Vaishnava_das108

I do wonder who is the "Charandas" referred to in the letter. Is it the same Charandas baba who introduced the "Nitai Gaur Radhe Shyam" mantra?

Nice quote, surprising too. But really, Srila Prabhupada could have been referring to anyone as a pure devotee, since the mantra descends in disciplic succession, and he named his own guru too. There is also the possibility that he was referring to himself too, but it is suffice to say that Srila Prabhupada never quite advertised himself in quite the same way that LPT is doing?

Lalita Prasad has an extremely high opinion of himself, which is quite befitting of "pure devotees." In this regard I'll repost something earlier in this thread: I have recently read the post of a certain devotee who claims to be in possession of a letter from Lalitaprasada Thakur. The letter itself is dated 30-5-76, typed on "Sri Bhaktivinoda Gosthi" letterhead and is addressed to a "Richard," and this devotee has given implicit permission for it to be published, since he himself has publicly published it. I shall repost it here, this letter by Lalitaprasada Thakura. Make up your own minds regarding LPT's conception of himself: Dear Mr. Richard, "I am glad to receive your letter of 29-4-76. I am a perfect devotee and follow the dictations of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as incalcated [sic] by Thakur Vaktivinode and as depicted in Srimad Bhagavat, Shri Chatanya [sic] Sikshamrita and the Bhajan dictations by other unalloyed pure devotees. People of Vrindaban always love me heart and soul. I am not in agreement with Gaudiya Math principles, that is not Gaudiya Vaisnaba Math and they are not approved by many Gaudiya Vaishnabas. I always stick to the Gaudiya Vaisnab Samaj and Shri Vaktivinode Gosthi in toto. So there is no enemy of mine and no difference of opinion with the principles which are accepted and followed in Vrindavan. When I went to Vrindaban last time I received warm reception from all there. The different principles which have been lately introduced by the indifferent [?] movement of my brother are not acceptable at all in toto. So also I am not in a position to agree with that [sic] principles followed by "ISKCON" at present and my attempt is to bring the other parties to follow the dictations of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as incalcated [sic] by my Guru Thakur Vaktivinode. So I live alone at the birth place of Thakur Vaktivinode who has been declared as the seventh Goswami by well renewed [sic] late Sri Radhikanatha Goswami and other unalloyed pure devotees. So I stick to the Ragamarga and Bhajanmarga as expounded by Sri-Rup-Sonatan-Bhatta Raghunath-Sri Jib-Gopal Bhatta-Das Raghunath. So I remain confined to the Bhajan teachings of Srila Raghunath Das Goswami. If you have any differences of behaviour by any party I remain dumb and silent by seeing their fairy dance. The questions you have raised are to be cleared when we meet. Charandas before his demise corrected his mistake by taking instructions and initiation from Thakur Vaktivinode for a year and half every day while the latter lived at "Bhaktikuteer" on the sea beach of Puri. Knowing the mistake which could not be easily corrected Charandas became mad and passed away at Jhanjpeta Math at Puri. His last remains is kept buried by the side of Haridas Thakur's Samadhi at sea-side in Puri and is adored by all because he corrected his mistake. You will find the account of Charandas in "Vaktivinode Charit" by Krishnadas-Junior. As regards my brother's affairs it is not good for me to meddle with and I am unable to explain at this moment. So kindly excuse me and if you are still anxious to know I can explain to you privately. I want to live secluded. Sincerely yours, L P Thakur 30.5-76 [this signature and date are in his own hand]

What has that got to do with anything? Does that mean we should not discuss spiritual topics at all, since we are not "very high" ? I really do not think so, because Srimad-Bhagavatam specifically states that attainment of sayujya-mukti is an impure state. It is not the business of Vaishnavas to bother with mukti.

What has that got to do with anything? Does that mean we should not discuss spiritual topics at all, since we are not "very high" ? I really do not think so, because Srimad-Bhagavatam specifically states that attainment of sayujya-mukti is an impure state. It is not the business of Vaishnavas to bother with mukti.

Well, personally at this point in time I do not trust in Lalitaprasada Thakura (son of Bhaktivinoda Thakura). I am exercising a great deal of caution with regards to him. I have never seen such egomania in anyone who professes to be a Vaishnava. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

My point was mainly meant to the "liberalist class" in ISKCON, who tend to have their own take on any principle. The proponents behind the books-changing, gay-marriages in ISKCON, feminist and other scandals behind the "OH MY GOD!" threads, as well as their supporters, are a good example of this.

