Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!!

 

Namaste dear sisters and brothers of this list family!!

 

as i wrote out Swami Sri Yukteswarji's name on the previous letter,

and referred to His wonderful book "The Holy Science"...i suddenly

thought about Him and how He is considered to be a Realised soul...a

Mahatma, in fact the SRFers consider Him to be Jnanavatara...an

Incarnation of Wisdom...and as we all know there is the Sri Yukteswar

Ayanamsha as well as all the others...

 

Now as this was a Majorly Great Soul, and He was also an excellent

Jyotishi...and He used this particular Ayanamsha... why then are we

using the Ayanamsha's of Jyotishis who are NOT necessarily Self

Relised, and not necessarily Mahatmas like He was...we use the Lahiri

Ayanamsha...some use Krishnamurti...others Fagan...and some

Raman...now are ANY of these others considered to be Self-Realised

Mahatmas...and WHY are we using THEIR Ayanamshas, instead of Swami Sri

Yukteswarji's???

 

This has bothered me for a while...but i haven't tried using it myself

either as i understood from what teachings i've had that the most

common Ayanamsha in use is the Lahiri one...and that's what i've used

too...it seems to work pretty well...

 

Still, there is this questioning in my heart...i deeply revere,

respect and Love SwamiSri Yukteswarji...and am wondering why His

Ayanamsha is not in more use...

 

Also He had QUITE a different take on the Yugas...and the entire SRF

organisation is following His take...which is that we have left Kali

Yuga, and have entered into Dwapara Yuga...the age of atomics and

electronics...His arguments if you read them, make a lot of sense, and

he is not JUST some ordinary Jyotishi...this man is a Mahatma...and

was communing with the Divine always.....So why would we take the

teachings of the lesser folks and ignore His????

 

David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) in his Astrology of the Seers

referred to Swami Sri Yukteswarji's version and seemed to promote

it..he also referred to Sri Yukteswarji's Birth Chart for His Great

Student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji...and said that since He was both a

Self-Realized Soul, and an excellent Jyotishi, His chart for

Yoganandaji should be accurate!! and it was His chart which Vamadeva

used. so this is one Jyotish teacher that i really respect, who is

deferring to Swami Sri Yukteswarji on several issues...and he is NOT

a devotee as far as i know!!(however i have never asked him if he

was!) So what gives here??

 

There was some discussion from Narasimha Rao, i think who referred to

Sanjay Rath's take that we are in still the major Kali Yuga but

possibly may be experiencing minor periods within that major cycle

just as we delineate the Dashas, and Bhuktis and Antardashas...So

maybe what Swami Sri Yukteswarji was referring to was the MINOR

cycles...rather than the Major ones...He referred directly to the

precession of the equinoxes, saying that it takes approximately 26,000

years to complete a rotation of the precession of the equinox...i seem

to remember that He made that cycle as the basis and then divided it

up into smaller segments such that none of the cycles is nearly as

long as the traditional ones...And he suggests that they are WRONG

because the actual knowledge was mostly lost during Islamic rule as

the Hindus were oppressed and much of the old wisdom disappeared...

 

So why shouldn't one believe Swamiji, Who is a Self-Realized Mahatma

and a Master and even possibly a Jnanavatara...as compared to the

ordinary Jyotishis who have learned their wisdom purely by the books,

and thru their teachers...

 

so would Sri Yukteswarji, have learned it in such a way, but...being a

Great Soul, He would be able to see more deeply into things such as

this...so at least it would seem to this kindergartner who loves the

Swamiji, and His well known student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji!!why

shouldn't i believe them, and why should i believe the "standard

teachings"???

 

this is a challenge to all you jyotishis out there...What do you have

to say about this issue...and has ANYONE read Swami Sri Yukteswarji's

book???because if you haven't, you can't really argue against it!!!

 

He also argues very effectively thru the anatomy of humans and other

animals, that humans were designed to be vegetarians...and that's a

good argument too...we don't even have to go into Ahimsa...we can just

go for HEALTH...(not that i'm trying to flog Vegetarianism...i've been

on both sides of that issue!!!)

 

So dear sisters and brothers do we have any one who actually knows

something about this...and can help to clear up the thick confused air

in my tiny little skull???

 

in the Divine Mother's Love,

and in Her Service,

humbly,

 

as ever,

your own Self

 

visvanathan

 

Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Visvanathan et al,

 

I haven't read "The Holy Science" although I've read all of Paramahansa

Yogananda's works...also studied with "Self-Realisation Fellowship" many,

many years ago. I agree that Sri Yukteswar is/was a truly enlightened

soul...however I have tried his ayanamsha and found it to be inaccurate when

confirming major life events indicated by vimsottari dasa system...perhaps

there's some other element that also needs to be considered ???

 

Regards

Wendy

 

VISVANATHAN WROTE:

==================

Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!!

 

Namaste dear sisters and brothers of this list family!!

 

as i wrote out Swami Sri Yukteswarji's name on the previous letter,

and referred to His wonderful book "The Holy Science"...i suddenly

thought about Him and how He is considered to be a Realised soul...a

Mahatma, in fact the SRFers consider Him to be Jnanavatara...an

Incarnation of Wisdom...and as we all know there is the Sri Yukteswar

Ayanamsha as well as all the others...

 

Now as this was a Majorly Great Soul, and He was also an excellent

Jyotishi...and He used this particular Ayanamsha... why then are we

using the Ayanamsha's of Jyotishis who are NOT necessarily Self

Relised, and not necessarily Mahatmas like He was...we use the Lahiri

Ayanamsha...some use Krishnamurti...others Fagan...and some

Raman...now are ANY of these others considered to be Self-Realised

Mahatmas...and WHY are we using THEIR Ayanamshas, instead of Swami Sri

Yukteswarji's???

 

This has bothered me for a while...but i haven't tried using it myself

either as i understood from what teachings i've had that the most

common Ayanamsha in use is the Lahiri one...and that's what i've used

too...it seems to work pretty well...

 

Still, there is this questioning in my heart...i deeply revere,

respect and Love SwamiSri Yukteswarji...and am wondering why His

Ayanamsha is not in more use...

 

Also He had QUITE a different take on the Yugas...and the entire SRF

organisation is following His take...which is that we have left Kali

Yuga, and have entered into Dwapara Yuga...the age of atomics and

electronics...His arguments if you read them, make a lot of sense, and

he is not JUST some ordinary Jyotishi...this man is a Mahatma...and

was communing with the Divine always.....So why would we take the

teachings of the lesser folks and ignore His????

 

David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) in his Astrology of the Seers

referred to Swami Sri Yukteswarji's version and seemed to promote

it..he also referred to Sri Yukteswarji's Birth Chart for His Great

Student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji...and said that since He was both a

Self-Realized Soul, and an excellent Jyotishi, His chart for

Yoganandaji should be accurate!! and it was His chart which Vamadeva

used. so this is one Jyotish teacher that i really respect, who is

deferring to Swami Sri Yukteswarji on several issues...and he is NOT

a devotee as far as i know!!(however i have never asked him if he

was!) So what gives here??

 

There was some discussion from Narasimha Rao, i think who referred to

Sanjay Rath's take that we are in still the major Kali Yuga but

possibly may be experiencing minor periods within that major cycle

just as we delineate the Dashas, and Bhuktis and Antardashas...So

maybe what Swami Sri Yukteswarji was referring to was the MINOR

cycles...rather than the Major ones...He referred directly to the

precession of the equinoxes, saying that it takes approximately 26,000

years to complete a rotation of the precession of the equinox...i seem

to remember that He made that cycle as the basis and then divided it

up into smaller segments such that none of the cycles is nearly as

long as the traditional ones...And he suggests that they are WRONG

because the actual knowledge was mostly lost during Islamic rule as

the Hindus were oppressed and much of the old wisdom disappeared...

 

So why shouldn't one believe Swamiji, Who is a Self-Realized Mahatma

and a Master and even possibly a Jnanavatara...as compared to the

ordinary Jyotishis who have learned their wisdom purely by the books,

and thru their teachers...

 

so would Sri Yukteswarji, have learned it in such a way, but...being a

Great Soul, He would be able to see more deeply into things such as

this...so at least it would seem to this kindergartner who loves the

Swamiji, and His well known student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji!!why

shouldn't i believe them, and why should i believe the "standard

teachings"???

