Errors in the teachings - www.ezboard.com

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > SRF Teachings and Ideals > Errors in the teachings
Page 1 2 3 4	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Vega Unregistered User (2/20/02 2:07 pm) Reply	Errors in the teachings Everything Yogananda taught is generally taken as Gospel by his followers and accorded such a sacredness that to question any part of it would be considered heresy. Yet there are many errors in Yogananda's teachings, things that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny in our modern times; indeed some things don't even pass the test of good old common sense or reasonableness. One such error is his whole take on the Yugas. Granted, most of what he teaches on this topic comes straight from Sri Yukteswar. Nevertheless, the way Sri Yukteswar explains it has been debunked by modern scientists who know there is no such distant star that the earth takes for it's dual and revolves around in cycles of 24,000 years. That's baby science. Such a star would have been seen clearly by now that we have such powerful telescopes that can distances many light years farther than that. Sri Yukteswar gives his own explanation of his "correction" to the old Hindu almanac, replete with fear of the wise men who ran for the hills during the last Kali Yuga and thus supposedly crept in this infamous "error" into the current Hindu almanac. Yet you'd think that if such a thing were so obvious, wouldn't all of India have adopted Sri Yukteswar's version of the Hindu Almanac by now? Then there's the question of SY's shortened Yugas, and his round and round rotation from Satya down to Kali back up to Satya again, whereas the Hindus puranas explain that they start at Satya, go down to Kali, then Satya starts again and so on. Perhaps the most damning evidence against Sri Yukteswar's model of the Yugas is the lack of ... evidence! Yogananda and Yukteswar claim that in past higher ages man already had very sophisticated machines and airplanes and travelled to other planets and such. Yet there is no evidence of this anywhere. Dwapara is called by PY and SY the electrical age. Since according to them we have already been through many Dwaparas before, where is the evidence of all these electrical things? There are places in India where excavations have unearthed things from 5,000 and 6,000 years ago. Yet it's all very primitive pottery and figures and such, certainly no airplanes or space ships have been excavated, or computers, or cars, or skyscrapers, or nuclear powerplants. The houses and buildings and the cities are very primitive, no electrical wiring or telephones or televisions or radios or air conditioners or electrical appliances. And yet the last Dwapara age before this one is certainly within the time frame of the excavations. It seem that if there were higher ages not so long ago SOMETHING would have survived and been found by now, don't you think?
yukteswarrocks Unregistered User (2/20/02 2:48 pm) Reply	Evidence There's actually quite a bit of surprising evidence to support Sri Yukteswar's Yuga theory. Just some interesting background- first, Sri Yukteswar said that the center of our galaxy is in Sagitarrius. This was long before scientists were even talking about the possibility of our galaxy having such a center. Well, surprise, it was discovered by scientists that the center of our galaxy is in Sag. Sri Yukteswar also said that the center of our galaxy was the spiritual powerhouse of our galaxy. Well, surprise, just in the last ten years scientists have 'discovered' that there is an incredibly powerful energy source at the center of our galaxy. They think it's a black hole, but they aren't quite sure what it means. See article titled "Monstrous black hole found in center of the Milky Way" at: spaceflightnow.com/news/n...milkyhole/ Another very interesting fact that was 'discovered' by scientists in the last twenty years is that our solar system makes a grand rotation around the center of the galaxy. Guess how long this takes? Just under 24,000 years, which 'happens' to correspond to the 24,000 year cycle Yukteswar speaks about. So far, science is 'discovering' many things that Sri Yukteswar mentioned in his Holy Science. Keep in mind that it was written in the 1920's! As far as ancient civilizations being advanced: there is quite alot of evidence supporting this. Everything from drawings and models of airplanes, a drawing of a battery in ancient Egypt, and the very interesting evidence of a nuclear explosion in Rajasthan some 8,000 years ago. Here are some websites to tweak your imagination. These include some information that is too far out for me, but does show photos of aircraft from Egypt, etc. www.pip.com.au/~paceman/A...CRAFT.html www.pip.com.au/~paceman/A...ICITY.html www.pip.com.au/~paceman/A...BLAST.html I've seen all of these things confirmed by other sources: the ancient battery, the ancient depictions of aircraft, and the nuclear blast in Rajasthan. Most mainstream archeologists and scientists refuse to 'accept' much of this evidence, simply because it doesn't correspond to their existing theories. All the evidence isn't yet in, but clearly, you can't just dismiss everything Sri Yukteswar said.