I must comment Gaurachandra prabhu for his succint realizations here. I myself have found more or less the same thing. I do not possess much of the old Vyasa-puja books except one (1980 I think) and in that one it is plain obvious for all to see how the book was used to transmit the concept of the "Zonal Acharyas" and other things, masked in praise of Srila Prabhupada. Also, I had always thought that Devamrita Swami was a thoughtful writer with interesting insights. After reading his Vyasa-puja offering, I have realised that I was wrong and thus I am better off not reading of his work any longer. Sad indeed.

As Jahnava-Nitai prabhu has stated earlier on this thread; "Next someone may suggest we remove Prabhupada's condemnation of cow slaughter from his books. This way "Mahaprabhu's mercy" can be spread to all those hundreds of millions of Americans who like to eat hamburgers." I suppose this is a good example of a liberal attitude, which is a quality of Krishna. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

These are my feelings exactly. It is indeed saddening. Do you have Umapati Swami's offering? Are both the offerings of Devamrita and Umapati Swamis from this year's Vyasa-puja book (2002) ?

Dear Raghuraman, I can only say that there are two ways of perceiving the concepts that you have written about. First there is the correct way; it is indeed true that Narayana is Krishna by virtue of being of the same spiritual substance viz., Visnu-tattva. There is also an incorrect way; Narayana and Krishna are two distinct personalities, one is worshipped with opulence whereas the Other is worshipped with sweet madhurya-rasa. However, it is a fact that They are two different persons both in lila and in tattva. Please allow me to present my answers according to the parampara of Srila Prabhupada. Evidence from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura: "Among them [living entities], those who desire to serve the Lord with opulence see their worshippable Lord as Narayana and those who desire to serve the Lord with sweetness see their worshippable Lord as Krsna. Those who serve the Lord with opulence have a natural mood of awe and reverence. Therefore their affection ends with prema, or love, for due to insufficient faith there is no pranaya, or intimacy. The faith of those who serve the Lord in the conjugal rasa is extremely strong. Therefore their affection advances up to mahabhava." - Sri Krsna-samhita 1.8-10 "There is no difference between Krsna and Narayana. He appears as Narayana to eyes absorbed in opulence, and He appears as Krsna to eyes absorbed in sweetness. Actually there is no difference in the Absolute Truth. A difference is considered only among people who discuss the Absolute Truth and in the discussions of the Absolute Truth." - Sri Krsna-samhita 1.13 "Sri Krsna is the Supreme Absolute Truth without a second. He is the moonlike Lord who is always absorbed in the ecstasy of His pastimes, and He manifests different forms due to the variety of rasas." - Sri Krsna-samhita 1.14 Evidence from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura: "The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations." PURPORT The presiding Deities of Hari-dhama, viz., Hari, Narayana, Visnu, etc.. the subjective portions of Krsna, are being described. The majestic manifestation of Krsna is Narayana, Lord of Vaikuntha, whose subjective portion is Karanodakasayi Vishnu, the prime cause, whose portion is Garbhodakasayi. Ksirodakasayi is again the subjective portion of Garhhodakasayi Visnu. The word "Visnu" indicates all-pervading, omnipresent and omniscient personality. In this sloka the activities of the subjective portions of the Divinity are enunciated by the specification of the nature of Ksirodakasayi Vishnu. The per- sonality of Vishnu, the ennbodied form of the manifestive quality (sattva-guna) is quite distinct from that of Sambhu who is adulterated with mundane qualities. Vishnu's subjective personality is on a level with that of Govinda. Both consist of the unadulterated substantive principle. Visnu in the fornn of the manifest causal principle is identical with Govinda as regards quality. The manifestive quality (sattva-guna) that is found to exist in the triple mundane quality, is an adulterated entity being alloyed with the qualities of mundane activity and inertia. Brahma is the dislocated portion of the Divinity, manifested in the principle of mundane action, endowed with the functional nature of His subjective portion; and Sambhu is the dislocated portion of the Divinity manifested in the principle of mundane inertia possessing similarly the functional nature of His subjective portion. The reason for their being dislocated portions is that the two principles of mundane action and inertia being altogether wanting in the spiritual