atma ji's usage of language. I am not saying that I agree with everything she has written. She has voiced an opinion. She has mentioned how she understands what SP was trying to say. May be that SP was trying to say that or may be he was trying to say something different. But, in any case, there is nothing immoral in what Atma ji has written.

Why has theist ji decided to become a cow?

Krita yuga is the same as Satya yuga.

Karthik ji,

Mahayuga is not the same as Satya yuga. Maha yuga is the combination of the four yugas:- satya, treta, dwapar and kali.

the duration of satya yuga = 1728000 years;

the duration of treta yuga = 1296000 years;

the duration of dwapar yuga = 864000 years;

the duration of kali yuga = 432000 years.

So, the duration of one Maha yuga = 4320000 years.

Please note that there are 3 zeros after 432 in the duration of kali yuga and there are 4 zeros after 432 in the duration of Maha yuga.

Dwapar yuga is 2 times, kali yuga, treta yuga is 3 times kali yuga and satya yuga is 4 times kali yuga.

So, one Maha yuga is (4+3+2+1) i.e. 10 times kali yua.

The Talasiga's post that you are referring to was posted on way back on 25 Dec., 2001.

What is the value of the speed of light given by Sankaracarya in his commentary?