Sri Yukteswar and the Yugas

[mccoy]

Steve, I'll have to listen to it again, what I remember is that, if we take an unconventional theory as a reference for the solar system velocity compared to the fixed stars, then we could include Sirius as a candidate for the dual star. I kind of missed the Pleiades piece, I'm usually listening to podcasts while driving my son around, and he sometimes will play his portable keyboard at full volume. Sometimes I just miss parts of podcasts.

In my understanding he is still placing The Pleiades as the dual where Alcyone is the brightest star. Alcyone is 440 light years from us. Sirius is 8 light years. So apparently we share some motion similar to Sirius while traveling around Alcyone. It really fascinates me because if it were true it would explain so much about history and verify so many of Yogananda’s writings.

I listened to the podcast a second time. My interpretation is that he mentions the Pleiades as the grand spiritual center (probably an astral object) which emanates spiritual vibrations.
The sun, while rotating around its dual, in this hypothesis Sirius, oscillates between a closer and a further orbital distance (from the Pleiades), with respectively more spiritual influence and less spiritual influence from this spiritual center.

I would like to know which is the difference in orbital distances. If the Pleiades are 440 light-years distant, an orbital delta of twice the distance of Sirius, as an example, = 16 LY, would be equal to 16/440 = about 4% difference with respect to the total distance of the Pleiades, which is maybe too a little amount to explain all such difference in the spiritual vibration. It would be like saying, any civilization closer to the Pleaides than the earth would be ultra-Uber-evolved. But we have no sign of such civilizations.

This kind of reasoning is what convinced me that the galactic hub si probably not the grand center.

So, from the above, it seems unlikely to me that the Pleiades are SY's grand center. Cruttenden cites the Pleaides since his interest is archaeoastronomy, sharing Tara MAta's interest. But the number do not seem to agree with such hypothesis.

[mccoy]

Another aspect is that Sirius is already a binary system, made up of Sirius A and Sirius B, a white dwarf, which are pretty close-up. If we include the sun, we'd have a ternary system. But probably that's not too relevant. Anyway, AFAIK it's all at the level of hypothesis, Cruttenden is basing his just expounding some archaeoastronomical principles, which need hard evidence. He says that if the solar system velocity is far higher than believed, then Sirius might be at the proper distance as a companion star. But it's still a hypothesis.

[guest587]

I'm having a hard time keeping up- am not very scientifically oriented... But I wanted to interject something- I think there are signs of such civilizations and it would mean attempting to understand reality outside the faculties of the human experience. For example, just because we experience linearity and distinct forms through space-time- does not mean reality is not cyclical or layered, superimposed. Think of the flower of life Once we identify ourselves with the energy we perceive as separate from- things like interdimensional travel start to make sense. All of this, 3D and space-time is very real, but it does not mean reality is confined by the limit of human experience. If people are witnessing UFO's, what are they? Where do they come from? And how can an ET who identifies itself from Pleiades appear and communicate with Beings on Earth??

[mccoy]

Eric, I understand what you are meaning, and yes, ours may be not the only conceptual metrics, on the other side if we accept that all reality manifests from ideas or concepts in the Causal realm, then we must accept that the ideas are the same for whatsoever intelligence abides this universe. They may be expressed in different ways, but they must be identical in essence.

And sorry for the OT argument, but so far I believe there is no evidence of UFOs, just people saying they have seen them or even recounting to have been abducted by aliens. But there are people who are convinced they are Napoleon or Jesus Christ, so we cannot really believe them in their word.

Personally, I am agnostic about the existence of aliens, that is, if there are other intelligent beings in this galaxy, for example, they are either too far away and unreachable, or they keep concealed, so to all practical matter it is as if they don't exist at all.

I also listened to some very logical arguments as to why it is unlikely that in this galaxy there are other evolved beings, and the logic was valid. That does not mean that it is true, but the logic was there.

