Yukteswar Teachings 3
 4  1  11  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
"I would like to congra[t]ulate you [on] the indepth review of Sri
Yuk[te]swar's work." - AM
 |
 |
 |
 |
Four Ages and Yukteswar's Argument
 |
| Pointillistic remodelling of a coloured photo of Yukteswar. |
- Yukteswar asserts that man is in a cycle of ages (each of 24,000 years): consisting of two golden ages, two silver ages, two bronze ages, and two iron ages with transmutation periods. And this is in line with what the Laws of Manu (without interpolations) proposes.
- He also claims that the Ages Cycle is the same as the cycle of the retrograde movement of the vernal equinox - in astronomy it is also called the precession of the vernal equinox around the heavenly equator, a movement that is considered to take ca. 25,770 years, which is the Platonic Year. The ancient rishi Manu does not refer to that cycle.
- If the astronomical precession time is not incorrect by nearly 2000 years, most of Yukteswar's time calculations are wrong: They are based on ancient Manu's cycle of eras, or ages (A) - applied to the Precession Cycle, which is also called the Platonic Year in astronomy (B). With a Platonic Year of about 25.770 earthly years, various calculations in Yukteswar's book are correspondingly wrong. It is not good to harbour wrong notions as to what Age we are in, for example.
 |
| Thinking: "Sometimes 24 equals ca. 26 to the understanding yogi to whom a clod of earth and a piece of gold are the same. (See Bhagavad Gita 5,18; 6,8; 6,32). |
Study Briefing
| Judge as fairly as you can. The integration it tends to bring about, serves you when you try your wings and discover things in other places. |
Astronomy teachings
SWAMI SRI Yukteswar wrote a Bible commentary which disappeared [Link] [Link 2], a Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, and The Holy Science. Some Yukteswar admirers have deep faith that his wisdom is infallible, just because his emissary to the West, Paramahansa Yogananda, taught so. Yogananda has a large following in California.It is said by followers that Yukteswar excelled in kriya yoga and in calculations related to heavenly bodies. He came up with several answers. However, some of them lack any astronomically accepted foundation. We should ask: "Where is the scientific evidence that he is right?" It could be missing. If so, his theory-making is to be evaluated as "classical" speculation in the realm of science. This has to be understood: In regular science one has to discern between faith and knowledge and base oneself on knowledge, no matter how sparse or meagre it appears to be. It is a standard approach. And if that approach is neglected or disregarded, many sorts of "gang tales" may crop up. Some calculations of Yukteswar will now be tentatively evaluated, and perhaps in too much detail. |
Why the equinox axis moves backwards through the stars
According to Yukteswar, what is called the equinox axis moves backwards through the stars because our sun has a dual star and revolves around it [Hos 7]. However, mainstream present-day astronomers do not find or calculate with such a dual star.
Q: Then, what are the equinoxes?
A: They are imaginary points linked to the two days each year when night and day are
equally long: In Spring the vernal equinox is ca. March 21; and the autumnal equinox is ca.
September 22. The leap year cycle of four years may change the exact dates somewhat.
Q: Why is the position of the equinoxes slowly changing with respect to the
background stars?
A: The short word for this is precession. At present the vernal equinox is
in the constellation Pisces (not the star sign but star image) and is slowly approaching the
Aquarius constellation. This also means that on the first day of spring the sun is seen "in"
the constellation Pisces, or rather, the Pisces constellation is its backdrop then, and
not the constellation Aries. Year by year and little by little the gap widens,
and the distance to the first degree of Aries becomes larger. The drift we refer to forms
a cycle of said 25.770 years - also called a Platonic Year - but give or take according to
the current astronomical knowledge.
Q: Why does the precession of the equinoxes come about?
A: There are some theories about it. Yukteswar, whose theory-making we look into
here, states the reason is our sun revolves around another star. Almost all astronomers
today think very differently. The standard explanation you get from those quarters is that
the precession of the earth's rotation axis is caused by the gravitational pulls of the Sun
and the Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge. In other words, according to astronomy based
on known occurrences, the precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational
attraction of the Sun and Moon on the protuberant matter at the Earth's equator. In still
other words, the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon on earth causes the axis of
the earth to tilt. That is one theory. [Maso 63, 148]
Another way of understanding is that the precession is not an actual rotation.
