Talk:Sri Yukteswar Giri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
- Not that it really matters, but in dual star systems the stars revolve around their centre of gravity. Only if one star is far more massive that the other, the smaller star could be said to revolve around the larger. Of course if you take a relative view, the other star rotates around the star that you stand on (in the same way that the planets revolve around the Earth). --Simon D M (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks - I just noticed that Binary Star is a Featured Article, with some wonderful diagrams and descriptions of what you describe. And thanks for re-adding that missing section on Sri Yukteswar's revolutionary activities. It adds an interesting sidelight on Indian independence and his active involvement. ~ priyanath talk 00:14, 22 January 2008 (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 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)
Categories: Start-Class Hinduism articles | Unknown-importance Hinduism articles | WikiProject Hinduism articles | Start-Class India articles | Start-Class India articles of unknown-importance | Unknown-importance India articles | WikiProject India articles | Biography articles without listas parameter | Start-Class biography articles | Start-Class astrology articles | Unknown-importance astrology articles | WikiProject Astrology articles