 

this is a challenge to all you jyotishis out there...What do you have

to say about this issue...and has ANYONE read Swami Sri Yukteswarji's

book???because if you haven't, you can't really argue against it!!!

 

He also argues very effectively thru the anatomy of humans and other

animals, that humans were designed to be vegetarians...and that's a

good argument too...we don't even have to go into Ahimsa...we can just

go for HEALTH...(not that i'm trying to flog Vegetarianism...i've been

on both sides of that issue!!!)

 

So dear sisters and brothers do we have any one who actually knows

something about this...and can help to clear up the thick confused air

in my tiny little skull???

 

in the Divine Mother's Love,

and in Her Service,

humbly,

 

as ever,

your own Self

 

visvanathan

 

Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Kasi and others,

 

Sri Yukteswar was a great astrologer and a realized soul, but in

writting the Holy Science he was not postulating the correct ayanamsa. When

he wrote the book he mentioned a 54 second per year progression resulting in

a 24000 year cycle of yugas. His purpose was to make the public aware of the

yugas that are based upon the revolution of the Sun around as yet an

astronomically undiscovered point, star, etc. In the book for the purpose of

his revealing the yugas he mentioned 54 seconds precesion rate, yet in his

lifetime it was known that the current rate of preccession was 50.2

something, therefore any ayanamsa using a 54 second yearly precession could

not be correct. Then others read his book and came up with an ayanamsa that

they called Sri Yuktesware ayanamsa which is not an ayanamsa he ever used.

In fact, his disciple, Paramahamsa Yogananda had a disciple named Tara Ma,

who wrote on the precession and ayanamsa and used the modern value of 50.3,

she bascially refuted all of what is said in the Holy Science as far as the

ayanamsa is concerned.

 

I went through this same ayanamsa delimna years ago, and after I decided to

go with Lahiri I met a friend who had been to Calcutta where he became good

friends with an astrologer who used Lahiri ayanamsa. This friend of mine

asked this astrologer why he did not use Sri Yukteswar ayanamsa and this

astrolger said that his grandfather was friendly with Sri Yuktesware and

that this was the same ayanamsa that Sri Yukteswar used- the Lahiri.

 

I hope that helps clear things up a bit for you on the ayanamsa. The yugas

mentioned by Sri Yuktesware are baased upon the Sun revolution around some

star, a dark star. The yugas of great lenght that most know of are based

upon this around the galacitc center.

 

Take Care,

Ernst

 

 

-

<kasi_visvanath

<gjlist>

Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:22 AM

[gjlist] Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

 

 

> Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!!

>

> Namaste dear sisters and brothers of this list family!!

>

> as i wrote out Swami Sri Yukteswarji's name on the previous letter,

> and referred to His wonderful book "The Holy Science"...i suddenly

> thought about Him and how He is considered to be a Realised soul...a

> Mahatma, in fact the SRFers consider Him to be Jnanavatara...an

> Incarnation of Wisdom...and as we all know there is the Sri Yukteswar

> Ayanamsha as well as all the others...

>

> Now as this was a Majorly Great Soul, and He was also an excellent

> Jyotishi...and He used this particular Ayanamsha... why then are we

> using the Ayanamsha's of Jyotishis who are NOT necessarily Self

> Relised, and not necessarily Mahatmas like He was...we use the Lahiri

> Ayanamsha...some use Krishnamurti...others Fagan...and some

> Raman...now are ANY of these others considered to be Self-Realised

> Mahatmas...and WHY are we using THEIR Ayanamshas, instead of Swami Sri

> Yukteswarji's???

>

> This has bothered me for a while...but i haven't tried using it myself

> either as i understood from what teachings i've had that the most

> common Ayanamsha in use is the Lahiri one...and that's what i've used

> too...it seems to work pretty well...

>

> Still, there is this questioning in my heart...i deeply revere,

> respect and Love SwamiSri Yukteswarji...and am wondering why His

> Ayanamsha is not in more use...

>

> Also He had QUITE a different take on the Yugas...and the entire SRF

> organisation is following His take...which is that we have left Kali

> Yuga, and have entered into Dwapara Yuga...the age of atomics and

> electronics...His arguments if you read them, make a lot of sense, and

> he is not JUST some ordinary Jyotishi...this man is a Mahatma...and

> was communing with the Divine always.....So why would we take the

> teachings of the lesser folks and ignore His????

>

> David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) in his Astrology of the Seers

> referred to Swami Sri Yukteswarji's version and seemed to promote

> it..he also referred to Sri Yukteswarji's Birth Chart for His Great

> Student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji...and said that since He was both a

> Self-Realized Soul, and an excellent Jyotishi, His chart for

> Yoganandaji should be accurate!! and it was His chart which Vamadeva

> used. so this is one Jyotish teacher that i really respect, who is

> deferring to Swami Sri Yukteswarji on several issues...and he is NOT

> a devotee as far as i know!!(however i have never asked him if he

> was!) So what gives here??

>

> There was some discussion from Narasimha Rao, i think who referred to

> Sanjay Rath's take that we are in still the major Kali Yuga but

> possibly may be experiencing minor periods within that major cycle

> just as we delineate the Dashas, and Bhuktis and Antardashas...So

> maybe what Swami Sri Yukteswarji was referring to was the MINOR

> cycles...rather than the Major ones...He referred directly to the

> precession of the equinoxes, saying that it takes approximately 26,000

> years to complete a rotation of the precession of the equinox...i seem

> to remember that He made that cycle as the basis and then divided it

> up into smaller segments such that none of the cycles is nearly as

> long as the traditional ones...And he suggests that they are WRONG

> because the actual knowledge was mostly lost during Islamic rule as

> the Hindus were oppressed and much of the old wisdom disappeared...

>

> So why shouldn't one believe Swamiji, Who is a Self-Realized Mahatma

> and a Master and even possibly a Jnanavatara...as compared to the

> ordinary Jyotishis who have learned their wisdom purely by the books,

> and thru their teachers...

>

> so would Sri Yukteswarji, have learned it in such a way, but...being a

> Great Soul, He would be able to see more deeply into things such as

> this...so at least it would seem to this kindergartner who loves the

> Swamiji, and His well known student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji!!why

> shouldn't i believe them, and why should i believe the "standard

> teachings"???

>

> this is a challenge to all you jyotishis out there...What do you have

> to say about this issue...and has ANYONE read Swami Sri Yukteswarji's

> book???because if you haven't, you can't really argue against it!!!

>

> He also argues very effectively thru the anatomy of humans and other

> animals, that humans were designed to be vegetarians...and that's a

> good argument too...we don't even have to go into Ahimsa...we can just

> go for HEALTH...(not that i'm trying to flog Vegetarianism...i've been

> on both sides of that issue!!!)

>

> So dear sisters and brothers do we have any one who actually knows

> something about this...and can help to clear up the thick confused air

> in my tiny little skull???

>

> in the Divine Mother's Love,

> and in Her Service,

> humbly,

>

> as ever,

> your own Self

>

> visvanathan

>

> Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!

>

>

>

> gjlist-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hello everyone,

 

May I put forth my perspective on Ayanamsa.

 

There are many perspectives/theories in Astronomy.

 

Cheiro's Date for the Coincidence of the movable & immovable Zodiacs

is 388 BC. That is why I asked, apart from Cheiro's, are there any more

different views?. Sir Simon Newcombe, Alan Leo,Cyril Fagan or Sepharial

may have mentioned different dates. We still do not know when the Piscean

Age started . Cheiro says it started at 10 B C.

 

Age Cycle ( 72*30) = 2160 years

Precessional Cycle (72*360) = 25920 years

Equinoctial Cycle (2000*2160) = 43,20000 years

Cosmological Cycle ( 2 million * 2160 ) = 4.32 billion years

 

This is the Theory of Cycles as per Vedic Astronomy using 72 years per

degree precession. ( 72 years per degree is given by Cheiro. There are other

perspectives. For instance, the Sanskrit astronomical treatise, the Surya

Siddhanta gives 60 years per degree .So a precessional cycle becomes

360*60 = 21600 & an Equinoctial Cycle becomes 200 Precessional Cycles ).

 

If we go into it deeply, we will be more confused than ever.

