Yukteswar's Holy Science Teachings

• Street-smart Yukteswar
• A Frank Look at Christianity

Street-smart Yukteswar

Travelling a path of illumination, one sees too little at times.

Premises of Yukteswar's Book

You can approach the main ideas of Hindu Sankhya philosophy and other Indian philosophies through textbooks, and a seal cannot [eg. Him, Ins, Ith, Sf, Wo].

The basic ideas and program of the book The Holy Science were enjoined on him by another, called Babaji - it means "revered father". The command was: "Will you not write a short book on the underlying basic unity between the Christian and Hindu scriptures? Show by parallel references that the inspired sons of God have spoken the same truths, now obscured by men's sectarian differences." [Ay, ch. 36]

In this way Yukteswar became a mouth-piece of an outlook and program that is under the weather, in that the two main conclusions of his book were grafted onto him. He was not given freedom to think for himself and think twice, which is much treasured by scientists and scholars, and some tell is necessary. And the cramped ideology of what he was enjoined to tell does not hold water either.

You should do better and consider whether or to what degree there is an underlying basic unity between Christian and Hindu scriptures. Yukteswar was guru-commanded to claim "same truths", and ignore much that normally is vitally important for a studied person: freedom to decide for himself; freedom to change his view in the face of mounting evidence, and freedom to correct the mistaken notions of the command-giver, in fact. But you have hopefully better or more freedom than that.

If Yukteswar had been given the freedom to think for himself (derived from a hoary yoga aim, moksha) to reject some faulty or dubious notions among those first (or basic) premises of writing, his layout could have become smarter in that he would not have rallied in wrong directions from the onset:

1. There is not one Hinduism, but many variants and facets, and they differ.
2. Christian scriptures consist of much divergent material too, but if we restric ourselves to the New Testament's gospels, a few things stand out at once: Jesus said there is no salvation except from the Jews; he allowed no other master than himself; he persistently told his followers were sick people; he came for Jews only; and salvation was something to be freely given, not something to work for. These vital points of Christianity claiming to be the exclusive way to God - can hardly or never be reconciled with the Hindu scriptures, who allow self-help by yoga methods.
3. In Christianity all followers are called children of God and gods, and as for the "inspirations" of Jesus, self-maining for very little is one them, expressed in the form of some of his commands. Hindu scriptures do not turn that insane. And in what "inspired sons of God" in Hinduism teach, it differs and conflicts.

So Yukteswar was given an impossible task - accordingly a menial task - and what he could produce was not much different from foam at the mouth. He solved his task that way. To come around he selected a variant of the Sankya philosophy as his Hindu scripture basis, but without even telling of his sources. This is mentioned because the ancient Sankhya of the rishi Kapila is one of six orthodox Hindu philosophies is generally regarded as atheistic. It teaches salvation through knowledge of the dualism of matter and souls. Yoga philosophyis closely allied to Sankhya, but also accepts there is a God. Regular Sankhya does not allow for God, so how can it be similar to Christianity with its immense focus on the sheep-catching or sheep-making God of Jews and Christians? What is more how can Sankhya tell the same truths as the other six schools of Hindu philosophy when they differ among themselves? And so on. There are many, many more scriptures of Hinduism than its six orthodox philosophies.

It appears that Yukteswar applied a divergent, quite recent Sankhya development to bolster up his Babaji-enjoined givens. Yukteswar also chose obscure, figurative passages from the Book of Revelation in the Bible to compare with. That means he got quite free reins by interpreting figurative passages. If such an approach was street-smart, was is smart enough, all in all? It appears to me that he should have gone for handy integrity instead, and avoided the other blunders in his book too, considering his reputation as (inflated) "divine wisdom incarnated".

❖ Consider to what degree freedom to think for oneself and settle on one's own conclusions is needed in satisfactory research and higher study.

Yukteswar chose Hindu Sankhya philosophy to compare Christianity with, but there are many others Hindu philosophies that do not agree with Sankya

Several passages from different cultures look alike, if taken out of context. Some single out such passages, and say, "They say the same thing." But to find out of it, you should see them in their original context (setting), that is, their culture. That makes comparisons more fair and tidy. Another fallacy is that of saying "the scriptures tell the same" and judge all alike by such a horribly inadequate standard. The scriptures do not tell the same, not even the scriptures of Hinduism. They differ and conflict in their understanding of the world too, and are in part incompatible with another. Among those "first, defective ideas" we find that "Hinduism" and some of its six orthodox philosophies - among them Sankhya - hold one unified view. The fact is that there are divergent views even in the Sankhya philosophy. Further, the wide Hinduism is not unified, no matter what is imagined among "dreamers".