We may be the only evolved or semi-evolved beings in the Milky Way. And the other galaxies are too far away to establish a contact unless hyper-evolved beings know how to create wormholes and drop by planet earth. But then, why do they keep so well concealed?

[Jitendra Hydonus]

And sorry for the OT argument, but so far I believe there is no evidence of UFOs, just people saying they have seen them or even recounting to have been abducted by aliens. But there are people who are convinced they are Napoleon or Jesus Christ, so we cannot really believe them in their word.

Personally, I am agnostic about the existence of aliens, that is, if there are other intelligent beings in this galaxy, for example, they are either too far away and unreachable, or they keep concealed, so to all practical matter it is as if they don't exist at all.

I also listened to some very logical arguments as to why it is unlikely that in this galaxy there are other evolved beings, and the logic was valid. That does not mean that it is true, but the logic was there.

We may be the only evolved or semi-evolved beings in the Milky Way. And the other galaxies are too far away to establish a contact unless hyper-evolved beings know how to create wormholes and drop by planet earth. But then, why do they keep so well concealed?

First of all I think there is clearly a difference between being convinced that someone is a Jesus Christ or a Napoleon and seeing UFO’s. I myself know that I have seen UFO’s but I am not of the opinion I know who or what they were. But I do believe that coming up with some of the explanations I’ve heard for what I saw are feeble. Lastly, I would say, with no offense to mccoy’s assertions, his views appear rather contradictory in light of the fact he has so much positive to say about Paramahansa Yogananda. Yet he is still skeptical about Yogananda’s ideas about the Yugas. Knowing mccoy as long as I have and hearing his views as long as I have I would say quite assuredly he is a born skeptic and unless the evidence can be replicated and verified he usually does not accept the views. I believe it is important to remember what Paramahansa Yogananda said about the skeptics in Science; ‘Let them go into the inner laboratories of their own meditation to prove many of these personal assertions that individuals make to see if they are true’. Babaji told Lahiri Mahasaya ‘not to waste his time with sensational seekers who are not willing to spend time building up their own faith enough to see and experience ‘miracles’ from the spiritual realms.’

There are many concepts and ideas that can only be proven by our own spiritual search. Science has its own limitations in the sense that many spiritual truths may never be proven in a science lab. They can only be proven in our own personal soul searching.

I'm having a hard time keeping up- am not very scientifically oriented... But I wanted to interject something- I think there are signs of such civilizations and it would mean attempting to understand reality outside the faculties of the human experience. For example, just because we experience linearity and distinct forms through space-time- does not mean reality is not cyclical or layered, superimposed. Think of the flower of life Once we identify ourselves with the energy we perceive as separate from- things like interdimensional travel start to make sense. All of this, 3D and space-time is very real, but it does not mean reality is confined by the limit of human experience. If people are witnessing UFO's, what are they? Where do they come from? And how can an ET who identifies itself from Pleiades appear and communicate with Beings on Earth??

[mccoy]

Steve, no offense taken, on the contrary, I always appreciate a healthy criticism of myself.

My reference to those who believe they are Napoleon or Christ is strictly relevant to those who recount they've been abducted by aliens. The former are sure they are those historical figures but we know they cannot be. The latter are convinced they were abducted by the aliens but, even though we are not exactly sure they were not, by inference we know that some persons are strongly delusional in their beliefs, so we cannot accept them on the word, unless evidence is provided.


It's interesting that you say I'm a born skeptic since it's just the other way around. I used to believe in everything, even in an indiscriminate way. Whereas now I'm more like Sri Yukteswar, after 40 years of applying scientific principles I've almost become a logical machine. Sort of professional deformation.

There are many concepts and ideas that can only be proven by our own spiritual search. Science has its own limitations in the sense that many spiritual truths may never be proven in a science lab. They can only be proven in our own personal soul searching.

I agree here. But at the same time I feel mandated to apply my God-given logic and discrimination. Of course my very few objections can belong solely to the physical realm, not the metaphysical.