 

The different dates given by scholars when the Sidereal and the Tropical

Zodiacs coincided

 

Lahiri = 285 AD

Raman = 398 AD

Chandra Hari = 238 AD

Davidson = 317 BC

Cheiro = 388 BC

Newcombe = 291 AD

Krishnamurthy = 291 AD

Sepharial = 498 AD

 

Since many Ayanamsa values are given, the Indian Govt in order to

standardise it adopted the following resolutions.

 

1) That all almanacs will continue to be framed on sidereal principles and

for this purpose the initial point of the Zodiac will be the point in the

ecliptic opposite the star Chitra ( Alpha Virginis ) which was the vernal

equinoctial point on the Vernal Equinox day of 285 AD. In other words, 90%

of the lakhs of astrologers in India follow Lahiri Ayanamsa ( which is round

about 23.5 degrees this year ).

 

2) The rate of precession of the Vernal Equinox may be taken as 50.3 seconds

per sidereal year.

 

Even though I have given 4 Ayanamsa options- Raman, Lahiri, Krishnamurthy

& Hari - in my software, I personally use Lahiri's Ayanamsa. ( If I use some

other Ayanamsa, I will have to fight with the 10000 odd astrologers in

Kerala) In all sidereal horoscopes the Ahargana ( the number of Kali days

elapsed ) is written. Today it is 18,63,269.

 

The Dark Age started at 3102 BC ( epoch midnight 16/17 Feb ). As per Hari's

Ayanamsa at that time The Verna Equinoctial Point was 46 degrees 40

minutes. Due to equinoctial retrogression It became 3 degrees 21 minutes on

0 AD and at 238 AD 0 degrees. ( precession 71.55 years per degree ).

 

All these values make it difficult for us to introduce Astrology as an

exact science! But then contradictory theories are part of Science.

Dr Sudarshan contradicts Einstein. Mendelbrot contradicts Laplace.

 

 

If,as the tropicalists say, the Vernal Point is in the 7th degree of Pisces

now, then we have 7*72 = 539 years to elapse before the Aquarian age

begins. The Siderealists maintain that the Sidereal Starting Point remains

to be 0 degrees Beta Arietis and that the Sidereal Zodiac doesn't change.

 

My friend Richard S Brown of www.agt-gems.com and myself are now in the

process of standardising Gemology. 9 theories about the gem to be worn

have been put forward (The Ascendant lord's gem, the ninth lord' gem,

the weakest planets' gem etc) . He will be introducing it in his cyber-

courses at GIA ( Gemological Institute of America ). Similarly we should

standardise Astrology. Integrate West and East ! The Horizontal and the

Vertical means of gaining Knoweldge. The West formidable in Science

and Technology. The East formidable in Philosophy and Astrology!

 

G Kumar

Sidereal Astrology & Yoga Expert

http://www.zodiaccomputers.com

 

 

-

Ernst Wilhelm <ernst

<gjlist>

Thursday, May 24, 2001 4:12 PM

Re: [gjlist] Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

 

 

> Dear Kasi and others,

>

> Sri Yukteswar was a great astrologer and a realized soul, but in

> writting the Holy Science he was not postulating the correct ayanamsa.

When

> he wrote the book he mentioned a 54 second per year progression resulting

in

> a 24000 year cycle of yugas. His purpose was to make the public aware of

the

> yugas that are based upon the revolution of the Sun around as yet an

> astronomically undiscovered point, star, etc. In the book for the purpose

of

> his revealing the yugas he mentioned 54 seconds precesion rate, yet in his

> lifetime it was known that the current rate of preccession was 50.2

> something, therefore any ayanamsa using a 54 second yearly precession

could

> not be correct. Then others read his book and came up with an ayanamsa

that

> they called Sri Yuktesware ayanamsa which is not an ayanamsa he ever used.

> In fact, his disciple, Paramahamsa Yogananda had a disciple named Tara Ma,

> who wrote on the precession and ayanamsa and used the modern value of

50.3,

> she bascially refuted all of what is said in the Holy Science as far as

the

> ayanamsa is concerned.

>

> I went through this same ayanamsa delimna years ago, and after I decided

to

> go with Lahiri I met a friend who had been to Calcutta where he became

good

> friends with an astrologer who used Lahiri ayanamsa. This friend of mine

> asked this astrologer why he did not use Sri Yukteswar ayanamsa and this

> astrolger said that his grandfather was friendly with Sri Yuktesware and

> that this was the same ayanamsa that Sri Yukteswar used- the Lahiri.

>

> I hope that helps clear things up a bit for you on the ayanamsa. The yugas

> mentioned by Sri Yuktesware are baased upon the Sun revolution around some

> star, a dark star. The yugas of great lenght that most know of are based

> upon this around the galacitc center.

>

> Take Care,

> Ernst

>

>

> -

> <kasi_visvanath

> <gjlist>

> Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:22 AM

> [gjlist] Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

>

>

> > Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!!

> >

> > Namaste dear sisters and brothers of this list family!!

> >

> > as i wrote out Swami Sri Yukteswarji's name on the previous letter,

> > and referred to His wonderful book "The Holy Science"...i suddenly

> > thought about Him and how He is considered to be a Realised soul...a

> > Mahatma, in fact the SRFers consider Him to be Jnanavatara...an

> > Incarnation of Wisdom...and as we all know there is the Sri Yukteswar

> > Ayanamsha as well as all the others...

> >

> > Now as this was a Majorly Great Soul, and He was also an excellent

> > Jyotishi...and He used this particular Ayanamsha... why then are we

> > using the Ayanamsha's of Jyotishis who are NOT necessarily Self

> > Relised, and not necessarily Mahatmas like He was...we use the Lahiri

> > Ayanamsha...some use Krishnamurti...others Fagan...and some

> > Raman...now are ANY of these others considered to be Self-Realised

> > Mahatmas...and WHY are we using THEIR Ayanamshas, instead of Swami Sri

> > Yukteswarji's???

> >

> > This has bothered me for a while...but i haven't tried using it myself

> > either as i understood from what teachings i've had that the most

> > common Ayanamsha in use is the Lahiri one...and that's what i've used

> > too...it seems to work pretty well...

> >

> > Still, there is this questioning in my heart...i deeply revere,

> > respect and Love SwamiSri Yukteswarji...and am wondering why His

> > Ayanamsha is not in more use...

> >

> > Also He had QUITE a different take on the Yugas...and the entire SRF

> > organisation is following His take...which is that we have left Kali

> > Yuga, and have entered into Dwapara Yuga...the age of atomics and

> > electronics...His arguments if you read them, make a lot of sense, and

> > he is not JUST some ordinary Jyotishi...this man is a Mahatma...and

> > was communing with the Divine always.....So why would we take the

> > teachings of the lesser folks and ignore His????

> >

> > David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) in his Astrology of the Seers

> > referred to Swami Sri Yukteswarji's version and seemed to promote

> > it..he also referred to Sri Yukteswarji's Birth Chart for His Great

> > Student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji...and said that since He was both a

> > Self-Realized Soul, and an excellent Jyotishi, His chart for

> > Yoganandaji should be accurate!! and it was His chart which Vamadeva

> > used. so this is one Jyotish teacher that i really respect, who is

> > deferring to Swami Sri Yukteswarji on several issues...and he is NOT

> > a devotee as far as i know!!(however i have never asked him if he

> > was!) So what gives here??

> >

> > There was some discussion from Narasimha Rao, i think who referred to

> > Sanjay Rath's take that we are in still the major Kali Yuga but

> > possibly may be experiencing minor periods within that major cycle

> > just as we delineate the Dashas, and Bhuktis and Antardashas...So

> > maybe what Swami Sri Yukteswarji was referring to was the MINOR

> > cycles...rather than the Major ones...He referred directly to the

> > precession of the equinoxes, saying that it takes approximately 26,000

> > years to complete a rotation of the precession of the equinox...i seem

> > to remember that He made that cycle as the basis and then divided it

> > up into smaller segments such that none of the cycles is nearly as

> > long as the traditional ones...And he suggests that they are WRONG

> > because the actual knowledge was mostly lost during Islamic rule as

> > the Hindus were oppressed and much of the old wisdom disappeared...

> >

> > So why shouldn't one believe Swamiji, Who is a Self-Realized Mahatma

> > and a Master and even possibly a Jnanavatara...as compared to the

> > ordinary Jyotishis who have learned their wisdom purely by the books,

> > and thru their teachers...