Musicman Unregistered User (2/20/02 2:50 pm) Reply	Pseudo-science Bravissimo, Vega. You have made some excellent points. There is a lot of pseudo-science in the teachings, and this simply must be weeded out. The yugas are mythology, they are not history. They must be understood as symbolic of the cyclical nature of life, not as a valid cosmological model or as science. I remember hearing years ago that Tara Mata said the "grand center" was in the Pleiades constellation. I called the Griffith Observatory and was told that we are headed away from the Pleiades, but that even if we weren't, it would take 24 million, not thousand, years to go around it. When I approached Bro. Achalananda about this, he said, cryptically: "Well, you can't figure it out that way." He declined to say how you could figure it out. He doesn't know; how could he when it's wrong? I'm a professional historian, an academic at a large Midwestern university, and I can tell you that putting forth the yugas as history would earn nothing but scorn and contempt anywhere outside SRF or India. Everything we know about archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, and history in general militates against it. Only through ignorance or stubborn denial could one cling to it as history. And this is but one example among many in the teachings. Omniscient guru? Well, maybe not, unless you opt for the rationalization a friend of mine adopted: "selective omniscience," a delicious oxymoron. None of this stopped dear old Bro. Dharmananda during a "satsanga" years ago at San Diego, where he revealed that in the Kali Yuga, the average height of humans is 4 feet; in Dwapara, 6; in Treta, 8; and in Satya, 10. Now, I'm sure the NBA would be licking its lips about that, but I doubt people in Satya Yuga will care much about sports. The point is, this is ridiculous, and there isn't a shred of archaeological evidence to suggest it's true--quite the contrary. In fact, human physiology will have to change drastically for an average height of 10 feet to be possible (you'd need a heart the size of a basketball). Besides, the notion that there is some connection between physical stature and spiritual advancement is nonsense. Just a glance at the NBA would tell you that. And PY himself was not much over 5 feet! Once, years ago, Bro. Turiyananda was holding forth at Lake Shrine (prefacing his remarks with the usual tripe about how scientists and historians don't know anything) about the origins of the human race--92 million years ago! When he came up for air at one point, I asked him how he would explain all the various hominid types (australopithecines, Lucy, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Neanderthals, etc.) that we know for certain existed only a few hundred thousand or few million years ago. Where did they fit into the his grand scheme? He stopped dead in his tracks with an astonished look on his face (he wasn't used to this, as few ever questioned anything he said) and said, in a moment of lucidity, "I don't know"; he then changed the subject. That was the first believable thing I'd heard him say that evening. When SRF gets into the business of teaching history and astronomy, it gets in way over its head. The monastics would be well advised to leave those disciplines to trained professionals. At some point, we have to start doubting received wisdom and start thinking for ourselves. But this, of course, is precisely what we are warned against doing from the moment we step on the "path." So, maybe the time has come to leave the path, at least this one, and chart our own course.
username Registered User (2/20/02 3:37 pm) Reply	Re: Pseudo-science Isn't the 24,000 years something out of the vedas, not something discovered by this yogi.? I will print a reference when I find it.
yukteswarrocks Unregistered User (2/20/02 3:49 pm) Reply	Article Here is an interesting interview with a former research scientist for Xerox, who also has an interest in Sri Yukteswar's Yuga theory. www.newtimes.org/issue/98...cycles.htm Granted, this probably falls into some people's definition of pseudo-science. But does your science prove the existence of God, or the efficacy of Kriya Yoga? Or are they, too, just pseudo-science? Username, do please post the vedic reference to a 24,000 year cycle. My understanding is that Sri Yukteswar is unique in his interpretation of the vedas. Most pundits interpret a much longer cycle.