Is it clever to assemble quotes in order to show that a said similarity between Hindu and Christian basic views exists? By selecting serving passages that conform to a fixated purpose, confusing ideas may come next. It is better to sample typical views from Christianity and deal with them as squarely as one can in the first place. If that is done right, it shows up that ancient Christianity does not consider the features of Samkhya or any Hindu system.

❖ Different scriptures do not tell the same - don't get confused in that.

Strange Tidings

Yukteswar's approach consists of seeking to show that Hindu and Christian scriptures agree in showing a way out, and how it runs as a rigmarole. He also trained his disciple Paramahansa Yogananda for a mission in the West. Some results of Yogananda's work need to be shown, as Yukteswar's teachings and life are embedded in Yogananda's "hive", that is, the church he set up at its publications. The three first aims and ideals of Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) and its California-registered church are:

1. To disseminate among the nations a knowledge of definite scientific techniques for attaining direct personal experience of God.
2. To teach that the purpose of life is the evolution, through self-effort of man's limited mortal consciousness into God Consciousness; and to this end to establish Self-Realization Fellowship temples for God-communion throughout the world, and to encourage the establishment of individual temples of God in the homes and in the hearts of men.
3. To reveal the complete harmony and basic oneness of original Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and original Yoga as taught by Bhagavan Krishna; and to show that these principles of truth are the common scientific foundation of all true religions.

❖ Many ideals among men are impossible ones. Guess who the idea of Krishna and Jesus banding serves.

Yogananda-changed Tidings

A Reign of Confusion

Not just "divide and rule" but just as much "confuse and rule" forms a basis for very much handed-over religiousness that makes one crank.

What should be noted is that Yogananda first taught that his handed-over methods were scientific, but later modified that outlook somehow when the approach did not work as intended. For example, someone came to Yogananda one day, referring to Yogananda's teachings that doing a million kriya pantings would cause enlightenment and freedom, and said, "I have done a million kriyas, and still I am not enlightened!"

Yogananda replied, "But your attitude was not right!"

As if one's attitude has anything to do with the approach as long as it is done correctly. Now in the chapter called "The Science of Kriya Yoga" in Yogananda's Autobiography we find this outlook:

The ancient rishis [seers] discovered that man's earthly and heavenly environment . . . push him forward on his natural path. The scriptures aver that man requires a million years of normal, diseaseless evolution to perfect his human brain and attain cosmic consciousness.

One thousand Kriyas practiced in 8 1/2 hours gives the yogi in one day, the equivalent of one thousand years of natural evolution: 365,000 years of evolution in one year. In three years, a Kriya Yogi can thus accomplish by intelligent self-effort the same result that Nature brings to pass in a million years . . . withstand the power generated by intensive practice. [Link]

You should ask where Yogananda got his figures from. Yukteswar writes it takes twelve million years in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita [Bhg] - The man who approached Yogananda with a million kriyas, probably referred to his teachings, without calculating with that Yogananda changed parts of them as he adapted to Americans. It seems that in his early years in American Yogananda taught that about half a minute's kriya (a round) equalled a month's natural development. Later he taught it equalled a year's natural, diseaseless development. In so doing he greatly speeded up the doctrine from "one kriya equals one month's development" to "one kriya equals one year's development". Further, Marshall Govindam explains that after five years in America, Yogananda began to modify and adapt his teachings to the West in order to overcome the resistance of Christians. [More]

In this connection, a Catholic professor, father "Matheo", has surfed a part of the SRF literature and concludes that Yogananda "seems to teach the Pelagian heresy of salvation by human effort alone" [Link].

And yes, Yukteswar's disciple does teach self-help by kriya yoga - that too. But in other places he says devotion is needed along with the kriya techniques (which he simplifed and changed along the adaptation way also). Thus, you not only get the teaching that kriya yoga is scientific and enough for a yogic liberation, or cosmic consciousness; you also hear that it is not enough, and there are further modifications along with that too. The table is set for getting into a thich fog:

The ancient Chinese philosopher Chuang-tzu (Zhuangzi) says, ""He who knows he is confused is not in the worst confusion."

❖ Intelligent folks see through Yogananda demagoguery, and narcissism too.