Q: Where is our sun's dual star, and what is its name?
A: There is no hard evidence in astronomy that points to any dual star. Till enough evidence to the contrary shows up and as long as the present reasons for precession are called OK, that outlook is all right on scientific grounds. Here is more on it, spoken of by "the skylark and the wren". The wren does not soar much on his own.
Q: The skylark and the wren, please -?
A: In (wren) science, what is proposed but not (yet) founded on solid documentation,
may be said to belong pretty well to so-called pre-stages where theories are proposed
somehow. They may next be considered and modified and perhaps tried out - if there is no
valid way of finding out of them, they may be laid to rest (in some back room), so to speak.
Such ways of handling theories can make science fit, as they do not mar much and
unduly.
On the other hand, bringing out theories (like a soaring and singing lark) without
that needed backup from the lowland vegetation of data, is not deemed appropriate in science, where theories are to be backed up by solid research and verification that matters. The burden of proof rests on Yukteswar in this; wrong theory-making should not breed stupefied admirers in a cult. All the same, what the lark sings may sound delighting, exhilarating and be all right and contain truths all the same.
Thus, a wren problem (scientist's dilemma) may set in when the wren hears a lark's
song, without being able to soar and see the same vistas unaided. Now he must declare
himself unable to say either "yes" or "no" to what he is told: he has to keep the larch
theory in suspense, then, and rigidly resist to say "yes" or "no", and firmly stick
to "I do not know" because he is basically well educated: He does not know, he has not seen it
and finds no back-up too; on top of that he resists any "guessing games" that may crop
up.
The lack of such proper wren-handling schemes calls for faith and proselytising,
which are worth steering out of by and large, to be on the safe side. A man can do worse
things than that.
Do not get misused by anyone
In The Holy Science [Hos], written in 1894, Yukteswar considers European and American scientists fit to hold communion with spiritual devotees (of India). [Hos 3n, 5] His Great Preceptor Babaji (so called) wanted him to help in establishing basic truth. [Hos 6] And truth is exact correspondence with reality, according to one definition in later editions of Paramahansa Yogananda's autobiography. [Ha 476]Yukteswar presents the concepts of "ages" that allude to the Greek Golden, Silver, Bronze and Iron Ages. The corresponding Sanskrit terms are Krita (Satya) Yuga; Treta Yuga; Dwapara (also Dvapara) Yuga; and Kali Yuga. A yuga is an era, then, an age, a period of time. Yukteswar holds that such eras come in cycles, and fixes them to an astronomical phenomenon, the precession of the Vernal Equinox. That is where our present adjustment troubles start:
- The yuga cycle is of 24,000 years.
- Astronomy estimates that the precession of the equinoxes takes quite precisely 25,770 years to complete a full circle. This is called a Platonic Year.
- The length of the two spans cannot be the same if the precession rate is constant all through its large cycle. But we have no proof that it is constant, nor do we have sound and conclusive proof that it is inconstant in ways that fit Yukteswar's theory. Today we cannot prove anything about possible, changing retrogression speeds at different phases through the large precession cycle and further whereabouts and details of that. What we have so far, is the cycle of estimated 25.770 years to go along with.
Because the scientific foundation for great time spans like the Platonic Year is not perfect, parts of what we deal with ahead are rooted in probabilities. [Link]
Where is the bottom area found, and how?
Yukteswar teaches that the yuga cycle has an ebb, and finds the year AD 499 fit for being called THE BOTTOM. He uses astronomy for fixing the date, but other dates may be just as palatable. We go into that below.Now we get somewhat technical: Yukteswar links up the cycles to the star zeta Piscium; in Sanskrit the star is called Revati [Hos 12, 13, 17]
He renders Manu Samhita when it comes to how long each age is, and what characteristics each has. [Mux 20 (Ch 1, v 69-71), 20-22 (Ch 1, v 81-92), 396 (Ch 9, v 302] etc.] He correctly points out that Manu in the old book has postulated a cycle of 24,000 years, and not divine years. Others arrived at the latter through text interpolations. F. Max Muller uses brackets to show such interpolations in his English translation. It is on-line on-site. [LINK].