> >

> > so would Sri Yukteswarji, have learned it in such a way, but...being a

> > Great Soul, He would be able to see more deeply into things such as

> > this...so at least it would seem to this kindergartner who loves the

> > Swamiji, and His well known student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji!!why

> > shouldn't i believe them, and why should i believe the "standard

> > teachings"???

> >

> > this is a challenge to all you jyotishis out there...What do you have

> > to say about this issue...and has ANYONE read Swami Sri Yukteswarji's

> > book???because if you haven't, you can't really argue against it!!!

> >

> > He also argues very effectively thru the anatomy of humans and other

> > animals, that humans were designed to be vegetarians...and that's a

> > good argument too...we don't even have to go into Ahimsa...we can just

> > go for HEALTH...(not that i'm trying to flog Vegetarianism...i've been

> > on both sides of that issue!!!)

> >

> > So dear sisters and brothers do we have any one who actually knows

> > something about this...and can help to clear up the thick confused air

> > in my tiny little skull???

> >

> > in the Divine Mother's Love,

> > and in Her Service,

> > humbly,

> >

> > as ever,

> > your own Self

> >

> > visvanathan

> >

> > Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!

> >

> >

> >

> > gjlist-

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

 

> >

>

>

>

> gjlist-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Ernst Wilhelm wrote:

> Dear Kasi and others,

 

> In fact, his disciple, Paramahamsa Yogananda had a disciple named Tara Ma,

> who wrote on the precession and ayanamsa and used the modern value of 50.3,

> she bascially refuted all of what is said in the Holy Science as far as the

> ayanamsa is concerned.

 

Hi Ernst!

 

Can you give more info about Tara Ma´s expose on ayanamsa? What ayanamsa did

she use? The accepted rate is 50.257 at least for the present period. To start

with some date 2000 years ago and apply the rate linear may not be right at all.

we are not averaging, but trying to fix a point. I personally prefer the Fagan

value, am trying out Chandrahai´s and the values in-between. Lahiri does not

suit me. I sort of grew up with Fagan´s value, which had some statistical basis.

But it needs correction.

 

I attach a letter I wrote to KV directly, but since you and others have bitten

into the subject(s) I venture to put it on the list.

 

This ayanamsa dilemma is what prevents me from getting into jyothish properly.

The vargas change, sometimes the rasi chart too. Any attempt to fit the dasas

for me by lahiri fail - in my opinion. Others do try to fit them by complicated

method, which seem artificial to me. I find that Fagan/Chandrahari give more

straight answers. That is what Grace Inglis also said.

 

 

Dear KV,

 

Deliberately writing direct. Your question is legitimate. Yet there are some

problems. To start with, Yukteswar´s rate is 54 seconds, but astronomers say

50.26. How did Yukteswar determine his ayanamsa? Was it only intuition or

based on something? What does the book say?

 

>

> Also He had QUITE a different take on the Yugas...and the entire SRF

> organisation is following His take...which is that we have left Kali

> Yuga, and have entered into Dwapara Yuga...the age of atomics and

> electronics...His arguments if you read them, make a lot of sense, and

> he is not JUST some ordinary Jyotishi...this man is a Mahatma...and

> was communing with the Divine always.....So why would we take the

> teachings of the lesser folks and ignore His????

 

 

Yes, he was talking about the minor cycles, IMHO.

 

I can´t find the article, but it had points that I could not understand or agree

with. Can you post it to me if you have it?

 

I do not think we are in Dwapara, but in ascending kali still. The order

should be Ascending kaii... dwapara ..treta ... krita/ Descending krita...treta

.... dwapara ... kali/ ascending kali etc. Actually the naming is a bit

confused. Dwapara and treta are 2nd and 3rd. But Krita means completed. The term

kali is the single dotted side of the die, the least. Since it is the loser it

is associated with worst, but it can also mean just the least, the start. The

name sathya for krita is also an invention, assuming that if kali is worst,

krita must be best.

 

So the cycle could be Improving kali.. dwapara .. treta ... krita (completion of

improvement)... deriorating kali, dwapara ..treta... Krita (completion of

deterioration) followed by improving kali again.

 

The former seems to be more likely. I don´t think that Yukteswar wrote

everything by divine inspiration only, but only got the main idea from the othe

other world, thought over things himself. His euphoric idea that with the new

scientific discoveries things would improve was pre-mature. The worst was yet to

come! So I think we were living in the last part of descending kali till

recently. Even World War II was not the worst period, despite the atom bombs. It

was a war among nations, some moral principles were respected. But the things

that happened / are still happening in Yugoslavia, Russia, Israel etc - brother

against brother and sister and child, mass raping etc. are NOT signs of dwapara

but of kali at its worst. Also the total loss of moral values in everyday life.

 

But there is a new wind that is just starting to blow: a desire to change. So I

think we are nearing the end of descending kali. The Maya calendar gives a

date: 2012. Perhaps then we will enter into Ascending kali. Efforts to improve

will become strong, but will still be kali, hard work and conditions. When that

stage is over, dwapara will start.

 

> long as the traditional ones...And he suggests that they are WRONG

> because the actual knowledge was mostly lost during Islamic rule as

> the Hindus were oppressed and much of the old wisdom disappeared...

 

Yes. This happened around 1200 AD and was the start o, but the evil period

began about 1000 Ad. This was also the time the Roman empire totally

disintegrated. The seeds of break up were sown all over in 800 AD. which is

when Kali perhaps began. I need the Yukteswar article to say more.

 

 

> so would Sri Yukteswarji, have learned it in such a way, but...being a

> Great Soul, He would be able to see more deeply into things such as

> this...so at least it would seem to this kindergartner who loves the

> Swamiji, and His well known student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji!!why

> shouldn't i believe them, and why should i believe the "standard

> teachings"???

 

The late Sankaracharya of Kanchipuram was no less a saint than yukteswar. He

could bilocate, create small miracles. Was extremely learned. His books are just

as inspiring. His ashram uses a different ayanamsa in their panchang! Did they

all strive for mathematical accuracy or only basic notions? Astrology was not

their main business! Did they ever read a chart by looking into all the varga´s.

I don´t think so: if at all they saw a chart it was only the Rasi, and their

intution gave the reading. Even a wrong chart might have been rnough, as long as

it was associated with the native!

 

> He also argues very effectively thru the anatomy of humans and other

> animals, that humans were designed to be vegetarians...and that's a

> good argument too...we don't even have to go into Ahimsa...we can just

> go for HEALTH...(not that i'm trying to flog Vegetarianism...i've been

> on both sides of that issue!!!)

 

I doi not agree with this. Man is a mixed-eater, his need for animal protein is

there, but limited. So at least milk is needed. a true vegetarian can break down

cellulose and man cannot. The nearest relatives of Man are the apes, bears and

pigs are similar in many ways. All are mixed-eaters, need only little animal

protein, but cannot live long without it. Insects can be a source for them. The

apes eat meat about once a week. Gorillas are exceptions: they are essentially

herbivores, but have the capacity to break down cellulose, eat leaves and

sapling stems.

 

A true herbivore has no canine teeth at all! As the need for meat reduces, the

canine teeth get smaller and disappear if not needed at all. so Man is at the

stage of being lacto-vegetarian.

 

 

regards

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> I went through this same ayanamsa delimna years ago, and after I decided to

> go with Lahiri I met a friend who had been to Calcutta where he became good

> friends with an astrologer who used Lahiri ayanamsa. This friend of mine

> asked this astrologer why he did not use Sri Yukteswar ayanamsa and this

> astrolger said that his grandfather was friendly with Sri Yuktesware and

> that this was the same ayanamsa that Sri Yukteswar used- the Lahiri.

>

> I hope that helps clear things up a bit for you on the ayanamsa. The yugas

> mentioned by Sri Yuktesware are baased upon the Sun revolution around some

> star, a dark star. The yugas of great lenght that most know of are based

> upon this around the galacitc center.

>

> Take Care,

> Ernst

>

>

> -

> <kasi_visvanath

> <gjlist>

> Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:22 AM

> [gjlist] Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

>

>

> > Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!!

> >

> > Namaste dear sisters and brothers of this list family!!