essence any entities, what are manifested in them, are located at a great distance from the Divinity Himself or His facsimiles. Although the mundane manifestive quality is of the adulterated kind, Vishnu, the manifestation of the Divinity in the mundane manifestive quality, makes His appearance in the unadulterated manifestive principle which is a constituent of the mundane manifestive quality. Hence Vishnu is the full subjective portion and belongs to the category of the superior isvaras. He is the Lord of the deluding potency and not alloyed with her. Visnu is the agent of Govinda's own subjective nature in the form of the prime cause. All the majestic attributes of Govinda, aggregating sixty in number, are fully present in His majestic manifestation, Narayana. Brahma and Siva are entities adulterated with mundane qualities. Though Vishnu is also divine appearance in mundane quality (guna-avatara), still He is not adulterated. The appearance of Narayana in the form of Maha-Visnu, the ap- pearance of Maha-Visnu in the form of Garbhodakasayi and the appearance of Visnu in the form of Ksirodakasayi, are examples of the ubiquitous function of the Divinity. Vishnu is Godhead Himself, and the two other guna-avataras and all the other gods are entities possessing authority in subordination to Him. From the subjective majestic manifestation of the supreme self-luminous Govinda emanate Karanodakasayi, Garbhodakasayi, Ksirodakasayi and all other derivative subjective divine descents (avataras) such as Rama, etc., analogous to communicated light appearing in different candles, shining by the operation of the spiritual potency of Govinda." - Sri Brahma-samhita commentary (Text 46) Evidence from Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: "Although Visnu is is equal to Krsna, Krsna is the original source. Visnu is a part, but Krsna is the whole. This is the version given by Vedic literatures. In Brahma-samhita the example is given of an original candle which lights a second candle. Although both candles are of equal power, one is accepted as the original, and the other is said to be kindled from the original. The Visnu expansion is like the second candle. He is as powerful as Krsna, but the original Visnu is Krsna. Brahma and Lord Siva are obedient servants of the Supreme Lord, and the Supreme Lord as Visnu is an expansion of Krsna." - Teachings of Lord Caitanya, p.87-88 "Krsna is so wonderful and attractive that He Himself becomes attracted by His ownbeauty, and this is proof that He is full of all inconceivable potencies. As far as Krsna's ornaments are concerned, when they decorate His body it appears that they do not beautify Him, but the orinaments themselves become beautiful simply by being on His body. When He stands in a three-curved way, he attracts all living entities. Indeed, He even attracts the Narayana form which presides in each and every Vaikuntha planet." - TLC P.102-103. "There is no beauty to compare with Krsna's, for no one posseses beauty greater than or equal to His. Since He is the origin of all incarnations, including the form of Narayana, the goddess of fortune, who is a constant companion of Narayana, gives up Narayana's association and engages herself in penance in order to gain the association of Krsna, the everlasting mine of all beauty ... In the form of Narayana the beauties of mercy, fame, etc., are all established by Krsna, but Krsna's gentleness and magnanimity do not exist in Narayana. They are found only in Krsna." - TLC, p.106. Also, the qualities of Lord Krsna have been analysed by spiritual authorities such as Srila Rupa Goswami, who totalled them to 64 and noted them down in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu: "Besides these sixty transcendental qualities, Krsna has four more, which are not manifest even in the Narayana form of Godhead, what to speak of the demigods or living entities. They are as follows. [61] He is the performer of wonderful varieties of pastimes (especially His childhood pastimes). [62] He is surrounded by devotees endowed with wonderful love of Godhead. [63] He can attract all living entities all over the universes by playing on His flute. [64] He has a wondeful excellence of beauty which cannot be rivaled anywhere in the creation. Addint to the list these four exceptional qualities of Krsna, it is to be understood that the aggregate number of qualities of Krsna is sixty-four." - Nectar of Devotion, p.157. The conclusion is clear.

Thanks for all your good wishes. You may be interested to know that I have written another response to the "Muslim Critics" on this thread; http://www.indiadivine.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=33104&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 This time, I have quoted verses from the Quran ad Hadiths to backup my points.