AumBoy Registered User (2/20/02 8:34 pm) Reply	Re: Errors in the teachings Nice post, Vega. I'll add some information here about the Sun's dual that, if I remember correctly, has been found. I'm working on finishing another thread regarding org comm so my input here will be limited for several months.
chuckle Unregistered User (2/20/02 11:35 pm) Reply	Science and SRF And a Bravo! to you, too, Musicman. You and Vega have raised great points. One of the things that appealed to me when I started on the path was the notion that these teachings were "scientific." And it seems to me that Master's attitude was that one should adopt a scientific attitude. As you guys know, one of the tenets of science is "never be wedded to your hypothesis." There's a good chance that many of your hypotheses will be rejected in the course of your or others' research, and there's nothing wrong with that; indeed, that's what science is all about--respecting the results of research, regardless of any biases you may have. So I think SRF would do itself well to adpt this attitude (which it claims to have, but doesn't really). If currently there's no supporting evidence for the binary star system, then let's admit it. If there's no historical or archaeological evidence for other aspects of the Yuga theory, let's admit it. Yukteswarrocks claims there is supporting evidence. Great. Thrash it out and let the chips fall where they should. Maybe in 5, 10, 50 or 100 years we'll have more evidence that changes our ideas. That's the way science works. Conversely, we could, as you suggest, state that these are simply religious or mythological claims. But let's not claim they're scientific if they aren't. If we're going to claim integrity to truth, we have to accept the principles of scientific research as a valid tool toward that end.
Self Respect Registered User (2/21/02 2:22 am) Reply	Mathematics 101 Dear Yuktesswarrocks You say: <<<Another very interesting fact that was 'discovered' by scientists in the last twenty years is that our solar system makes a grand rotation around the center of the galaxy. Guess how long this takes? Just under 24,000 years, which 'happens' to correspond to the 24,000 year cycle Yukteswar speaks about.>>> Let me say respectfully tp you that your figures are COMPLETELY WRONG. Our Galaxy's diameter is about 100 thousand light years my friend. This means that at the speed of light the earth would rotate around the center of the Galaxy (let us assume it is not in the very peripheria, but only half the way to the center of the Galaxy) in 154 thousand years -- not 24 thousand. AND THAT IS AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT !!!! We rotate around the center of the galaxy, yes, but it takes millions of years. Please check this -- mathematics do work!
Crog Unregistered User (2/21/02 7:25 am) Reply	Goofy Science Most of the goofy science is from Tara Mata and the various monastics. Some of the convocation and tour lectures are full of silly science. Satyananda imagines himself to understand science and how it relates to yoga. I personally find it amusing and not insulting, but then I don't believe it either. His convocation talk this summer was a riot.
username Registered User (2/21/02 9:36 am) Reply	Re: Goofy Science I haven't found the reference yet, but I've posting a "beginning of the world" according to the Vedas in Other teachings.
yukteswarrocks Unregistered User (2/21/02 10:18 am) Reply	You're right Yes, you're right. I mixed up that cycle with another. Now, how about the other things I pointed out about Sri Yuktesar's seeming 'discoveries' that predated most of the same astronomical 'discoveries' by many years? And the interesting evidence of airplanes, batteries, and nuclear devastation in 'ancient' times?