> >

> > as i wrote out Swami Sri Yukteswarji's name on the previous letter,

> > and referred to His wonderful book "The Holy Science"...i suddenly

> > thought about Him and how He is considered to be a Realised soul...a

> > Mahatma, in fact the SRFers consider Him to be Jnanavatara...an

> > Incarnation of Wisdom...and as we all know there is the Sri Yukteswar

> > Ayanamsha as well as all the others...

> >

> > Now as this was a Majorly Great Soul, and He was also an excellent

> > Jyotishi...and He used this particular Ayanamsha... why then are we

> > using the Ayanamsha's of Jyotishis who are NOT necessarily Self

> > Relised, and not necessarily Mahatmas like He was...we use the Lahiri

> > Ayanamsha...some use Krishnamurti...others Fagan...and some

> > Raman...now are ANY of these others considered to be Self-Realised

> > Mahatmas...and WHY are we using THEIR Ayanamshas, instead of Swami Sri

> > Yukteswarji's???

> >

> > This has bothered me for a while...but i haven't tried using it myself

> > either as i understood from what teachings i've had that the most

> > common Ayanamsha in use is the Lahiri one...and that's what i've used

> > too...it seems to work pretty well...

> >

> > Still, there is this questioning in my heart...i deeply revere,

> > respect and Love SwamiSri Yukteswarji...and am wondering why His

> > Ayanamsha is not in more use...

> >

> > Also He had QUITE a different take on the Yugas...and the entire SRF

> > organisation is following His take...which is that we have left Kali

> > Yuga, and have entered into Dwapara Yuga...the age of atomics and

> > electronics...His arguments if you read them, make a lot of sense, and

> > he is not JUST some ordinary Jyotishi...this man is a Mahatma...and

> > was communing with the Divine always.....So why would we take the

> > teachings of the lesser folks and ignore His????

> >

> > David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) in his Astrology of the Seers

> > referred to Swami Sri Yukteswarji's version and seemed to promote

> > it..he also referred to Sri Yukteswarji's Birth Chart for His Great

> > Student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji...and said that since He was both a

> > Self-Realized Soul, and an excellent Jyotishi, His chart for

> > Yoganandaji should be accurate!! and it was His chart which Vamadeva

> > used. so this is one Jyotish teacher that i really respect, who is

> > deferring to Swami Sri Yukteswarji on several issues...and he is NOT

> > a devotee as far as i know!!(however i have never asked him if he

> > was!) So what gives here??

> >

> > There was some discussion from Narasimha Rao, i think who referred to

> > Sanjay Rath's take that we are in still the major Kali Yuga but

> > possibly may be experiencing minor periods within that major cycle

> > just as we delineate the Dashas, and Bhuktis and Antardashas...So

> > maybe what Swami Sri Yukteswarji was referring to was the MINOR

> > cycles...rather than the Major ones...He referred directly to the

> > precession of the equinoxes, saying that it takes approximately 26,000

> > years to complete a rotation of the precession of the equinox...i seem

> > to remember that He made that cycle as the basis and then divided it

> > up into smaller segments such that none of the cycles is nearly as

> > long as the traditional ones...And he suggests that they are WRONG

> > because the actual knowledge was mostly lost during Islamic rule as

> > the Hindus were oppressed and much of the old wisdom disappeared...

> >

> > So why shouldn't one believe Swamiji, Who is a Self-Realized Mahatma

> > and a Master and even possibly a Jnanavatara...as compared to the

> > ordinary Jyotishis who have learned their wisdom purely by the books,

> > and thru their teachers...

> >

> > so would Sri Yukteswarji, have learned it in such a way, but...being a

> > Great Soul, He would be able to see more deeply into things such as

> > this...so at least it would seem to this kindergartner who loves the

> > Swamiji, and His well known student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji!!why

> > shouldn't i believe them, and why should i believe the "standard

> > teachings"???

> >

> > this is a challenge to all you jyotishis out there...What do you have

> > to say about this issue...and has ANYONE read Swami Sri Yukteswarji's

> > book???because if you haven't, you can't really argue against it!!!

> >

> > He also argues very effectively thru the anatomy of humans and other

> > animals, that humans were designed to be vegetarians...and that's a

> > good argument too...we don't even have to go into Ahimsa...we can just

> > go for HEALTH...(not that i'm trying to flog Vegetarianism...i've been

> > on both sides of that issue!!!)

> >

> > So dear sisters and brothers do we have any one who actually knows

> > something about this...and can help to clear up the thick confused air

> > in my tiny little skull???

> >

> > in the Divine Mother's Love,

> > and in Her Service,

> > humbly,

> >

> > as ever,

> > your own Self

> >

> > visvanathan

> >

> > Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!

> >

> >

> >

> > gjlist-

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

> >

>

>

>

> gjlist-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

ZODIAC wrote:

>

> Cheiro's Date for the Coincidence of the movable & immovable Zodiacs

> is 388 BC. .......................... We still do not know when the Piscean

> Age started . Cheiro says it started at 10 B C.

 

 

This seems to be a contradiction. If the date of coincidence was 388 BC, then

that was the start of the piscean age. Or the date of coincidence was 10 BC.

Can´t be both at the same time.

 

BTW Yukteswar and Sepharial seem to give the same date.

 

regards

Mani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Mani,

regarding Tara Matas articles, she used the standard rate of precession

and a begin date of 498 AD. I don't kjnow if she used it in practice, or

only to therorize about the yugas. She wrote an article in East West

magazine in the 30's about this, East West was the Self REalization

Fellowship Magazine back in teh 30. THere is some site that has all these

old magazines on line, you can search for SRF magazine or something like

that.

 

I havent found Tara Matas theory to work as well in practice as the Lahiri.

But the fact that she breaks the course set in THe HOly SCience lets us get

an idea that Sri Yuktesvar never formed an ayanmsa.

 

There are also some ayanamsas that you didn't metnion that have thier

assummed begin date at the middle of the 6th century, and take Revati, or a

point just 10 degrees East of Revati as the 1st degree of Aries.

 

It is my opinion that the HOly Science does give the correct theory to

establish an ayanamsa. Sri Yuktesvar states that when the Sun, revolving

around its dual is furthest opposite VishnuNabhi, the galacitc center I

presume, the zodiacs coincide. So if we could just find this dual star, we

could figure it out. MOdern astronomers are beggining to refute the idea of

the Sun revolving around a dual star, but this doesn't mean it is not there.

It is comon for Western Sciences to take steps back before moving forward as

thier information is based on perceptin and not divine inference. Any, until

we determine the true cause of the preccession of the equinoxes I think

there will always be doubts and controversies about the ayanamsa, not to

mention the Yugas!

 

Sri Yuktesvar states that in the kali yuga man's consciousness is only aware

of the gross matter, the atom, the smallest physical building block. In the

Dwapara Yuga he states man becomes aware of the atomic energies. We have

learned about the atomic energies, so by that definition we are in the

Dvapara Yuga. Just because of wars, etc does not mean we are not in Dvapara

Yuga, Ravana terrorized the Earth in Tetra Yuga, so a Hitler, etc seems to

fit right into the Dvapara Yuga.

 

ANyway, the discussion of the Yugas is unfortunately a "religious" subject

and everyone has thier views on it, as long as a person's views on it help

them to live better lives and have greater care for thier fellow mankind,

its all right by me.

 

Take Care,

Ernst

 

 

 

 

 

<subra

<gjlist>

Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:46 AM

Re: [gjlist] Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

 

 

> Ernst Wilhelm wrote:

> > Dear Kasi and others,

>

> > In fact, his disciple, Paramahamsa Yogananda had a disciple named Tara

Ma,

> > who wrote on the precession and ayanamsa and used the modern value of

50.3,

> > she bascially refuted all of what is said in the Holy Science as far as

the

> > ayanamsa is concerned.

>

> Hi Ernst!

>

> Can you give more info about Tara Ma´s expose on ayanamsa? What ayanamsa

did

> she use? The accepted rate is 50.257 at least for the present period. To

start

> with some date 2000 years ago and apply the rate linear may not be right

at all.

> we are not averaging, but trying to fix a point. I personally prefer the

Fagan

> value, am trying out Chandrahai´s and the values in-between. Lahiri does

not

> suit me. I sort of grew up with Fagan´s value, which had some statistical

basis.

