Talk:Sri Yukteswar Giri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
Om
Kaivalya Darshanam was written around 1900 and not 1895.
- It was written in 1894. The introduction of the 1949 Indian edition ends with "Swami Sriyukteswar Giri; Serampore, Bengal; The 26th Falgun, 194 Dwapara. (A.D. 1894). Priyanath 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Double Star" theory
I have removed the incongruous reference to the Binary System Institute as there is no source provided for Sri Yukteswar Giri supporting the theory that the Sun has a companion star. Pilatus 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I see that it was reverted but I'll leave that since I haven't read the book. I did remove the "more and more" western scientists part and that it offers "better proof", since neither can be qualified/quantified. --Censorwolf 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I added the quote from The Holy Science, where Sri Yukteswar says that the sun takes a ‘star for its dual’, and revolves around that star in about 24,000 years. Is this the same as a 'binary star' for our sun? I'm not an astronomer. Maybe there are other possible explanations for a 'star for its dual'? Priyanath 17:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, let us assume that astronomers have YET to find a dual star (or binary star) for our sun. However, if the findings proves to be negative, is it possible that Sri Yukteswar Giri had made a mistake? That idea is a disturbing one as it is like saying sometimes Jesus Christ had errors in his teachings! Or could it be that Sri Yukteswar was refering to an astral star? Only time may tell.... --Siva1979Talk to me 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- See, that's why I changed the passage to NOT state that Sri Yukteswar was claiming a "binary star" for our sun. It's possible he meant something else, and modern scientists are trying to shoehorn "binary star" in there. It could have been astral, it could have been a point in space, it could have been a dual that's not a "binary star" but something else. He was so right on other points that hadn't been proven at the time (the idea of the galactic center being in Sagittarius, for example), that I'm surely giving him the benefit of the doubt. But the fact that scientists have looked for a "binary star" and not found one after all these years implies that maybe Sri Yukteswar meant something else by the word 'dual'. ॐ Priyanath 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Double star within and without
First of all, I would like to state that a second sun was common knowledge in the astronomy/astrology of all ancient civilizations (which were never seen as separated sciences), before the dark Kali yuga years. Since then, this knowledge was lost. Also, modern astromy has proven that solar systems with one single sun are exeptions. More then 90% of the known solar systems have two or more suns, that interact with each other in rythimic cycles. The fact that astronomers have not yet found this other sun does not mean it's not there, since it could be and old or dead star, almost impossible to detect in this vast cosmic darkness. Secondly, from the little I have learned, it seems that there is a direct relationship between the 24.000 years ascending/descending cicle of the sun towards its dual, the 12 constellations of the zodiac, and the ascending/descending energy in the spine revolving around the third eye (spiritual eye). Apart from the third eye, which would be, according to Sri Yukteswar, the 7th chakra, there are 6 more. The vital electrical energy (prana or Ki) flows downward/descending (6 chakras, 12 by polarity) and upward/ascending (6 again, 12 by polarity) through the spine, revolving around the spiritual sun (eye), the 7th chakra (ida-pingala-sushumna, for those acquainted with yoga pranayama). The yuga cycle happends inside the spine aswell. The foundation of jyotish (vedic astronomy/astrology) is the notion of bandhu of the Vedas, which is the connection between the innercosm (inside the body), microcosm (outside the body) and the macrocosm (the universe). Acording to this science, as the energy flows down, towards the lowest region of the body, away from the spiritual eye, consciousness tend to be engrossed with wordly tendencies, equivalent to what happends when the sun is in its farthest point of the other sun - Kali Yuga, dark age, lowest chakra. The oposite is also true. When the energy flows upward, towards the highest region of the body, the 7th chakra, the spiritual eye, consciousness becomes holy, divine, enlightened, equivalent to what happends when the sun is in its point closest to the other sun - Satya yuga, golden age, highest chakra. So, what would take around 12.000 years of natural existence (around 8 to 10 lives on earth) to "naturaly" reach Christ's/Krishna's level, God (self) realization (Satya yuga), through his (Babaji's/Mahasaya's) Kriya yoga technique, this lives can be reduced to one lifetime, through sadhana, or spiritual austerity of yoga. 12.000 years of evolution in one life. That is, I believe, what Sri Yukteswar was (and is) trying to make us understand and experience! It seems quite obvious to me that there is direct influence of the planets and stars in the lives of people. The moon alters the tides, the human body is 70% water. Why wouldn't the moon, other planets and the sun(s) affect us? Days and nights regulate all biological system in this planet. The rate of births on a full moon night triples. This can be asured with any doctor or hospital. Hope I can be understood! Please excuse my poor english. Little Yogi wannabe from S. America :o) (November 7th, 2006. 306 Dwapara.)
[edit] Double sun theory
As far as I know "our" sun is moving around the socalled black sun. But I cannot give any proof for that, only my memory. Austerlitz 88.72.11.196 16:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