Musicman Unregistered User (2/21/02 12:18 pm) Reply	Yugic Yuckfest This is a wonderful thread. Thank you, Chuckle, for your ever-informative and very lucid posts. Self Respect is right, of course. It takes our sun 250 million years to go around the galaxy just once. In the entire history of our solar system, we've gone around no more than 20 times. One Sunday at San Diego Temple, Bro. Dharmananda suggested in his sermon that the cycle of the Yugas corresponded to the wobbling of the earth on its axis, a phenomenon called precession. Nice try, Bro., but no cigar. Precession (one "wobble") takes 26,000 years, not 24,000. It does cause a change in which star marks polar north (right now it's Polaris, but that won't be the case in a few thousand years), but it doesn't place us closer to or farther from any star, including the sun. There are a couple of other things to remember about the Yugas. One would expect that at any given time in history, the overall and general level of human development everywhere in the world would be about the same, because we would all be in equal proximity to the dual or grand center. But this has never been the case. Even in our own time, there are tribes in remote areas of the world still leading a paleolithic life. And during the Kali Yuga (say, ca. A.D. 900), some areas were indeed mired in a Dark Age (like northern Europe), while others were at the apex of their development (like the Maya and China). So, history does not support this Yugic scheme of things. If there is evidence of nuclear reactors, spaceflight, and transcontinental railroads from 12,000 or 24,000 years ago, by all means, let's see it. I suspect, however, that such "evidence" isn't very persuasive. (If you want some really fascinating and informative writing about why there is such a wide disparity between various cultures and their technological development, read Jared Diamond's wonderful book Guns, Germs, and Steel. Another book of his, on the history and nature of our species, is also worth a read: The Third Chimpanze.) At any rate, the Yugic theory (and it's not really a theory in any scientific sense) can't account for many things, and lacks any mechanism by which it could. It is not a method of inquiry or the result of any such method. It is the supposed product of "revelation," and it is promoted as incontrovertible fact emanating from unassailable authority. Now this argument, that something is true because some enlightened person said it is true, is known as an appeal to (or argument from) authority, a common and well-known fallacy. It is absolutely antithetical to science as that term is understood in the West. For example, is Relativity "true" because Einstein said it was, and he was such a great genius none of us has the right to question him? No! It's true because it is supported by empirical evidence and repeated attempts to disprove it. In fact, the philosopher Karl Popper clarified this as a distinguishing trait of science: the results have to be falsifiable. If the conclusions cannot be anything but absolutely correct because they are based on scripture or the utterances of a "guru," then that is NOT science. It has to be at least theoretically possible to disprove the findings. So, Chuckle is right on the money. These teachings can never be "definite and scientific," or "work like mathematics," because, like all religion, they are predicated on fallacious arguments and purely subjective personal experience. I hasten to add that such arguments are perfectly valid in the context of religion--indeed, they undergird almost all religions. Belief in God is a matter of faith, and there is no science that can prove or disprove the existence of a God to the satisfaction of a court of law or group of scientists. Such things are beyond the realm of science. And that's just fine. We degrade science by putting it in the service of religion, and we trivialize religion by using it to elucidate matters of natural science and human history. Yugic mythology has a beauty and elegance that are completely lost when it is held up as science or history. And we debase our understanding of the past by confusing such myths with reality (in the manner of Creationism, the scourge of American secondary-school science education).
yukteswarrocks Unregistered User (2/21/02 12:30 pm) Reply	Please Explain *Quote:* If there is evidence of nuclear reactors, spaceflight, and transcontinental railroads from 12,000 or 24,000 years ago, by all means, let's see it. I suspect, however, that such "evidence" isn't very persuasive. Then please explain the strong evidence of a nuclear explosion in Rajasthan. There have been articles and studies on this, and please also explain the websites that show Egyptian pictos of planes and batteries.
Musicman Unregistered User (2/21/02 1:42 pm) Reply	Evidence Please offer "strong" evidence of a nuclear explosion in Rajasthan. When? What are the various hypotheses? Which seems most plausible, based on experimental models, simulations, and data? If there have been articles and studies on this, please give us some bibliographic citations. "Egyptian pictos of planes and batteries"? Where? Luxor? Thebes? Says who? What is the opinion of Egyptologists? What are the various possible explanations/interpretations? Are we absolutely certain what these "pictos" represent? When are they dated? The Great Pyramids of Gizeh date from the third millennium BC. Are these from that period? What Yuga does that accord with? (Clue: not Satya). One needs to think critically about these things and not just accept such claims at face value because they seem to confirm what we WANT to believe about the past rather than what we CAN. The problem here, as always, is not so much WHAT we think as HOW we think. These assertions reflect uncritical thinking. Let's be more precise.