Yukteswar goes on to fix one bottom arc to AD 499 [Hos 12-13]. But recent attempts indicate that ca. 560 AD is suitable. [Link]
- If so, it was around AD 560 (hopefully 18 March 564) that the tropical and the sidereal
zero points were at exactly the same place, not in AD 499, which is Yukteswar's date. [Link]
- Apart from fixing a first date (AD 499) that may not fit, the swami fixes the
spans of each era to the slow retrograde motion of the Equinoctial points: The complete
retrograde cycle takes roughly 25,770 years*; which differs considerably from the Manu cycle of 24,000 years Yukteswar makes use of. But astronomers have adjusted the recession rate - but we do not know everything exactly in this. Hence, speculating becomes a temptation.
So far we have come up with this: (1) The starting point at AD 499 is debatable - it could be AD 564 according to old sources there seems to be more agreement about. (2) The complete Manu cycle of yugas in his calculations may be too short (or long). Presently his yuga cycle seems too short, but we do not have irrefutable long-range data on it yet.
That figure, 25770.03591 years, marks the stand of today's astronomy. The exact length of the rate of change has been modified over the years, either because it changed, or because measurements became more accurate, or both. However, if we depart from the current and valid-considered values without sound and good evidence, it could be to our woe, for the IAU figure is considered to be a very good reference point.
No reason to seem dogmatic
In science, the burden of proof rests on the proponent. It is not the other way around. Thus, it is the job of Yukteswar to furnish facts that show his proposed things are correct. It is often good to know just where the burden of proof lies.One thing we can do is to base ourselves on findings of astronomy, think them through and consider how long the yugas (eras) will be if the present estimate of the precession rate is fair. We also have to presuppose the precession rate does not change through the Platonic Year, for if it does we lack needed information, and cannot tell much fit. Modesty is thus called for, and lack of it may foster tomfoolery.
Yukteswar did not adhere to the elementary ground rules of present-day science when he formed his time-reckoning: He did not furnish evidence of the sort that is rooted in the universal, systemic web - and that part has to be furnished if a hypothesis and the like are to be looked on as theory. That is the way it should be in science.
"If - then" arguments
Manu says that the yuga lengths are in the proportion: 4 to 3 to 2 to 1. The "Golden Age" is the longest; the "Silver Age" comes next, and so on. If we adjust this set of proportions to the span of 25,770 years in astronomy, we come up with the following:Suggesting that a retrograde cycle (Platonic Year) is 25,770 years, a half-cycle will be 12,885 years, and the four allotted ages - yugas with their anciently postulated transitional time-spans (Skr. sandhas) - as follows:
| UPWARD CYCLE | ||
|---|---|---|
| Kali Yuga: Iron Age: |
107.375 1073.75 107.375 |
1288.5 |
| Dvapara Yuga: Bronze Age: |
214.75 2147.5 214.75 |
2577 |
| Treta Yuga: Silver Age: |
322.125 3221.25 322.125 |
3865.5 |
| Krita Yuga: Golden Age: |
429.5 4295 429.5 |
5154 |
| In sum: | 12,885 | |
These estimates are quite accurate and suffice for our purposes here and now. What such a table helps us see, is that maybe the swami got solidly wrong figures in calculating time according to the system he set up. Present-day astronomers do not support his time-span assertions by and large. He could be right anyway; our point is that "wrens" have no way of ascertaining that today, and thus need to "not know" for a while or for long. Yukteswar is reportedly not fond of blind believing:
If the map does not fit the terrain, the mapmaker is not to be called unerring and hailed far and wide for such feats as well.