A Little Look at Christianity

Glowing praise of Jesus and incoherent Christianity from the mouths and pens of Hindu swamis, how valuable is it? There are two big problems in it

If praising Hindus say they come in the name of Jesus against his words, it is a shame. If they do come in his name, it may be twice as bad, considering his takes on self-maiming and martyrdom, for Jews only, for ill and depraved "sheep" only, and so on.

To repeat: when they teach untruths by saying they unite the "original Christianity of Jesus Christ" and unspecified type(s) of Hinduism, it is disgusting. If such emissaries are so shallow and uninformed about what Christianity is that they drop the sacraments and much else to make it conform to Hinduism, and ignore hard words by Jesus against false Christs and so on in their programs, let it be their problem. But to the degree you believe them, you are in for disappointments.

A Christian is like an ill sheep, says Jesus

Second, if they do not try to swindle it is just as bad, because Jesus said he came only for ill persons - his sheep - and also taught followers to maim themselves for very little - and that that it is better to be healthy than a Christian. He said so. [Mark 2:17; Matthew 9:12-12; Luke 5:31-32.] Let us not be mistaken in this, then. [Link]

In conclusion: If these Hindu emissaries are mistaken all-knowers and the like, it is bad. If they are not mistaken but in union with the Christianity of Jesus, it is just as bad, maybe even worse. There was no "original Christianity of Jesus", by the way. Try to look into the evidence: [Link]

❖ If becomes us to look with massive suspicion on those who come in the name of Jesus, and not embrace junk either.

❖ "To the degree you believe them, you are in for disappointments," has been a life lesson for several dozens of former SRF monastics. It is repeatedly stated that one third of the Self-Realization Fellowship monastics left the SRF premises in about a year, around 2001 or 2002.

Hindu-administered Christianity?

Yukteswar was asked by the secretive guru Babaji to show a unity between Hindu and Christian scriptures. To this: Disciples of Jesus can have only one Master, himself, Jesus says. And what does that shepherd teach?

First consider that obeying someone who says "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off . . . If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off . . . if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out [Mark 9:46, 47]", requires metaphor-making rather than hypocrisy or stunning fits of madness over and over. But as it is, neither hand, foot nor eye causes sins, luckily. The outlook of Jesus is all wrong; not just grossly primitive and misleading. Besides, no one should follow self-maiming injunctions. The sane person can seek no unity with that.

Jesus also says that "No one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined [Mark 2:22]." Is that so sure? One undecided question is how old 'old skins' are to be too old to serve. Good quality of skins helps in ensuring long and good use most often. So we should not be duped into foolish belief, but withstand it well.

❖ Resist over-bossy claims to restrict yourself into unsoundness.

Jesus talks vehemently against himself

Just don't be bugged by Bible teachings, for Jesus talks vehemently against himself too, and we cannot be reconciled with that. Not even Yukteswar should try it. He avoids the issue.

When he [Jesus] was alone, the Twelve [apostles] and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" " [Mark 4:10-12]

First, he says "Let those with ears, hear. Next he says they will not understand anyway. What a waste of "ear-power", time and effort! What a sordid communication pattern he uses. Gautama Buddha, on the other hand, teaches parables to further his message, to help where possible.To study Jesus more here, at the Sanhedrin Jesus says, according to John, "I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. [John 18:20, emphasis added]."
      Is that so? In the gospel of Mark he says his disciples were given the secret of the kingdom. In John it is 'secrets', by the way, as if it matters: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them [Matthew 13:11]."
      He explained parables to disciples, but not to outsiders. He did say things in secret, then.

In the fifteenth chapter of Acts the apostles and the Holy Spirit put aside almost any command of Jesus in order to favour Gentile Christians. You have to ask why, for if his commands were right far and wide, and he wanted all peoples to follow them, they would matter more than that.

❖ The question is if anyone should try to be aligned to the Christianity of Jesus. And after all, Yukteswar's disciple Yogananda did it mainly in a mad soap way.

Jesus says He Came to His Own, and Was for Jews Only, but Where Were His Own?

Jesus never tired of claiming he wanted to save God's people, and often used Old Testament prophets to "legitimise his business". However, he did not refer to all of them, and not to Amos and Hosea, where it says Israel is destroyed, never to rise again. In coming for the lost sheep of Israel - whether the destroyed ones [Matthew 10:6; 15:24; Hosea 1:4; 13:9,11; Amos 2:13; 5:2] or the faithless Judha, Jesus was on a wild goose chase and met with an ignominious death as well.