> But it needs correction.

>

> I attach a letter I wrote to KV directly, but since you and others have

bitten

> into the subject(s) I venture to put it on the list.

>

> This ayanamsa dilemma is what prevents me from getting into jyothish

properly.

> The vargas change, sometimes the rasi chart too. Any attempt to fit the

dasas

> for me by lahiri fail - in my opinion. Others do try to fit them by

complicated

> method, which seem artificial to me. I find that Fagan/Chandrahari give

more

> straight answers. That is what Grace Inglis also said.

>

>

> Dear KV,

>

> Deliberately writing direct. Your question is legitimate. Yet there are

some

> problems. To start with, Yukteswar´s rate is 54 seconds, but astronomers

say

> 50.26. How did Yukteswar determine his ayanamsa? Was it only intuition

or

> based on something? What does the book say?

>

> >

> > Also He had QUITE a different take on the Yugas...and the entire SRF

> > organisation is following His take...which is that we have left Kali

> > Yuga, and have entered into Dwapara Yuga...the age of atomics and

> > electronics...His arguments if you read them, make a lot of sense, and

> > he is not JUST some ordinary Jyotishi...this man is a Mahatma...and

> > was communing with the Divine always.....So why would we take the

> > teachings of the lesser folks and ignore His????

>

>

> Yes, he was talking about the minor cycles, IMHO.

>

> I can´t find the article, but it had points that I could not understand or

agree

> with. Can you post it to me if you have it?

>

> I do not think we are in Dwapara, but in ascending kali still. The order

> should be Ascending kaii... dwapara ..treta ... krita/ Descending

krita...treta

> ... dwapara ... kali/ ascending kali etc. Actually the naming is a bit

> confused. Dwapara and treta are 2nd and 3rd. But Krita means completed.

The term

> kali is the single dotted side of the die, the least. Since it is the

loser it

> is associated with worst, but it can also mean just the least, the start.

The

> name sathya for krita is also an invention, assuming that if kali is

worst,

> krita must be best.

>

> So the cycle could be Improving kali.. dwapara .. treta ... krita

(completion of

> improvement)... deriorating kali, dwapara ..treta... Krita (completion of

> deterioration) followed by improving kali again.

>

> The former seems to be more likely. I don´t think that Yukteswar wrote

> everything by divine inspiration only, but only got the main idea from the

othe

> other world, thought over things himself. His euphoric idea that with the

new

> scientific discoveries things would improve was pre-mature. The worst was

yet to

> come! So I think we were living in the last part of descending kali till

> recently. Even World War II was not the worst period, despite the atom

bombs. It

> was a war among nations, some moral principles were respected. But the

things

> that happened / are still happening in Yugoslavia, Russia, Israel etc -

brother

> against brother and sister and child, mass raping etc. are NOT signs of

dwapara

> but of kali at its worst. Also the total loss of moral values in everyday

life.

>

> But there is a new wind that is just starting to blow: a desire to change.

So I

> think we are nearing the end of descending kali. The Maya calendar gives

a

> date: 2012. Perhaps then we will enter into Ascending kali. Efforts to

improve

> will become strong, but will still be kali, hard work and conditions. When

that

> stage is over, dwapara will start.

>

> > long as the traditional ones...And he suggests that they are WRONG

> > because the actual knowledge was mostly lost during Islamic rule as

> > the Hindus were oppressed and much of the old wisdom disappeared...

>

> Yes. This happened around 1200 AD and was the start o, but the evil period

> began about 1000 Ad. This was also the time the Roman empire totally

> disintegrated. The seeds of break up were sown all over in 800 AD. which

is

> when Kali perhaps began. I need the Yukteswar article to say more.

>

>

> > so would Sri Yukteswarji, have learned it in such a way, but...being a

> > Great Soul, He would be able to see more deeply into things such as

> > this...so at least it would seem to this kindergartner who loves the

> > Swamiji, and His well known student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji!!why

> > shouldn't i believe them, and why should i believe the "standard

> > teachings"???

>

> The late Sankaracharya of Kanchipuram was no less a saint than yukteswar.

He

> could bilocate, create small miracles. Was extremely learned. His books

are just

> as inspiring. His ashram uses a different ayanamsa in their panchang! Did

they

> all strive for mathematical accuracy or only basic notions? Astrology was

not

> their main business! Did they ever read a chart by looking into all the

varga´s.

> I don´t think so: if at all they saw a chart it was only the Rasi, and

their

> intution gave the reading. Even a wrong chart might have been rnough, as

long as

> it was associated with the native!

>

> > He also argues very effectively thru the anatomy of humans and other

> > animals, that humans were designed to be vegetarians...and that's a

> > good argument too...we don't even have to go into Ahimsa...we can just

> > go for HEALTH...(not that i'm trying to flog Vegetarianism...i've been

> > on both sides of that issue!!!)

>

> I doi not agree with this. Man is a mixed-eater, his need for animal

protein is

> there, but limited. So at least milk is needed. a true vegetarian can

break down

> cellulose and man cannot. The nearest relatives of Man are the apes, bears

and

> pigs are similar in many ways. All are mixed-eaters, need only little

animal

> protein, but cannot live long without it. Insects can be a source for

them. The

> apes eat meat about once a week. Gorillas are exceptions: they are

essentially

> herbivores, but have the capacity to break down cellulose, eat leaves and

> sapling stems.

>

> A true herbivore has no canine teeth at all! As the need for meat reduces,

the

> canine teeth get smaller and disappear if not needed at all. so Man is at

the

> stage of being lacto-vegetarian.

>

>

> regards

> Mani

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > I went through this same ayanamsa delimna years ago, and after I decided

to

> > go with Lahiri I met a friend who had been to Calcutta where he became

good

> > friends with an astrologer who used Lahiri ayanamsa. This friend of mine

> > asked this astrologer why he did not use Sri Yukteswar ayanamsa and this

> > astrolger said that his grandfather was friendly with Sri Yuktesware and

> > that this was the same ayanamsa that Sri Yukteswar used- the Lahiri.

> >

> > I hope that helps clear things up a bit for you on the ayanamsa. The

yugas

> > mentioned by Sri Yuktesware are baased upon the Sun revolution around

some

> > star, a dark star. The yugas of great lenght that most know of are based

> > upon this around the galacitc center.

> >

> > Take Care,

> > Ernst

> >

> >

> > -

> > <kasi_visvanath

> > <gjlist>

> > Thursday, May 24, 2001 1:22 AM

> > [gjlist] Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

> >

> >

> > > Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!!

> > >

> > > Namaste dear sisters and brothers of this list family!!

> > >

> > > as i wrote out Swami Sri Yukteswarji's name on the previous letter,

> > > and referred to His wonderful book "The Holy Science"...i suddenly

> > > thought about Him and how He is considered to be a Realised soul...a

> > > Mahatma, in fact the SRFers consider Him to be Jnanavatara...an

> > > Incarnation of Wisdom...and as we all know there is the Sri Yukteswar

> > > Ayanamsha as well as all the others...

> > >

> > > Now as this was a Majorly Great Soul, and He was also an excellent

> > > Jyotishi...and He used this particular Ayanamsha... why then are we

> > > using the Ayanamsha's of Jyotishis who are NOT necessarily Self

> > > Relised, and not necessarily Mahatmas like He was...we use the Lahiri

> > > Ayanamsha...some use Krishnamurti...others Fagan...and some

> > > Raman...now are ANY of these others considered to be Self-Realised

> > > Mahatmas...and WHY are we using THEIR Ayanamshas, instead of Swami Sri

> > > Yukteswarji's???

> > >

> > > This has bothered me for a while...but i haven't tried using it myself

> > > either as i understood from what teachings i've had that the most

> > > common Ayanamsha in use is the Lahiri one...and that's what i've used

> > > too...it seems to work pretty well...

> > >

> > > Still, there is this questioning in my heart...i deeply revere,

> > > respect and Love SwamiSri Yukteswarji...and am wondering why His

> > > Ayanamsha is not in more use...

> > >

> > > Also He had QUITE a different take on the Yugas...and the entire SRF

> > > organisation is following His take...which is that we have left Kali

> > > Yuga, and have entered into Dwapara Yuga...the age of atomics and

> > > electronics...His arguments if you read them, make a lot of sense, and

> > > he is not JUST some ordinary Jyotishi...this man is a Mahatma...and

> > > was communing with the Divine always.....So why would we take the

> > > teachings of the lesser folks and ignore His????