So, if for example, I criticize the yugas model, I only have elements to criticize the alleged existence of a sun dual. I do not criticize the whole model, maybe the solar system rotates around some other stellar object, but it is very, very difficult that a sun dual escaped the astronomists thru the recent decades.

I'll start a thread on an episode of an astronomy podcast on binary systems I just listened to. It shows how unlikely it si that the sun is part of a binary system.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

I is very difficult to teach someone who already knows or has their own explanations.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

In The Holy Science, Sri Yukteswar concludes that we are currently in the beginning stages of Dwapara Yuga, which began around 1699 A.D., moving closer to the grand center, and will pass into Treta Yuga around the year 4099 A.D.

If we represent the yugas in a clock, the lowest spiritual time would be at 6 o’clock, approx. Year 550 A.D., which is the center of Kali Yuga (more or less the Middle Ages), and the highest point is 12 o’clock, in the center of Satya Yuga (literally Age of Truth, as sat=truth), or Golden Age. It takes approx. 12,000 years from the lowest to the highest point, and about 24,000 in a complete turn. Now we would be at approx. 7 o’clock, ascending in Dwapara Yuga or Bronze Age which started in 1699.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

The breath in man has a similar correspondence with the equinoctial cycle. The normal presernt rate of respiration and in a healthy young adult is 72 breaths in 4 minutes or 18 breaths a minute.  Golden age men will breathe only about 60 times in four minutes. Taking fewer, longer breaths per minute is the shortest cut to concentration of mind. When one is intensely interested in any subject, one’s breathing involuntarily becomes slower and slower. Consciousness is intimately connected with breath. The faster a person breathes, the less  conscious he is; his attention cannot remain fixed. Surgeons of a few hundred years ago, took  advantage of this knowledge, and induced unconsciousness in their patients by instructing them to breathe very fast for a few moments.

~Tara Mata

[mccoy]

I find GPT-4's explanatory abilities pretty exceptional, in the way it summarizes concisely and clearly.

Please tell me the cause of the precession of equinoxes according to sri yukteswar

According to Sri Yukteswar's teachings, the precession of equinoxes is caused by the motion of our solar system as it orbits around a larger central star. Sri Yukteswar believed that our solar system is part of a larger cosmic cycle known as the "Great Year," which lasts for approximately 24,000 years.

The Great Year is divided into 12 smaller cycles, each lasting approximately 2,000 years. These cycles are associated with the zodiac signs and are known as "ages." Each age is characterized by a different level of spiritual consciousness and is associated with specific astrological and astronomical phenomena.

As our solar system orbits around the central star, it also rotates on its own axis. However, this axis is not fixed in space, but instead, it wobbles like a top due to the gravitational influences of the other celestial bodies in our solar system. This wobbling motion causes the position of the equinoxes to shift slowly over time, moving backward through the zodiac at a rate of approximately one degree every 72 years. This is the phenomenon known as the precession of equinoxes.

Sri Yukteswar believed that the precession of equinoxes was a fundamental cosmic cycle that had a profound impact on human consciousness and spiritual evolution. He taught that each age of the Great Year was associated with a different level of spiritual consciousness, and that as we move through these ages, humanity is gradually evolving toward a higher level of spiritual awareness and understanding.

[mccoy]

It's interesting to know that GPT-4 has a very balanced view on the possible presence of a binary star.

Do you think there are suggestions that the sun is part of a binary star?

There have been suggestions that the sun may be part of a binary star system, which means that it has a companion star that orbits around a common center of mass. This idea is supported by some astronomical observations and theoretical models.

One line of evidence comes from observations of the motion of nearby stars. Some scientists have noted that the motion of certain stars appears to be influenced by the gravitational pull of an unseen companion, leading them to speculate that these stars may be part of a binary system with an unseen star.