A saint is a sinner who never gave up, said Yukteswar. At any rate, trying not to give up a good thing may be wiser. Stand firm. The yogi book strives to present a harmony and unity with Hinduism that many a Christian pastor and rational human feels it wise to reject. And dogmatic Christianity, just as Yukteswar does in his bood, skips many recurrent, conflicting outlooks and issues of very early Christianity. You have just been given one such issue, that of finding and saving God's lost sheep when they were dead, according to such as:

"I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel." [Hosea 1:4]
"I will crush you". [Amos 2:13]
"Fallen is Virgin Israel, never to rise again". [Amos 5:2]
"You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against me, against your helper." [From Hosea 13:9,11]"
"Fallen is Virgin Israel, never to rise again". [Amos 5:2 - and Matthew 10:6; 15:24]

Jesus showed up to be highly unwanted among his kin and among Jews, and was at last executed as a blasphemer. What he claimed and said about "his own", "hen mothering them" and so on, was not received - those he claimed were his sheep, did not heed his voice and did not want him after all. That that is the gospel in a nutshell.

Christianity never was completely cogent, and there are different versions in different gospels about happenings too - and many inconsistencies. And some who seek unity with it, are in for a mess - in addition comes Yogananda's messy verbiage. For example, Jesus at first claimed that salvation came from the Jews [John 4:22; cf. Acts 4:12], and that his mission was for the lost sheep of Israel, and his words were for the chosen people [Matthew 15:24].

After he had been rejected by those he allegedly came to rescue, he " wanted to to make disciples of all nations" by forgery, most likely. [Matthew, final verses, but those verses are much likely a later, added forgery, as it opposes the content in a whole, pivoting chapter in Acts, etc.]. It is clear from Acts that ideas and concepts in the later addition that ends the gospel of Matthew, contradict central parts of the New Testament too.

That was after leading Jews had rejected him and had him killed. Jesus changed his Game (Lila) after being spat on and getting up from the grave, so to speak. But the apostles and the Holy Spirit teach all Gentile Believers to stick to four principles and by that luckily toned down things Jesus insisted on in Matthew 5:17-20 etc - he who reserved his teachings for Jews only, it should be remembered. One of the four essentials for Gentile Believers is not to eat blood food. (Acts 15; 21:25). Blood food includes black pudding and so on. How few rightly principled Christians there are around, how many eaters of black pudding there are who condemn adultery - one more of the four essentials to refrain from!

This is to say that not just early Christianity has many unresolved issues and incoherent and probably forged tidings. Anyway, early Christianity was never very cogent and smoothly functioning, but a growth for centuries, also with conflicting parties. At that time some old texts were discarded, and others were put to use. This happened in part as a result of Gnosticism threatening a dogmatic kind of Christianity. [Dg]

Also, it seems overlooked by many today that Jesus says he came only for ill ones, that the healthy ones did not need him. Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick . . . "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." "For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." [Matthew 9:12-13].

What Jesus says may be simplified into "Better sane than a Christian". Being fair and true to facts is important, and can be taken to mean righteous in some way too [cf John 4:23]. Jesus here openly says that the people who had fostered him, was a people of sinners, and called it God's people. Here too Jesus disregards that God had crushed his people long ago, according to prophet sayings. Hm. One side of righteousness is that innocent ones are not to pay for misdeeds of culprits. Criminal minds have it differently, and the Law of Moses - it institutes such vicarious sacrifices over and over, and details them. Greatly inconsistent Jesus who said nothing should be changed in that Law, also disclaimed parts of it, allowing Sabbath work also at times.
      When he himself is said to be sacrificed to atone for the sins of others, it gets still more debatable, and we meet with vicarious sacrifice again, instead of the less drastic, Law-detailed method of yearly chasing a religiously "sin-loaded" scapegoat into the desert. "Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites". [Leviticus 16:5-10; 20-22; 26 (quotation)]. In the Old Testament Jehovah also lets innocent ones - birds and animals - suffer and die - butchered in religious ways - for the sins of Jews. There was no detailed need for extra harm done. However, in the New Testament he has Jesus treated as a human scapegoat and sacrificed as if by whim, instead of letting a couple of scapegoats "do the needed atonement" as Jahve had instituted in hardness against animals. But the confused, said mission of Jesus failed; the Jews stuck to their handed-over Law much as one might suspect, and saw to it that Jesus was executed. Then he appears to have changed his mind - Anyway, it was really the Father's will to have Jesus killed, Jesus said in the Garden to very sleepy disciples there. [Matthew 26:42]

Jesus says in one place (above) that it is mercy he and God wants, and not sacrifice . . . In psychiatry scapegoating is held to be a neurotic defence. Vicarious sacrifices seem to be for ill individuals. That followers of a sacrificed lamb are sick, is more than suggested by him (above). He also intones, "The sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out [John 10:2-4]. Here he presents himself as a good shepherd, and his followers as sheep. Thus "sickly sheep", to cut it short.