Musicman Unregistered User (2/22/02 8:27 am) Reply	In Search Of Ah, mea culpa, I had not looked up the Web sites before responding. Sorry. However, it doesn't really change my point of view (not surprisingly). These sites are notorious for their onesided presentation of "evidence." They remind me of Leonard Nimoy's old series "In Search Of." "Could it be that..." or "Is it possible that..." were often the phrases used to introduce controversial and often dubious conclusions. This Web site follows in that tradition. We don't hear any dissenting voices, there is no citation of sources, much less any examination of alternate explanations or causes. It's all slanted in the direction they want you to go. This is why I don't allow my students try rely too heavily on the Internet for their research. Refereed journals, where the articles have been sent out to experts for review, remain the best source of information. For instance, the nuclear explosion. The article jumps to the conclusion that this was the result of a nuclear bomb. But I could easily imagine that an asteroid or comet containing radioactive material could have had the same effect. That possibility is never considered. It's hilarious, really, that they speculate about the military context of such an event, describing the elephants and chariots on the battlefield as this goes off. What kind of civilization goes to war with elephants and bows and arrows while keeping a nuclear stockpile in reserve? Does that make ANY sense whatsoever? Also, where is there any evidence at all of the enormous industrial infrastructure necessary for the production of a nuclear bomb? We haven't found so much as a single nut or bolt from a reactor, a single smokestack, electrical cable, or textbook on physics. For that matter, where are the ruins of the universities, libraries, and research institutes we know are necessary for this kind of industrial enterprise. Also, the chronology is WAY off. The article tries to buttress its claims by referring to the Mahabharata. But that was written down (after a long gestation in oral tradition, no doubt) sometime around the middle of the first millennium BC (the Bhagavad Gita was written separately and inserted almost 1000 years later). The Maha... depicts Aryan culture in India ca. 1000 BC. But this explosion took place at least 5000 years earlier, before there were any cities at all in India. This antedates the Mohenjo-Daro civilization of the Indus Valley by at least 3 thousand years! Come on! An article like this knows that the readers probably haven't read much about the history of India, so it doesn't bother to get its facts straight. It's sensational journalism, not science or history. The same is true of the "planes" depicted in Egypt. Those symbols look only sort of like airplanes. They could just as easily be reed bundles, birds, or plants--or nothing representational at all. And again, where are the actual airplanes themselves? We've been digging in Egypt now for almost three hundred years, and we have yet to find a single propeller, jet engine, or oxygen tank, much less any industrial facillities for producing jet fuel--or airports, runways, control towers, aircraft carriers, ad infinitum. This is just specious reasoning. And why would such an advanced civilization ride around on animals, use chariots, fight with bronze swords and bows and arrows and spears, and practice ritual human sacrifice so the Pharoahs would have servants and concubines to wait on them through eternity? It doesn't add up. Once again, no alternate explanations are advanced, and no authorities have been consulted to provide dissenting opinions. Look, I'm not attacking any person, just ideas. If you want to believe these things, I'm willing to concede they may be true. How do I know? (Though there's another fallacy lurking there: the appeal to ignorance. Since we aren't sure of something, THIS must be the right answer.) Some of the most intelligent and best-educated people I know believe in Noah's Ark, astrology, and pyramid power, things that I simply can't swallow. If one wants to believe in these things, there's little anyone can say to dissuade them. That's my experience, and I resolved a long time ago it was a waste of energy to try. I've already broken that resolution here and leave the last word to you. If there is a god in any conventional sense, may He/She/It bless you. But I will continue to speak out when these ideas are advanced as revealed and incontrovertible truths, as in the SRF teachings. I will not genuflect before the altar of superstition and pseudo-science, no matter whose picture is hanging over it and how thick the clouds of incense are.