Some say that Yukteswar arrived at his strong points by divine insights alone or mainly. They seem to be wrong on that point: Yukteswar studied astrology for long, as shown:
From his studies of Astrology and Vedic literatures Swami Sri Yukteshvar found ... Calculating on the above basis ... the constellation Aries ... 501 B.C. [etc.] [Link]
Downward cycle
Find the "Upward Cycle" table above. Reverse the scheme to get the downward cycle. As you have seen, the sum of these two will be 25,770 quite accurately.The proportions between eras are 1 : 2 : 3 : 4. You may have noted that in the Manu Samhita and in Yukteswar's use of it [Hos 11 et, Mux ch 1, cf v 81-86 too], each era has a grey zone (mutation period) in front and rear, and that any grey zone, sandhi, is one tenth of its respective 'era proper', the 'strict' yuga, which is 10/12 of the whole yuga era.
A REPEAT: Yukteswar postulates that the Vernal Equinox left the star sign Aries in AD
499 and entered Pisces. [Hos 13] Opinions differ about when this celestial phenomenon took
place. However, there are ancient sources that suggest it happened in the 560s AD.
The guru further employs the possibly much wrong time scale of 24,000 years in
fixing ages, and not a 25,770.036-year cycle which is acceptable (with possible
modifications) in modern science. When we base our reckoning on the latter cycle, we are not in Dvapara Yuga 300 in AD 2000, contrary to the Indian swami's views. Then, in what "age" are we now?
Based on the date AD 564,
|
Fixing time
The ways of fixing time that Yukteswar wanted the public to use, have not been well received. Yogananda and his disciples, a rather large following in the West, date almost all publications according to the Common Era. If your followers and admirers do not stick to your recommendations, do not expect the public to take your advice either.Our revision (based on the premise of a steady precession rate, and not one of changing speeds) yields a peculiar date: Subtract 1852.5 years from what your (Gregorian) calendar shows, and you might just have it. Accordingly, The year AD 2001 appears to be 148.5 Dvapara Sandhi (Bronze-Mutation Age). If so, we could all be in an upward Bronze transit period of time in AD 2001.
A little chart may shed further light here, and maybe not:
 |
| The four ages, yugas, according to Yukteswar. [Hos 9] CLICK ON THE CHART to inspect a larger one. |
TO THIS: To the left near the bottom of the figure, is an arrow that indicates the position of the autumnal equinox in the constellations somehow. The vernal equinox is opposite it.
However, there is reason to have some misgivings here too.
- We have presupposed a steady pace of precession, and not postulated any changes of speed in it - as long as there is lack of verified information on that subject.
- Just when was the postulated bottom area reached? Is there real evidence that it was just at the time Yukteswar proposed? Or was it about 60 years later? Or?
- We have no verification methods in science proper to infer or induce from selected base happenings that they were part of some major, overriding (even galactic) pattern by and large. An accomplishment of that sort is not easy to arrive at. One reason: present-day man lacks access to large amounts of historical evidence from tens of thousands of years back. What Yukteswar refers to or brings up, is an aftermath to be read in literature, some afterglow, if that is what it is.
Where are we?
Fixing time is not always easy. Sir Isaac Asimov has devoted a chapter of a book of his [Aso] to time reckoning and calendars. It is quite entertaining. Yukteswar relates our time to eras that are marked by different qualities, or changes of the Zeitgeist at large. He forges that approach with astronomy. Astronomy presents time by linking it to stars and solar systems and the like. And that is what we go into here:
The large Platonic Year is a whole cycle made by the equinox axis. So where does the
vernal (spring) axis point? That it points toward the fifth degree of Pisces, give or take, seems to be the common agreement. However, modern astronomers do not seem to know exactly where in Pisces
the vernal equinox is. Yet estimates can be found, different authors have different
outlooks. Astrodienst Online in
Zurich uses a displacement of 24.44 degrees (May 21, 2000 AD), you can see, if you
inspect their Extended Chart Selection. Their "geocentric sidereal selection" - which comes
with a warning - employs a divergence of about 25 degrees today.
Accordingly, the vernal equinox is now at "constellation Pisces 5" - but
only when we ignore that the constellation Pisces is broader that the star
sign Pisces, and a few other things, which include the problem of determining where and why
to think an irregular polygon shape ends along the zodiac belt and another starts; and also
the uncertainty of the displacement span itself, due to differently fixed focal points
somehow.