A great devotee of Krishna, indeed. However, her line of thought is not acceptable to Gaudiya Vaishnavas, because the conclusion of Meerabai's teachings/bhajans is that it may be desirable to achieve sayujya-mukti. As we all know, GV's do not endorse the concept of sayujya-mukti. That said, I find it the apparent taste for svakiya-rasa rather interesting. I still do not see any congruence in this concept though, for svakiya-rasa and sayujya-mukti seem to be mutually incompatible. I hear that she met Srila Jiva Goswami and appreciated the fact that Chaitanya was an incarnation of Krishna. How true is this?

A great devotee of Krishna, indeed. However, her line of thought is not acceptable to Gaudiya Vaishnavas, because the conclusion of Meerabai's teachings/bhajans is that it may be desirable to achieve sayujya-mukti. As we all know, GV's do not endorse the concept of sayujya-mukti. That said, I find it the apparent taste for svakiya-rasa rather interesting. I still do not see any congruence in this concept though, for svakiya-rasa and sayujya-mukti seem to be mutually incompatible. I hear that she met Srila Jiva Goswami and appreciated the fact that Chaitanya was an incarnation of Krishna. How true is this?

The Ahmadiyya "branch" of Islam is unauthorised and is regarded by much of mainstream Islam to be nothing but a "wacky offshoot" of Islam. This is due to the Ahmadiyya's holding of certain beliefs that are in direct conflict with much of Islam's strongly-cherished tenets. One example would be that Islam says (with scriptural authority) that Prophet Muhummad would be the last (rather, the 'seal') of the Prophets sent to the earth by Allah. Ahmadiyyas conflict with this by stating that the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect was himself a prophet of Allah. Therefore I fail to see how a representative of an unauthorised branch of Islam would be qualified to give "enlightening answers" about a subject he obviously knows very little about, least of all his own religion. This is fine. Jesus seems to say more or less the same thing as stated by Krishna. But Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad obviously has not noted that Krishna is alone is stating that He is the supreme goal and that only He should be worshipped (mam ekam saranam vraja), and that Jesus did not claim divine status for himself but instead clearly said that he was the son of God. This is foolish. First of all, there is no record of Krishna being addressed as 'Muralidhara' in the entire BG, and secondly the idea that Krishna being a messenger of god (and no more) leads one to think if Hazrat Ahmad properly read Bhagavad Gita. Otherwise how can one explain such verses as: "mattah parataram nanyat" - "O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me." BG 7.7 "aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate" - "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me." BG 10.8 ... and so many more? I fail to see how one who reads Bhagavad Gita with "deep attention" comes to the conclusion that Krishna is simply a "messenger of God." This just proves that Hazrat Ahmed simply does not know what he is talking. He is obviously mixing up the traditional image of Syamasundara with Parthasarathi. Krishna never played His flute on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Also, where in the modern world does it mean that someone who wants to play a flute MUST have more than two hands? It is also evident that Ahmed is confusing the description as given in the Eleventh Chapter of the virat-rupa. More precisely, he is thinking of the Narayana form that was shown to Arjuna after the display of the virat-rupa. Ahmed is obviously ignorant of the fact that Narayana is not the same as Krishna, and Narayana certainly does not spend any time playing flutes. This confusion certainly does not show how Krishna in any case is simply a messenger of God. Also, there is no mention of any wings anywhere. Confusion confounded! "Arjuna saw in that universal form unlimited mouths and unlimited eyes. It was all wondrous. The form was decorated with divine, dazzling ornaments and arrayed in many garbs. He was garlanded gloriously, and there were many scents smeared over His body. All was magnificent, all-expanding, unlimited. This was seen by Arjuna." - BG 11.10-11 "O Lord of the universe, I see in Your universal body many, many forms--bellies, mouths, eyes--expanded without limit. There is no end, there is no beginning, and there is no middle to all this. Your form, adorned with various crowns, clubs and discs, is difficult to see because of its glaring effulgence, which is fiery and immeasurable like the sun." - BG 11.16-17 Any mention of wings? No. Although it may be that Krishna had wings but that Arjuna never saw them because the virat-rupa was very "difficult to see." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Yes, it certainly seems that Hazrat Ahmed has misunderstood and misinterpreted the Gita. This is what happens when you study the Gita with "deep attention." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif And using this logic, the fact that Krishna had wings PROVES that He was simply an angel, a messenger of God and nothing more. This is a very weak argument even by Islamic standards. Just one problem though,.. Krishna does not possess any wings. Typical impersonalist argument. Hazrat Ahmed's "deep attention" to the Gita has simply produced faulty conclusions about symbolism that do not represent the Gita, and also lead to an impersonalist conclusion. Also, Hazrat Ahmed has simply proved Krishna right: "I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible." - BG 7.25 "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be." - BG 9.11 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Prove it. This betrays a lack of knowledge of your own religion. It is open knowledge that the Quran was compiled in its present form AFTER the death of Prophet Muhummad. It is also a fact that the chapters are not in consecutive order. So you cannot say that the Quran has been untouched by human hands. In fact, no one can authoritatively say that the Quran contains ALL the revelations that were given to Prophet Muhummad. As for Bhagavad-gita, no one knows if that text has been interpolated or not. If you think it has been, you have to prove it.