Terrie Unregistered User (2/22/02 12:15 pm) Reply	Reply re: Far-out SRF Ideas I'd like to comment on a few remarks in this Yuga thread. This topic is especially interesting to me because I have been in the process of collecting information for an astrological article about the Yugas. First, a few miscellaneous (unrelated) comments to the yuga topic: (1) The subject of yugas is not central to Yogananda's spiritual teachings. Sri Yukteswar was an astrologer, and yugas must have interested him greatly because both astrology and the yugas relate to time as experienced here on the earth. As far as I can tell, Sri Yukteswar appended the Yuga information to THE HOLY SCIENCE as a personal contribution based on his understanding at the time he wrote the book. It is not part of the central Sutras of THE HOLY SCIENCE. Perhaps he knew he would write only one book, and wished to make his yuga contribution public. (2) I'm not sure there are "many" errors in Yogananda's teachings. I doubt very much there are errors in the teachings central to spiritual growth and development. The Yuga question is simply an interesting subject. (3) I don't think we should fault Tara Mata or anyone else for their particular interests. We've come a long way in critical and scientific thinking since the 50s. Yes, Tara Mata was interested in esoteric subjects. She was an astrologer before she entered SRF. Some of her horoscope interpretations are in the Edgar Cayce reading files. I think it's rather petty to dwell on far-out and unscientific thoughts expressed by Tara and other SRF monks or nuns. They're only human just like us, and are entitled to their errors. Yogananda didn't throw out Tara because she had a child, which even today would be considered scandalous. We can only guess at the compassion and openness to human error that must have existed when Yogananda was alive. What is important after all in Yogananda's teachings is the Kriya path....not where the center of the galaxy might be. I'll save comments on the Yugas for another post.
redpurusha Registered User (2/22/02 9:16 pm) Reply	Re: Yugic Yuckfest "These teachings can never be "definite and scientific," or "work like mathematics," because, like all religion, they are predicated on fallacious arguments and purely subjective personal experience." Musicman, you make this case about the SRF (Yogananda) teachings, but your argument solely is centered on the yugas, which is only a small and relatively unimportant portion of Yogananda's teachings. The central teaching is kriya yoga and what you call "subjective personal experience" within. If that "purely subjective personal experience" has a definite and sure affect on your outer life and your state of mind, must it not then have some concrete reality? or be rooted someway in a concrete substance or a reality of existence? Honestly, I don't quite understand the yugas that well myself. And its not something I spend much time studying and analyzing, although I do find it interesting. And If I was to guess, this is how most of Yogananda's devotees are on the topic. There's an argument here also, that just because something is hard to understand doesn't make it untrue. And, of course, as you know, it also does not mean it is true. I have noticed one most critical point made by Sri Yukteswar that is argued, "Thus, in a period of 24,000 years, the sun completes the revolution around its dual and finishes one electric cycle..." (p10) I am not on top of the astronomy news so I am not sure of the latest discoveries or lack of, of the existence of a "duel sun." But I have read the possibility of a possible "black hole" or dead sun that could possibly be the the duel sun (reffered to by Sri Yukteswar?) I am only speculating here (yes, quite unscientific). Possibly, in the future, or near future, such a discovery will be made. Whatever the case may be, its a fallous argument in itself to generalize an entire "teaching" like that of Yogananda's/Sri Yukteswar's as being unscientific and based on fallicies, just by arguing against the theory of yuga cycles. You also point out that some civilizations of the current yuga show characteristics of the past dark yuga, "Even in our own time, there are tribes in remote areas of the world still leading a paleolithic life." To believe or accept that all people progress at the same rate is quite simple-minded and wrong. Every man or living creature progresses at his own speed, the yuga theory proposes that as a whole, in general, in every particular yuga there are people living of a particular mentality and development. This is not some difficult concept to grasp I think.