One should not overlook that the fate of a sickly sheep may get cruel after some time. Or that Jesus also says in one place that it is best not to be a human sheep by "How much more valuable is a man than a sheep [Matthew 12:12]!" Be that as it may, later millions of Christian "sheep" were slaughtered as martyrs, as part of public entertainment. Find better and humane outlets.

This has been to illustrate that there are unresolved issues in Christianity, and that Gentile followers must err if they put faith in words Jesus said for Jews only before he changed his mind, and before the Holy Spirit and all the apostles disgraced many of his teachings, in Acts 15. The essence of that Gentile deal:

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. [Acts 15:28-29, emphasis added]

Also consider that much which Jesus said, did not come to pass. For example, his "for Jews only" words were dropped later. His telling of the end of the world did not come when the early Christians and Peter expected it either, it seems safe to say. A simple way to avoid the catastrophe is to let some volunteering nations never hear the-end-is-near-focused gospel. "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come [Matthew 24:14]." To avert such a Great Disaster is help that other religions give! "The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded [1 Peter 4:7]."
      A certain clear-minded take is to put a stick in the cogwheels that bring about the disaster. Also consider in detail, "You may bring salvation to the ends of the earth [Acts 13:47]." The earth is round; there are no ends, hence no end. Hurrah, since that biblical salvation implies destruction of the whole planet.

"The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded [1 Peter 4:7]". That is what they thought, guided by the Holy Ghost? Many early church Christians who became martyrs of public entertainment and so on, were expecting that the end was near, the big end, for they were so taught. Yukteswar does not go into this part of Christianity. He teaches help from yoga. And in essential Buddhism, one Great Treasure is getting clear minded, but on other premises than Peter talked of. Definitely.

❖ Try to become a healthy, fitly evolving human being, not a sickly sheep of conform, over-dogmatic, and bombastic rudeness without end. That is how it should be according to messages of Jesus, who taught against himself . . .

Buddhism Teaches Compassion and Other Virtues Also

In Hinduism the scriptures are variegated and outlooks differ widely too; some of them may not be reconciled with each other. Some teach sacrifice, and their yogas may serve as sacrifices, like overdooing the good thing, or not having decent, good methods for diving. Some scriptures speak for sacrifice, others don't. Buddhism has a long tradition for mercy and non-sacrifices, and aims at development too. It is spoken of as "setting the wheel of Dharma in motion", among other things. Dharma means righteousness, but also refers to Buddha's over-all teachings. But since they may have been modified in the hands of disciples before they were put down in writing, a pinch of salt is required for tackling them and the much variegated Buddhist tradition. Aim straight at the source and see what it brings, is the message. Extracts from some of the very best text sources are presented on-site. [BUDDHIST TEACHINGS]

There are many gems in Hinduism too. The powerful appeal of Transcendental Meditation (TM) lies in part in its stand that one is not to deprive oneself of valuable contacts, assets, abilities, and further.

A sheep's approach is at odds with being enabled to inspect and not believe blindly.

The sort of Sankhya (Hindu philosophy) Yukteswar delves into in the work, is not found in many regular Sankhya sources. So what Yukteswar presents as Sankhya thinking, does not conform full well to common Sankhya.

❖ Pivotal parts of Yukteswar's message are found in much common yoga lore, and the samkhya philosophy of Hinduism.

Great Lack of References in Yukteswar's book

A deep-probing work may suffer from lack of good texts to compare with. However, in this text it is possible, and there has been a need to point out dubious calculations and missing, vital information. The publishers should set to work and find the passages the author has assembled and present all needed references so that the work conforms to common scholarschip standards of today. That might do good.

So: The Holy Science furnishes no exact references to the Sanskrit texts or quotations the work draws on: neither author nor work(s) are shown. Hence, assessments suffer. It is not according to current common standards of scholars, scientists, and other inquisitive individuals to omit the pertinent source references. The lack of them engenders frustrations when there is a desire to penetrate the mere surface of book assertions.