Maybe 5 degrees Pisces fits, maybe not. It seems wise to allow judiciousness and
leave the matter be for now, if you do not have fit clues for the plumbing in these
waters. Few have them.
 |
| Pisces star image. The polygon in red is drawn through the stars highlighted, and the two imagined, bound fishes are added. |
Said in other words: When the sun reaches the vernal equinox in its yearly round (one day in March), the sun enters the first degree of the Aries star sign. But the constellation is different; it drifts away from the star sign and also "drives" away from here (and changes its contours through that). Yes the constellation is yet getting steadily displaced throughout time - 50.29 seconds a year according to Palma (above). Thus, that the vernal equinox is in the constellation Pisces 5-9 could fit if we think in a certain way. Other numbers may arise if we think along other veins. That should be welcomed as a problem.
Has the Age of Aquarius come?
The Age of Aquarius, a New Age after the Piscean Era we are inside, is not now. At least the given technicalities support this outlook:The full cycle that these ages link up to, is the retrograde movement of the equinox axis through the zodiac. As you may know, the zodiac is a ring of constellations that the Sun seems to pass through each year as the Earth orbits around the sun. There are actually 13 zodiacal constellations today, as defined by astronomers: The Serpent Holder is now in the zodiac too, and lies between Scorpio and Sagittarius.
As you may recall, a Platonic Year is the time it takes for the equinox axes to make a full circle around the earth. Put otherwise, the retrogression cycle through the zodiac takes ca. 25,770 years. A circle is typically divided into 360 degrees [Maso], and each star sign is 1/12 of that again, i.e. 30 degrees. If the length of the Platonic Year (the large cycle) is quite correct, it takes 25,770.036 : 12 = 2147 1/2 years for the axis to move through one star sign. That is an age, and it is not 2400 years. If the Pisces Age started in AD 564 (give and take) - and not in 0 or AD 499 - the Age of Aquarius is about in AD 2712. We are not there yet . . . Our stipulations may not be perfectly correct, but are very close to the best suggestions we have come up with when based on present-day astronomical knowledge.
Thus, the Age of Aquarius is not now - there are many centuries to go till it arrives. We are in a Pisces Age in AD 2000.
It takes the equinox axis nearly 72 years to traverse one degree of the zodiac circle (and it moves roughly 1 degree and 24 minutes per century). In the light of this there are years and centuries to go till the Age of Wisdom (Aquarius) arrives. It could be interesting to know that James Donald Walters, aka Kriyananda, has pointed out the same phenomenon in one of his books: Your Sun Sign as A Spiritual Guide. [Ssg]
Are we in Pisces or Virgo or not?
Yukteswar teaches that in the West the spring point of the equinox axis (ie, the vernal equinox point) is given the attention, and that in the East the autumn part of the axis is held to be of much value. Thus, the Pisces Age is also a Virgo Age by polarity. Both outlooks unite in this: We are in a Pisces-Virgo Age (We are all in the same boat). Further, if the spring point is associated with personal matters, the autumn point is associated with fellowship issues; it is a twin or dual perspective.
It means that nearing the Aquarius Age, we are also and just as much nearing the
Leo Age. Few seem to have heard of it.The span of constellations
There is a problem, nay, many problems. Our calculations so far tie in with the fact that any star sign is 30 degrees wide and broad. It is so defined. Thus, the sign Pisces is 30 degrees. But the constellation Pisces that is linked to what we love to call fixed stars, even if they move away from here at a high speed, is over 30 degrees wide. Gemini is far less than 30 degrees. An astronomer can tell you how many degrees each constellation (handed-over star image) covers, and we bring you a table survey of it also. But there is another snag to it:"The International Astronomical Union (IAU) adopted boundaries for each constellation in 1930. The accepted boundaries are published in the following work: E. Delporte, in, Delimitation scientifique desconstellations (tables et cartes), Cambridge University Press, 1930. The boundaries are irregular polygons, so the width varies depending on where you choose your starting and ending points." [Chris Palma in a personal communication]
Thus when does the Pisces Age end? According to what? The star signs, what beginnings and ends of the constellation images? What is the proper guideline? If you can tell us, please do so.