> > >

> > > David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri) in his Astrology of the Seers

> > > referred to Swami Sri Yukteswarji's version and seemed to promote

> > > it..he also referred to Sri Yukteswarji's Birth Chart for His Great

> > > Student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji...and said that since He was both a

> > > Self-Realized Soul, and an excellent Jyotishi, His chart for

> > > Yoganandaji should be accurate!! and it was His chart which Vamadeva

> > > used. so this is one Jyotish teacher that i really respect, who is

> > > deferring to Swami Sri Yukteswarji on several issues...and he is NOT

> > > a devotee as far as i know!!(however i have never asked him if he

> > > was!) So what gives here??

> > >

> > > There was some discussion from Narasimha Rao, i think who referred to

> > > Sanjay Rath's take that we are in still the major Kali Yuga but

> > > possibly may be experiencing minor periods within that major cycle

> > > just as we delineate the Dashas, and Bhuktis and Antardashas...So

> > > maybe what Swami Sri Yukteswarji was referring to was the MINOR

> > > cycles...rather than the Major ones...He referred directly to the

> > > precession of the equinoxes, saying that it takes approximately 26,000

> > > years to complete a rotation of the precession of the equinox...i seem

> > > to remember that He made that cycle as the basis and then divided it

> > > up into smaller segments such that none of the cycles is nearly as

> > > long as the traditional ones...And he suggests that they are WRONG

> > > because the actual knowledge was mostly lost during Islamic rule as

> > > the Hindus were oppressed and much of the old wisdom disappeared...

> > >

> > > So why shouldn't one believe Swamiji, Who is a Self-Realized Mahatma

> > > and a Master and even possibly a Jnanavatara...as compared to the

> > > ordinary Jyotishis who have learned their wisdom purely by the books,

> > > and thru their teachers...

> > >

> > > so would Sri Yukteswarji, have learned it in such a way, but...being a

> > > Great Soul, He would be able to see more deeply into things such as

> > > this...so at least it would seem to this kindergartner who loves the

> > > Swamiji, and His well known student, Paramahansa Yoganandaji!!why

> > > shouldn't i believe them, and why should i believe the "standard

> > > teachings"???

> > >

> > > this is a challenge to all you jyotishis out there...What do you have

> > > to say about this issue...and has ANYONE read Swami Sri Yukteswarji's

> > > book???because if you haven't, you can't really argue against it!!!

> > >

> > > He also argues very effectively thru the anatomy of humans and other

> > > animals, that humans were designed to be vegetarians...and that's a

> > > good argument too...we don't even have to go into Ahimsa...we can just

> > > go for HEALTH...(not that i'm trying to flog Vegetarianism...i've been

> > > on both sides of that issue!!!)

> > >

> > > So dear sisters and brothers do we have any one who actually knows

> > > something about this...and can help to clear up the thick confused air

> > > in my tiny little skull???

> > >

> > > in the Divine Mother's Love,

> > > and in Her Service,

> > > humbly,

> > >

> > > as ever,

> > > your own Self

> > >

> > > visvanathan

> > >

> > > Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > gjlist-

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Your use of is subject to

 

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > gjlist-

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

 

> >

> >

>

>

>

> gjlist-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Subra,

 

The actual date is 388 BC , not 10 BC. The error is regretted.

 

G Kumar

Vedic Astrologer

www.zodiaccomputers.com

 

 

-

<subra

<gjlist>

Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:42 PM

Re: [gjlist] Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

 

 

> ZODIAC wrote:

> >

> > Cheiro's Date for the Coincidence of the movable & immovable Zodiacs

> > is 388 BC. .......................... We still do not know when the

Piscean

> > Age started . Cheiro says it started at 10 B C.

>

>

> This seems to be a contradiction. If the date of coincidence was 388 BC,

then

> that was the start of the piscean age. Or the date of coincidence was 10

BC.

> Can´t be both at the same time.

>

> BTW Yukteswar and Sepharial seem to give the same date.

>

> regards

> Mani

>

>

>

>

> gjlist-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

> Sri Yuktesvar states that in the kali yuga man's consciousness is

only aware

> of the gross matter, the atom, the smallest physical building block.

In the

> Dwapara Yuga he states man becomes aware of the atomic energies. We

have

> learned about the atomic energies, so by that definition we are in

the

> Dvapara Yuga. Just because of wars, etc does not mean we are not in

Dvapara

> Yuga, Ravana terrorized the Earth in Tetra Yuga, so a Hitler, etc

seems to

> fit right into the Dvapara Yuga.

>

Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!

 

Namaste Ernst!!

 

so i get the impression dear brother, that you are in support of Sri

Yukteswarji's Yuga theory, at least more than against??and that He

Himself used the Lahiri Ayanamsh for practical affairs...

 

i am wondering which site is the one you mentioned to see the old East

West magazines....do you have the URL or a name i could use for a

search engine...Perhaps "East West"? i am a great lover of

Yoganandaji!!and would love to see the old stuff!

 

in the Divine Mother's love

and in Her Service,

 

as ever,

your own self,

 

visvanathan

 

Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Ernst Wilhelm wrote:

> Dear Mani,

>

> I havent found Tara Matas theory to work as well in practice as the Lahiri.

> But the fact that she breaks the course set in THe HOly SCience lets us get

> an idea that Sri Yuktesvar never formed an ayanmsa.

 

So I take it that he postulated.

 

>

> There are also some ayanamsas that you didn't metnion that have thier

> assummed begin date at the middle of the 6th century, and take Revati, or a

> point just 10 degrees East of Revati as the 1st degree of Aries.

 

Are you referring to Usha-Sasi?

 

 

> It is my opinion that the HOly Science does give the correct theory to

> establish an ayanamsa. Sri Yuktesvar states that when the Sun, revolving

> around its dual is furthest opposite VishnuNabhi, the galacitc center I

> presume, the zodiacs coincide. So if we could just find this dual star, we

> could figure it out.

 

This would be great!

 

>

> Sri Yuktesvar states that in the kali yuga man's consciousness is only aware

> of the gross matter, the atom, the smallest physical building block. In the

> Dwapara Yuga he states man becomes aware of the atomic energies. We have

> learned about the atomic energies, so by that definition we are in the

> Dvapara Yuga. Just because of wars, etc does not mean we are not in Dvapara

> Yuga, Ravana terrorized the Earth in Tetra Yuga, so a Hitler, etc seems to

> fit right into the Dvapara Yuga.

 

This takes a very intellectual, not to say "material" view of the yuga stages,

leaves out the moral side. The argument about Ravana in thretha yuga has two

"short" legs! I do not know how Yukteswar´s yugas work backwards to the time of

Rama. If we go by the usual yuga periods, Rama could have never lived in India -

which I doubt anyhow - but on Atlantis! But the other side is more important,

IMHO. There has to be evil at all times, even in the best of yugas. The black

spot in the ying-yang white field. Ravana did not really terrorize the world,

was actually a devotee of Siva. only his falling in love with Sita made him

"bad". Even then he did not rape her, but kept postponing the date for the act!

The evil was isolated. Evil was limited.

 

But in the 20th century evil was widespread. And morals were disregarde all

over. Goodness was limited, the white dot in the black field.

 

I think that Yukteswar took the end of the "dark ages" as a turn for all-round

improvement. That science would help to better the life of human beings. It was

a time of peace and discovery, of hope for a better world.

 

In principle I think he was right in his exposition, but if he lived today, he´d

probably revise his thesis, correct the timing.

 

>

> ANyway, the discussion of the Yugas is unfortunately a "religious" subject

> and everyone has thier views on it, as long as a person's views on it help

> them to live better lives and have greater care for thier fellow mankind,

> its all right by me.

 

These discussions are only academic, for we can change nothing. So your last

sentence is what counts! Amen! We must keep the white spot in our hearts and

ignore the black field around us.

 

regards

Mani

 

Ps: I find Fagan´s ayanamsa best, with parallaxed moon! What with most stars

having a longitudinal proper motion, I think it is not correct to take any

particular star as a marker, except as a rough guide. The galactic centre idea

is very appealing, but its position as given does not suit very well as a

marker. The star Alcyone also has something to say! A kind of resultant has to

be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Mani,

 

ONe last though about your PS. I totally agree that using a star as a fixed

marker makes no sense cause all the stars move, grow and even dissapear,

they even crash into each other on occasion. Shaky grounds for a zodiac!