For the lack of such rather vital information, parts of the text are put aside (put in suspense) and go uncommented by me so far. That should be a proper scholarly approach under our conditions.

❖ Common scholarship today asks for references.

Conclusion

The claimed connection between Yukteswar's disciple Yogananda and Jesus is a fabrication if Jesus told the truth when he warned against false teachers and false Christs. Those who think otherwise, seem too uninformed about what Christianity tells and how bad the teachings of Jesus are for followers - making hated martyrs of all Jews he could catch - the only ones he came for, he says. There is little doubt that such "grace" is to be avoided at all cost, as it is much more valuable to stay well and keep well than to be one of his sheep, he tells.

Variegated Hinduism can take you into greener pastures; there is that possibility, for example through TM (Transcendental Meditation). And Yukteswar was ordered to write of a unity that is hardly there at bottom. How did he solve his dilemmas? He took some passages from the Bible out of their original context, interpreted figurative statements to suit his job, blended them with Sanskrit statements he did not give references to, spent some time on elaborating on a view of yugas (time periods) - and then he wrote of an ascent route into aloneness, kaivalya. Maybe you desperately don't want to be all alone, when it comes to the pinch?

❖ For greener pastures - master TM.

Literature  

Ak: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Man's Eternal Quest. New ed. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1986.

Ay: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Autobiography of a Yogi. 1st ed. New York: Philosophical Library, 1946. Online. [oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk12.html]

Bhg: Sri Yukteswar, Swami. Bhagavad Gita. Portland, Mn: Yoganiketan, 2002. On-line at www.yoganiketan.net

Dg: Pagels, Elaine. De gnostiske evangelier: Evangeliene kirken ikke ville bruke (The Gnostic Gospels: The Gospels the Church Would not Use). Oslo: Cappelen, 1980.

Ebu: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica 2009 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD. London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009.

Ha: Yogananda, Pa.: Autobiography of a Yogi. 12th ed. Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF). Los Angeles, 1981.

Him: Zaehner, R. C.: Hinduism. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. London, 1966.

Hos: Sri Yukteswar, swami. The Holy Science. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF), 1972.

Ins: Prabhavananda, sw: The Spiritual Heritage of India. 2nd ed. Vedanta. Hollywood, 1969.

Ith: Flood, Gavin: An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1996.

Ky: Dasgupta, Sailendra B. Kriya Yoga and Sri Yukteshvar. Np: Yoganiketan, 1998. On-line: [yoganiketan.net/kriyayoga/index.htm].

Mux: Bühler, G. tr: The Laws of Manu. Banarsidass (Reprint from Oxford University's 1886-edition). Delhi, 1984.

Pa: Yogananda, Pa.: Autobiography of a Yogi. 11th ed. Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF). Los Angeles, 1971.

Say: Yogananda, Pa.: Sayings of Yogananda. Self-Realization Fellowship. Los Angeles, 1958.

Scf: Yogananda, Pa.: Scientific Healing Affirmations. Self-Realization Fellowship. Los Angeles, 1958.

Scp: Yogananda, Pa.: The Science of Religion. Self-Realization Fellowship. Los Angeles, 1953.

Sf: Klaus K. Klostermaier: A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press. Albany, N.Y, 1989.

Sob: Self-Realization Fellowship: Paramahansa Yogananda in Memoriam. SRF. Los Angeles, 1958.

Thd: Zukav, Gary. The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. London: Rider, 1979.

Viom: Jolly, Julius tr: The Institutes of Vishnu. Banarsidass. Delhi, 1965.

Wo: Chatterjee, Satischandra and Datta, Dhirendramohan: An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. 7th ed. University of Calcutta. Calcutta, 1968.

Xm: Radhakrishnan, S. ed: The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. 3. Rev. ed. Ramakrishna Institute. Calcutta, 1953.

Ym: Satyananda, Swami. Swami Sri Yukteshvar Giri Maharaj. A Biography. Portland, Mn: Yoganiketan, 2004. On-line at www.yoganiketan.net



   USER'S GUIDE to abbreviations, the site's bibliography, letter codes, dictionaries, site design and navigation, tips for searching the site and page referrals. [LINK]
   © 1999–2010, Tormod Kinnes. All rights reserved. [E-MAIL]  —  Disclaimer: LINK]