I'm aware now that I was identifying Vishnunabhi as the galactic center according to the interpretations of Frawley. Opposing views state that the difference in the distance from the galactic center at the aphelion-perielion points (referred to Sagittarius A*) would be negligible in the large scale context.
Yes, I retort, but then the same would apply to whatsoever other location assumed to be Vishnunabhi.
Unless Vishnunabhi is a metaphysical center and has no correspondence in the physical dimension.
Sri Yukteswar speaks of closeness and distance from a 'grand center'. He does not explain the characteristics of the center nor its whereabouts except to imply that when our solar systems path gets closer to our dual star we are also closer to this grand center. The Vishnunabhi is this grand center and it is doubtful that it has anything to do with the center of our galaxy, since that was not mentioned in the Master's explanation.... but rather our relationship to the dual star that he talks about and our relationship to that star in its movement around the galaxy. This does not sound like a fixed point but rather a moving energy that corresponds to the relationship of two binary stars moving thru the galaxy.
We should keep in mind that our Sun and solar system is in constant motion through the galaxy. The only plausible constant is the center of the galaxy (which is in motion with other galaxies) in relation to us. However it was already stated that are distance in movement from the center of the galaxy is negligible in a 24,000 year cycle. We are at present; in a perpetual dance with a star because of the precession of the equinoxes. A basic understanding of Astrology helps us recognize the influence of the planets and near by objects on our everyday life. Think of what the influence of nearby stars may also have.
This is my take on an
evolving explanation of the universes influence on our mortal lives. i say evolving because very few of us can give with certainty the answers to such questions. We are mostly dealing with possibilities that may end up as probabilities. We often find this to be the case in human relationships as well which is why very few of us should take absolute stands on issues we cannot resolve with certainty.
i doubt that any of us expect Sri Yukteswar to be a scientist as well as a guru. The information he did give us in the Holy Science was quite helpful though and it remains one of my favorite books of all time.
Yes
i saw this on the internet;
David Frawley
David Frawley is a Westerner who has become a scholar of Vedic scriptures, Jyotish (Indian astrology), and Ayurveda (Indian medicine). He has written a number of books on various aspects of Vedic culture and wisdom.
Like Yogananda, Frawley adopts Yukteswar's 24,000 year maha yuga and views it as a smaller cycle within the larger maha yugas described traditionally. Frawley likewise introduces some twists in the way he interprets both the smaller and the larger cycle.
With regard to the 24,000 year cycle, Frawley begins like Yukteswar by ascribing the cycle to the sun's revolution around a companion star. Frawley says that this revolution varies the amount of cosmic light we receive from the galactic center. Thus, he seems to have identified Yukteswar's Vishnunabhi with the center of the galaxy, which Yukteswar never explicitly does. Still, it is a plausible interpretation.
Unfortunately, a 24,000 year orbit would make only a negligible difference in our sun's distance from the galactic center, which is at a vast remove from us. Presumably because of this, Frawley abandons Yukteswar's notion that it is our varying distance from Vishnunabhi that causes the cycles of yugas. Instead, he posits that our companion star is a dark star, and when it passes between us and Vishnunabhi, tends to eclipse some of the cosmic light from that source, thus causing the decline into the less inspired ages like Kali Yuga.