 

So some more permanent feature is desireable. One possibliity is the

Galactic Center. Two is the point deteremined when the SUn it its orbit is

furthest from VishnuNabhi.

Third is the intersection of the Sun in its revolution around whatever

it is really revolving around with the eclliptic. There is some merit to

this because the houses are determined by the intersection of the surface of

the Earth as it rotates aroudn the center of the Earth with the eclliptic,

and the tropical zodiac is based upon the intersection of the rotation of

the Earth around the Sun with the eclliptic. So basically the intersection

of different revolutions with the eclliptic could mark the beggining of

Aries. Marking the beginning of a circle can only happen in a few ways, one

is from a point outside the circle the center, the other is from a tangent,

the other is from another intersecting circle. By searching for a star,

Galactic Center, etc. to indicate the beginning of the ecllipctic we are

looking for the significant point outside the circle. By searching for the

intersection of the rotation of the Sun around a star with the eclliptic we

are searching for the third, an intersecting circle. Searching for a tangent

in a universe where everything appears to revolve, doesn't appear

reasonable.

 

Take Care,

ERnst

 

 

-

<subra

<gjlist>

Saturday, May 26, 2001 5:21 AM

Re: [gjlist] Jyotish question re Ayanamsha

 

 

> Ernst Wilhelm wrote:

> > Dear Mani,

> >

> > I havent found Tara Matas theory to work as well in practice as the

Lahiri.

> > But the fact that she breaks the course set in THe HOly SCience lets us

get

> > an idea that Sri Yuktesvar never formed an ayanmsa.

>

> So I take it that he postulated.

>

> >

> > There are also some ayanamsas that you didn't metnion that have thier

> > assummed begin date at the middle of the 6th century, and take Revati,

or a

> > point just 10 degrees East of Revati as the 1st degree of Aries.

>

> Are you referring to Usha-Sasi?

>

>

> > It is my opinion that the HOly Science does give the correct theory to

> > establish an ayanamsa. Sri Yuktesvar states that when the Sun, revolving

> > around its dual is furthest opposite VishnuNabhi, the galacitc center I

> > presume, the zodiacs coincide. So if we could just find this dual star,

we

> > could figure it out.

>

> This would be great!

>

> >

> > Sri Yuktesvar states that in the kali yuga man's consciousness is only

aware

> > of the gross matter, the atom, the smallest physical building block. In

the

> > Dwapara Yuga he states man becomes aware of the atomic energies. We have

> > learned about the atomic energies, so by that definition we are in the

> > Dvapara Yuga. Just because of wars, etc does not mean we are not in

Dvapara

> > Yuga, Ravana terrorized the Earth in Tetra Yuga, so a Hitler, etc seems

to

> > fit right into the Dvapara Yuga.

>

> This takes a very intellectual, not to say "material" view of the yuga

stages,

> leaves out the moral side. The argument about Ravana in thretha yuga has

two

> "short" legs! I do not know how Yukteswar´s yugas work backwards to the

time of

> Rama. If we go by the usual yuga periods, Rama could have never lived in

India -

> which I doubt anyhow - but on Atlantis! But the other side is more

important,

> IMHO. There has to be evil at all times, even in the best of yugas. The

black

> spot in the ying-yang white field. Ravana did not really terrorize the

world,

> was actually a devotee of Siva. only his falling in love with Sita made

him

> "bad". Even then he did not rape her, but kept postponing the date for the

act!

> The evil was isolated. Evil was limited.

>

> But in the 20th century evil was widespread. And morals were disregarde

all

> over. Goodness was limited, the white dot in the black field.

>

> I think that Yukteswar took the end of the "dark ages" as a turn for

all-round

> improvement. That science would help to better the life of human beings.

It was

> a time of peace and discovery, of hope for a better world.

>

> In principle I think he was right in his exposition, but if he lived

today, he´d

> probably revise his thesis, correct the timing.

>

> >

> > ANyway, the discussion of the Yugas is unfortunately a "religious"

subject

> > and everyone has thier views on it, as long as a person's views on it

help

> > them to live better lives and have greater care for thier fellow

mankind,

> > its all right by me.

>

> These discussions are only academic, for we can change nothing. So your

last

> sentence is what counts! Amen! We must keep the white spot in our hearts

and

> ignore the black field around us.

>

> regards

> Mani

>

> Ps: I find Fagan´s ayanamsa best, with parallaxed moon! What with most

stars

> having a longitudinal proper motion, I think it is not correct to take any

> particular star as a marker, except as a rough guide. The galactic centre

idea

> is very appealing, but its position as given does not suit very well as a

> marker. The star Alcyone also has something to say! A kind of resultant

has to

> be found.

>

>

>

> gjlist-

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

In a message dated 5/24/2001 4:32:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

kasi_visvanath writes:

 

 

> this is a challenge to all you jyotishis out there...What do you have

> to say about this issue...and has ANYONE read Swami Sri Yukteswarji's

> book???because if you haven't, you can't really argue against it!!!

>

 

Hi,

Where can we find a copy of this book?

Thanks,

Namaste,

Robin

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

gjlist, PHURRBALL3@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 5/24/2001 4:32:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> kasi_visvanath writes:

>

> Swami Sri

Yukteswarji's

> > book.

> Hi,

> Where can we find a copy of this book?

> Thanks,

> Namaste,

> Robin

>

 

Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!!

 

Namaste dear sister!!

 

one may find this book in spiritual bookstores, or one may order it

directly from Paramahansa Yoganandaji's Self Realization

Fellowship...they are on the web too...at:

 

http://www.yogananda-srf.org/

 

i'm not sure whether you can get any books off their web site or

not...but you could check it out...

 

the book is called "The Holy Science" by Swami Sri

Yukteswarji...written in the late 1890's....it is really very

interesting although a bit challenging in places due to the vastness

of the concepts we are asked to understand...

 

Sri Yukteswarji was asked to write this book by Mahavatar Babaji, His

Param Guru, Guru of His Guru, Lahiri Mahasaya...

Babaji asked Swamiji to write the book to show the oneness of the

world faiths, Christianity and Hinduism...and to prove that their

message was in essence the same....His world-renowned Shishya,

Paramahansa Yoganandaji, also, had the same mission when He travelled

to America in 1920...and in fact the order considers Christ and Krsna

to be the Same being, Who appeared under slightly different

names...even they say that the Names are similar and related!

Thus the SRF have pictures of both Christ and Krsna as the Param Gurus

of the organisation...and Yoganandaji many times insisted that He had

the blessings of both these two great Avataras...

 

in a vision Christ appeared to Him one time and told Him that both

Christ and Yoganandaji had drunk from the same "cup"...implying that

Yoganandaji's mission was blessed by Christ....

 

He also appeared to Yoganandaji one time in a strangely "northern

European" form...blond hair and blue eyes as well as a fair

skin...Yoganandaji was very surprised as He knew that Christ came from

the Holy Land of Israel...and that He had actually been quite dark

skinned and eyed...and hair...so PY asked Christ why He appeared that

way...apparently Christ asked Him in return why He needed to commune

with Him in form anyways....

 

enough rambling....good luck dear sister on your book quest...i would

suggest that any astrologers and students should read this...and am

surprised that the book is so little known, considering that it was

written by an "enlightened" Mahatma, and a very good Jyotishi as

well.. i put quotations around "enlightened" because when we are

speaking of Avataras, perhaps we shouldn't use that word...as They are

the SOURCE of the light.

 

this is why i was so interested in the member's findings re Sri

Yukteswarji's book...written by a Mahatma, a Jnanavatara, and a very

competent Jyotishi, one would think that it would be better known.

 

In the Divine Mother's Love,

and in Her Service

 

as ever,

your own self,

 

visvanathan

 

Om Amrtesvaryai Namah!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi, Wendy,

 

Thank you for the book info. :) Haven't been online for awhile, almost

missed it.

Anyone read the Conversations With God books by Neale Donald Walsch?

Love to hear your reactions to them!

Namaste, You Guys are Beautiful

Robin

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...