Rubbing it in: Are we considering star signs of 30 degrees each when we should deal with constellations of irregular polygon shapes and unequal length? Can anyone resolve this without yodeling a bit off tune here and there? [Cf. Maso 148; Alk]
| Constellation whereabouts | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Star sign dates* | Constellation dates* (2000) | Days or degrees |
| Aries | Mar 22–Apr 21 | Apr 18–May 13 | 25 |
| Taurus | Apr 22–May 21 | May 13–June 22 | 40 |
| Gemini | May 22–June 21 | June 22–July 21 | 29 |
| Cancer | June 22–July 21 | July 21–Aug 10 | 20 |
| Leo | July 22–Aug 21 | Aug 10–Sept 16 | 37 |
| Virgo | Aug 22–Sept 21 | Sept 16–Oct 31 | 45 |
| Libra | Sept 22–Oct 21 | Oct 31–Nov 23 | 23 |
| Scorpius | Oct 22–Nov 21 | Nov 23–Nov 29 | 6 |
| Ophiuchus* | Nov 29–Dec 18 | 19 | |
| Sagittarius | Nov 22–Dec 21 | Dec 18–Jan 21 | 34 |
| Capricornus | Dec 22–Jan 21 | Jan 21–Feb 16 | 26 |
| Aquarius | Jan 22–Feb 21 | Feb 16–Mar 11 | 24 |
| Pisces | Feb 22–Mar 21 | Mar 11–Apr 18 | 38 |
| Rooted in a table by David Hasenauer. [Link] | |||
*CORRECTIONS
- THE DATES given in the column of
"star sign dates" may vary with a day or at most two in a leap year cycle of 4 years. They
are approximate, then.
- OPHIUCHUS, 'Oph', is the Serpent Holder or Serpent
Bearer:
This constellation is not part of the zodiac, but the sun passes through it in December each year. When the Babylonians drew the zodiac 3000 years ago or so, the sun passed through just the twelve constellations we still refer to as the zodiac. Because of the Earth's precession (wobble) the apparent way of the sun through the sky has changed through the millenniums. [Link]
"While the sun still traverses Scorpius, it only takes nine days [sic] to do so; most of the time is spent in neighbouring Ophiuchus (which is the only constellation that the sun enters but which is not a part of the zodiac)." [Link]
"Each year the Sun spends ... only six days within the boundary of Scorpius. ... And ... for those born in early December, the Sun spends some time within Ophiuchus, the Serpent Bearer. Although it's one of the largest constellations in area, Ophiuchus is the unrespected Rodney Dangerfield of the zodiac." [Link]
There is a rich mythology around the Serpent Holder too. [Good Link] - DATE AND DEGREE DIVERGENCES: Astrodienst in Zuruck does not operate with exactly the same DATE AND DEGREE DIVERGENCES as D. Hasenauer in their strict-looking calculations. [Link] The handy purpose of presenting the "Hasenauer survey" is to show how widely the spans of constellations seem to vary - it's seen from the right column above through "one day is approximately one degree of arc". - As for Scorpius and Ophiuchus, they are taken as 'one Scorpius' too.
World Cycles
A skylark does not have to adjust to how moderate others are when he soars and sings. Nor is the skylark asked to leave the sky to advance low growths of bushes and the like."I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine (...) this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." [Sir Bertrand Russell, from "Introduction: On the Value of Scepticism", in Sceptical Essays published by Allen and Unwin in London, 1928]
Lord Bertrand Russell
Skylark theories without backup tend to fall down on the ground, whereas modest or sensible wren-like outputs with a lot of back-up from the ground, may get a far better fate or fare in science.
We talk for all-round "wrennish" sensible modesty in science, instead of promoting unverified tenets. Opposite to that, Yukteswar often soars like a lark. Is there a resolution between the "skylark theory-making" and the "humble wren theory-making"? Not in known science, to our knowing.