Another line of evidence comes from studies of the Oort Cloud, a region of space beyond the orbit of Neptune that is believed to contain trillions of icy objects, including comets. Some scientists have suggested that the gravitational influence of a companion star could explain certain features of the Oort Cloud, such as its spherical shape and the distribution of its objects.

However, it is important to note that the idea of a binary companion for the sun remains a matter of scientific debate, and there is no conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis. While it is possible that the sun has a companion star, further observations and research will be needed to confirm or refute this idea.

[mccoy]

Is the evidence that most stars are part of a binary system enough to suggest that probably the sun is also part of a binary system?

The fact that most stars in the galaxy are part of binary or multiple star systems does not necessarily mean that the sun is also part of a binary system. While this statistic does suggest that binary systems are common in the universe, it does not provide direct evidence for or against the hypothesis that the sun has a binary companion.

As I mentioned earlier, there is some evidence that suggests the sun may have a binary companion, such as observations of nearby stars and theoretical models of the Oort Cloud. However, this evidence is not conclusive, and there are alternative explanations for the phenomena that have been observed.

In order to determine whether the sun has a binary companion, further observations and research will be needed. This may include searching for evidence of gravitational perturbations in the orbits of nearby objects, studying the distribution of comets in the Oort Cloud, and searching for direct evidence of a companion star through telescopic observations. Until such evidence is found, the question of whether the sun has a binary companion will remain a matter of scientific debate.

[mccoy]

How many known stars are part of a binary or multiple stars system?

The majority of stars in the galaxy are part of binary or multiple star systems. According to some estimates, up to 80% of stars in the Milky Way may be part of binary or multiple systems.

There are many different types of binary and multiple star systems, ranging from close binary systems where the two stars orbit very close to each other, to wide binary systems where the stars are separated by a significant distance. There are also hierarchical systems, where multiple stars orbit around a common center of mass, and even more complex systems with multiple stars and planets.

The exact number of known binary and multiple star systems is difficult to determine, as new systems are constantly being discovered through observations and research. However, as of 2021, the latest estimate from the European Space Agency's Gaia mission is that there are approximately 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, and the majority of these are likely to be part of binary or multiple systems.

[mccoy]

From the above, can we affirm that the sun has a 80% a priori probability of being into a binary or multiple system?

No, we cannot affirm that the sun has an 80% a priori probability of being part of a binary or multiple star system simply based on the statistic that up to 80% of stars in the Milky Way are in binary or multiple systems.

While it is true that the majority of stars in the galaxy are part of binary or multiple systems, it does not necessarily mean that the sun is also part of such a system. Each star and its planetary system is unique and the conditions and history that led to their formation can differ. Furthermore, the actual percentage of stars in the Milky Way that are in binary or multiple systems is not precisely known and may vary depending on the methods used for observations and estimation.

Therefore, determining whether the sun has a binary or multiple companion requires direct observational evidence or strong theoretical predictions. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence for the presence of a companion star for the sun, and further research and observations will be needed to determine its actual probability of having one.

Regenerate response

[mccoy]

What about the hypothesis that the binary companion of the sun is a small black hole?

The hypothesis that the binary companion of the sun is a small black hole is an interesting one, but currently there is no direct observational evidence to support it. It is possible that the sun has a binary companion that is a black hole, but it would need to be quite small in comparison to the sun to remain undetected.

There are several ways that astronomers could potentially detect a black hole companion to the sun, such as through gravitational lensing, X-ray emissions from an accretion disk, or gravitational waves. However, so far there has been no conclusive evidence to suggest that the sun has a black hole companion.

Furthermore, the formation of a black hole in a binary system with a solar-mass star would likely require some unusual circumstances, such as a close encounter with another star or the merging of two stars. While such events are possible, they are relatively rare and it is unclear how likely they are to have occurred in the case of the sun.

Therefore, while the hypothesis of a black hole companion to the sun is intriguing, it remains a speculative possibility until direct observational evidence is obtained.

Regenerate response