Prove it. This betrays a lack of knowledge of your own religion. It is open knowledge that the Quran was compiled in its present form AFTER the death of Prophet Muhummad. It is also a fact that the chapters are not in consecutive order. So you cannot say that the Quran has been untouched by human hands. In fact, no one can authoritatively say that the Quran contains ALL the revelations that were given to Prophet Muhummad. As for Bhagavad-gita, no one knows if that text has been interpolated or not. If you think it has been, you have to prove it.

Let us try and be fair. Jayadvaita Swami has years of editorial experience, having edited Back To Godhead magazine for most of his devotional life, and today gives classes on writing. He is by nature a transparent preacher who "tells it like it is" and does not compromise the philosophy. Very straightforward person. Regarding Bhagavad-gita, Jayadvaita Maharaj is in possession of the original manuscripts of BG that were personally typed out by Srila Prabhupada, and he has made the revisions according to these manuscripts. Recently he posted an article on CHAKRA (before it went haywire) advertising a URL that fully analysed sections in the original manuscripts and the present edition. i could understand what a hard task it must have been to do all that translation. I am not endorsing the changing and re-editing of Srila Prabhupada's books and I fully stand against it. But it seems that there is a point of revisions are made only according to what Srila Prabhupada originally wrote in his own manuscripts, right? In that way, the revisions only bring us closer to what Srila Prabhupada meant? But I do agree with you about the 'precedent' issue. Jayadvaita Swami has set a precedent, this is unarguable. Jayadvaita Swami may have had a reason to "authentically" revise BG according to the original manuscripts, but the fact that it may be revised again whimsically is indeed a worry.

What faults have you found in the poems of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura? Nobody is trying to find faults with exalted devotees, least of all me. I simply learned that Srila Bhaktivinoda was a meat-eater according to his autobiography and was greatly surprised by this fact. The premise is true providing that the Svalikhita-jivani is an authentic text which some quarters think doubtful.

My readings into the Quran and Hadiths assure me that they do indeed contain descriptions of Paradise/Heaven. What bothers me though, is that I have seen choice verses that describe the entrants into Heaven as taking the form of green parrots. This means that if we enter "Islamic Heaven," our forms will be like that as green parrots. This is obviously against the descriptions that Srila Prabhupada gave us, that we will have humanlike spiritual forms to associate with Krishna, unless of course the Islamic verse is describing the state of santa-rasa, in which case it will be perfectly adequate to have the body of a green parrot, or a cow, or a monkey, or whatever.