Terrie Unregistered User (2/23/02 12:16 pm) Reply	Notes on Sri Yukteswar's Yuga Theory: Part 1 NOTES ON THE YUGAS: PART 1 Vega said: "...there is no such distant star that the earth takes for it's dual and revolves around in cycles of 24,000 years." From what we know at present, this would have to be an astral star, which is possible I suppose. But we don't know much about astral stars, do we? On the physical plane, there's no evidence of a dual solar star. "...wouldn't all of India have adopted Sri Yukteswar's version of the Hindu Almanac by now?" No, India loves traditional interpretation of its ancient scriptures, no matter what science might show in the future. Also, I doubt that Sri Yukteswar's little book is well known in India. On the 24,000 year cycle Sri Yukteswar says quite clearly that his yuga theory is based on Oriental astronomy's precessional cycle of 24,000 years (Holy Science, p. 7) However, we know today that the precessional cycle is 25,800 years which will change the length of yuga years somewhat (assuming for the moment that Sri Yukteswar's theory is correct). If you divide this figure into 20ths (which SY does), then each 20th is 1290 years long rather than 1200. The beginning of each yuga period is dependent on the equinotical points, which in astrology relates to the ayanamsa or difference between the Tropical and Sidereal zodiacs. To date (that is the year 2002) astrological evidence is accumulating in favor of a zero ayanamsa year of 291 rather than the traditional value used in Sri Yukteswar's day, which gives the year 499. Thus, we have two timing changes for SY's yuga theory: The Virgo-Pisces age beginning (the lowest point of the Kali cycle) would be 291, and each 1/20th of the cycle is 1290 years. For the sake of convenience (rounded numbers), I am using 290 rather than 291 for the lowest point of the Kali cycle and 1580 CE as the beginning of the ascending Dwarpara Yuga. Using 1/20 divisions of the precessional cycle of 25,800 years, the point of humanity's highest development in the last cycle would then be 12,610 BCE. (SY gives 11,501) More from Vega: "Then there's the question of SY's shortened Yugas, and his round and round rotation from Satya down to Kali back up to Satya again, whereas the Hindus puranas explain that they start at Satya, go down to Kali, then Satya starts again and so on." Can you (Vega) give the exact quote for this? The jump from Kali to Sathya doesn't make a whole lot of sense because it would mean a huge leap from the point of lowest development to the point of highest development. This could happen in only one way: The entire world's civilization is totally destroyed and the Lord God puts a whole new bunch of completely evolved souls back on the earth in a new Garden of Eden. A progressive up and down cycle is a lot more logical. I've covered the math of Sri Yukteswar's Yugas in this post. In the next post I'll talk about evidence related to the descending Dwarpara yuga (ancient Egypt) and a few notes on the higher ages of the last cycle as dated by SY's yuga theory.
Terrie Unregistered User (2/23/02 12:38 pm) Reply	Different Rates of Human Progress "To believe or accept that all people progress at the same rate is quite simple-minded and wrong. Every man or living creature progresses at his own speed, the yuga theory proposes that as a whole, in general, in every particular yuga there are people living of a particular mentality and development. This is not some difficult concept to grasp I think." Good comment! I agree 100%.
mangomoy Registered User (2/23/02 12:40 pm) Reply	Terrie's Notes on Sri Yukteswar's Yuga Theory I like the way you apply an objective analysis to this discussion. It seems very much in keeping with the attitude PY expressed that we "should" (couldn't avoid that word) stay abreast of modern developments in science and other areas, as he also did. Also, you highlight an important distinction which seem to have been misunderstood in some earlier postings. Sri Yukteswar says 24,000 years is the orbit time around a common center shared between Sol and its dual, and not the time Sol orbits the galactic core. Sol and its dual orbit each other in, say, 24,000 yrs (or 25,800 yrs as you report), while together they orbit the galactic core in some vast expanse of time which SY does not discuss. Reference: Holy Science, introduction page x.
Terrie Unregistered User (2/23/02 1:13 pm) Reply	Thanks Thanks Mangomoy, for your appreciation. "Should" isn't always a bad word. We gotta use it sometimes!! It's just that being told by an authority what we "should" do is something we naturally rebel against.

Page 1 2 3 4

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - SRF Teachings and Ideals -

Powered By ezboard� Ver. 7.32
Copyright �1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.