Yukteswar (1855-1936) tells us about a yuga cycle that humans are inside, subjected to its regularly patterned, changing influences, and relates that heavenly cycle to the Platonic Year of astronomy. That era stems from the precession of the zodiac and is today estimated to be 25.770 years. Yukteswar (a) "divinely" applies a Hindu scripture cycle of 24.000 years to the astronomical cycle of 25.770 years, ignoring they are of unequal length. (b) He fixes a "low ebb point" of his calculated cycle to AD 499, but it is a questionable date. (c) He ascribes different qualities of humans to four main stages (called yugas, eras) of that huge cycle. Yukteswar also takes to idiosyncratic mentions of advances in science throughout the centuries. Such mentions may also be called episodic verifications (read: claims). Episodic "verification" may rest on humbug. One should know that. And that the way he seeks to confirm his ages reckonings are coloured by his design - he seeks and finds "confirmations" with no alternative notions (no counterhypotheses) in it. Such a verification way is called idiosyncratic. Shankara and many others may have been born in an era of primitive, low-levelled thinking according to Yukteswar's scenario.
Further, it looks like an illusion that things will always work out well. Sri
Yukteswar appears to advocate it too, in a saying of his that Yogananda cherishes. The
essence of it is: "Everything in future will improve if you are making a spiritual
effort now." Will the rate of precession improve in that case? It depends on what
is meant by improvement. The guru leaves out that necessary part of it.
Do not believe it till you see it. We will look into other tenet of his in the next few chapters.
The silence habitual to Sri Yukteswar was caused by his deep perceptions of the Infinite. [There is no Infinite.] . . . "In oceanic minds the whales of inspiration make hardly a ruffle." - Yogananda
The other side of the story is that whales are mammals that need air and may splash
wonderfully, thereby catching pray and having fun. "In too shallow men and women words on depth are swallowed too easily." |
 |
 |
 |
| Literature | SECTION | First Page |
Ak: Yogananda, Paramahansa: Man's Eternal Quest. SRF. Los Angeles, 1975.
Alk: Beck, Thomas: Astrologisk leksikon. Teknologisk forlag. Oslo, 1993.
Aso: Asimov, Isaak: Om tall. Dreyer. Oslo, 1980.
Ebu: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD. London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2006.
Ha: Yogananda, Paramahansa: Autobiography of a Yogi. 12th ed. Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF). Los Angeles, 1981.
Hom: Berne, Eric: What Do You Say After You Say Hello? The Psychology of Human Destiny. Bantam. New York, 1973.
Hos: Yukteswar, sw: The Holy Science. 7th ed. Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF), Los Angeles, 1972.
Mas: SRF: Self-Realization Fellowship: Golden Anniversary. SRF. Los Angeles, 1970.
Maso: Mayo, Jeff: Astrology. Rev ed. Hodder and Stoughton. Sevenoaks, 1979.
Mux: Bühler, G. tr: The Laws of Manu. Banarsidass (Reprint from Oxford University's 1886-edition). Delhi, 1984.
Pa: Yogananda, Paramahansa: Autobiography of a Yogi. 11th ed. Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF). Los Angeles, 1971. – ONLINE 1st edition
Say: Yogananda, Paramahansa: Sayings of Yogananda. Self-Realization Fellowship. Los Angeles, 1958.
Scf: Yogananda, Paramahansa: Scientific Healing Affirmations. Self-Realization Fellowship. Los Angeles, 1958.
Scp: Yogananda, Paramahansa: The Science of Religion. Self-Realization Fellowship. Los Angeles, 1953.
Sob: Self-Realization Fellowship: Paramahansa Yogananda in Memoriam. SRF. Los Angeles, 1958.
Viom: Jolly, Julius tr: The Institutes of Vishnu. Banarsidass. Delhi, 1965.
Whip: Yogananda, Paramahansa: How You Can Talk with God. SRF. Los Angeles, 1969.
CLICK on 'Literature' for the references of about 2000
works.
ANNOTATIONS: Code letters (acronyms and initial words) in square brackets in the text refer to works. Click on 'Literature' to see examples. Page references are put right after code
letters. And the abbreviation cf. means "compare". [MORE].
SITE SEARCH: The 'Search' link gives access to dictionaries and more.
REFER: Prefer the standard 'location address' on top of the page(s).
PILOTING: Note the clickable text links on top of the page. [MORE]
DISCLAIMER: Two disclaimers intertwine: [A] [B]
© 1999–2006, Tormod Kinnes. All rights reserved — Revised in August 2006