Please forgive me for not replying earlier. I have been caught up with various projects. It is clear from the given quote which is contained in the Sahih al-Bukhari that the narrator (Imran bin Husain) regretted running after his camel. He wished that he had ignored the camel to hear more of the Prophet's decription. But you seem to forget one important thing: If Allah sits on a Throne, He must have a form to do so. I am aware that the concept of "form" does not exist in Islam to the extent that ascribing a human form to Allah/God is tantamount to blasphemy. No one is saying that Allah has a human form, but it is true that Allah has His own spiritual form. Otherwise how can He sit on a "Throne" that happens to be on water. This in turn is a parallel to descriptions of Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, who created the universe as we know it through Brahma. There is also a verse in the Bible to the effect that the Spirit of God was on the water. It seems that religions have the same basic ideas at it's roots. These Quranic verses prove nothing. They simply prove that the Almighty Allah is indeed the greatest, and there is none like Him. No one is disputing that, but I'm afraid that I must disagree with your speculative interpretation that these verses warn us againt anthropomorphism. Firstly, again, no one is saying that Allah is a human, and secondly, there is no mention (or warning) against anthropomorphism in the verses that you have quoted. It is indeed true that Allah has a spiritual form. Prophet Muhummad himself saw it on at least two occasions. Else how can you explain these verses from the Qur`an: Allah has eyes: "Allah sees well whatever you do" - Quran 2.265 "Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: Allah's Messenger said, 'On the Day of Judgement Allah will not look at him who drags his robe (behind him) out of conceit.'" - Here is evidence from the Propher Muhummad himself that Allah will not look at proud people on the Day of Judgement. If Allah looks at some people and doe snot look at others, this means Allah has eyes to look. Allah can hear: "It is He who hears all things, and is ever near." - Quran 34.50 "Allah is Hearer, Knower." - Quran 2.224 Also, the story contained in Quran 2.30-39 shows how Allah speaks freely to Adam, Iblis (Satan) and the angels. Allah has a face: "Send not away those who call on their Lord morning and evening, seeking His Face." - Quran 6.52 "Those who patiently persevere, seeking the Face of their Lord." - Quran 13.22 "Keep yourself along with those who call in their Lord morning and evening, seeking His Face." - Quran 18.28 "To Allah belong the East and the West, and wherever you turn, there is Allah's Face." - Quran 2.115 "Everything will perish except His Face." - Quran 28.88 Also, the prominent Muslim scholar Al-Ashari (circa 9th Century AD) declared in his creeds: "We confess that Allah has a face without asking how." Allah has hands: "Say; Generosity is in Allah's hands!" - Quran 3.73 "He [Allah] said: O Iblis! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with My hands?" - Quran 38.75 "The hand of Allah is above their hands." - Quran 48.10 Again, Al-Ashari says: "We confess that Allah has two hands without asking how." Allah has an image: "Allah's is the Sublime Similitude." - Quran 16.60 "It is He Who produces creation, then reproduces it and for Him it is most easy. To Him belongs the Sublime Similitude in the heavens and the earth." - Quran 30.27 [The word 'masal' means similitude, resemblance, likeness, image.] Allah can be seen: "Some faces, that Day, will beam, looking towards their Lord." - Quran 75.22-23] "Once the Prophet said: Those believers who are in the highest honour with Allah will see His Divine Face morning and evening and compared to this all other pleasures of Paradise will be lightly esteemed and forgotten." [it is also confirmed in many Hadiths that Allah will be seen personally by those who gain access to Paradise.] I suppose you now get the point, that Allah certainly has a spiritual form that is capable of interacting with His devotees. This refutes the popular notion that Islam propounds the idea of a "formless God" which is just simply untrue. Rest assured, the verses I have quoted are just the tip of the iceberg and that there are many more quotes throughout the Islamic literature that can be employed to support further points. My personal favourite was the original one regarding the 'Garbhodakasayi Vishnu' idea. I am working on it. In the meantime, you can simply read Caitanya Caritamrita, Madhya-Lila Chapter 18. Atah sri krishna namadi na bhaved grahyam indriyaih "The divine form of Sri Krishna cannot be cognised through the blunt material senses." - Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu What's your point? The point is clear: God/Allah certainly is in possession of a form that is not the same as that of a human, but is perfectly spiritual and is only capable of being viewed by those who have attained the required qualifications, namely love. My intense researches into Islam and its literatures have compelled me to make the statement that the religion of Islam as a whole is on the platform of dasya-rasa, the bliss of servantship to Allah/Krishna. There is also a slight semblance of sakhya-rasa, the platform of friendship with God. I hope some of your questions have been answered.

I believe that the descriptions of this even is contained in the Caitanya Caritamrita, Madhya-Lila 18. I will shortly work on the Quranic descriptions also.

Why bother waiting around for the end of Kali-yuga and the start of Satya-yuga? Better to engage ourselves in devotional service and get out of here back to Goloka Vrindavana.

Why bother waiting around for the end of Kali-yuga and the start of Satya-yuga? Better to engage ourselves in devotional service and get out of here back to Goloka Vrindavana.

Dear Raga, from which edition of BRS are you quoting? Do you have a book or is it a document from the Grantha Mandir? Where did you get the translation from? Is it your own or from your book? Is it available online with translation?