Sri Yukteswar and t...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Sri Yukteswar and the zodiac

18 Posts
7 Users
11 Likes
1,750 Views
Ernst Wilhelm
Posts: 2310
Admin
(@ernst)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago

Manu Samhita does not specify years of the gods. I dont know if you have read the text? ALso,  Vedas give no mention of Yuga calculations. Manu Samhita seems to be the original work. Yuga simply means a conjunction or a couple. THe yuga in the surya siddhanta is a yuga of all the planets in aries. These are thought to happen every 108,000  years. A chaturyuga is 4 of these conjunctions, Chatur means 4. thus 432,000 years. So what they are saying is kali yuga of 432,000 years is FOUR yugas already. Its illogical to call a period of 4 yugas as one yuga callled kali. 

The yugas of Manu are a union of a rising age and a falling age, thus the union is of these two parts of the cycle. They are divided into 4 parts for sake of convenience, but could be divided into different parts as well asuch as the 27 parts based on the motion of the saptarishis through the nakshatras as mentioned in Brihat Samhita. 

 

Reply
1 Reply
Narottama
(@narottama)
Joined: 3 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 164

@ernst I dont know Sanskrit but I have a translations which says:

"They declare that the Krita age (consists of) four thousand years (of the gods); the twilight preceding it consists of as many hundreds, and the twilight following it of the same number. [v.1.69.]"
"In the other three ages with their twilights preceding and following, the thousands and hundreds are diminished by one (in each). [v.1.70.]"
"These twelve thousand (years) which thus have been just mentioned as the total of four (human) ages, are called one age of the gods. [v.1.71.]"

 

Then we have other references like:

"Twelve thousand years of the demigods is the duration of the four yugas on earth. The duration of Satya-yuga is four thousand celestial years, Treta-yuga is three thousand celestial years, Dvapara-yuga is two thousand celestial years, and Kali-yuga is one thousand celestial years." Kalki Purana (19.12-14).

 "Time is divided into four yugas and these are known as 'Satya' 'Treta' 'Dvapara' and 'Kali'. The lengths of these yugas are defined in terms of the years of the gods and 'Satya' has 4000 years of the gods 'Treta' has 3000 years of the gods 'Dvapara' has 2000 and 'Kali' has 1000 years of the gods." Matsya Purana.

"Maitreya said: O Vidura, the four millenniums are called the Satya, Treta, Dvapara, and Kali yuga. The aggregate number of years of all of these combined is equal to twelve thousand years of the demigods." Srimad Bhagavatam 3.11.18.

 "The duration of the Satya millennium equals 4,800 years of the years of the demigods; the duration of the Treta millennium equals 3,600 years of the demigods; the duration of the Dvapara millennium equals 2,400 years; and that of the Kali millennium is 1,200 years of the demigods." Srimad Bhagavatam 3.11.19.

 "The duration of Satya yuga is one million, four hundred and forty thousand human years. As for Kali-yuga, it is one fourth of that. Thus the duration of time of the four yugas excluding the Sandhyas and Sandhyamshas is declared. Including the Sandhyas and Sandhyamshas the duration of the four yugas put together is four million three hundred and twenty thousand ( 4,320,000 ) human years." ( Vayu Purana 57.29-32 ).

"12,000 of these divine years (divyamana) make one cycle of four ages (chaturyuga). In other words, about 4,320,000 (10,000 X 432) solar years(Surya Siddhanta, Ch.1, Text 15)".

These quite clearly, at least to me, establish "Years of Gods" are to be taken for the Yuga calculation and these quotations are from the Vedas, specifically from the Puranas which are considered as the 5th Veda. 

Vedas are considered eternal and one coherent unit and only at the end of every Dvapara Yuga divided by Vyasadeva and then passed on by some of his disciples. Manu Samhita falls under the category of Dharma Sastras and as the name suggest was compiled by Manu but its an elaboration on law. To say its original is not correct in my opinion and definitely its not more an authority then the Puranas. 

I stand to what I said, I think Yuktesvara is just wrong with his Yuga theory because what I have posted seems clear enough to me.

Reply
Ernst Wilhelm
Posts: 2310
Admin
(@ernst)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago

The yuga of s urya siddhanta which is based on all the planets joining in Aries is for the purpose of calculatling the mean motions of the planets. If we know that every 108,000 years the planets will be in aries, we can determine their mean placements at any time. 

Reply
Ernst Wilhelm
Posts: 2310
Admin
(@ernst)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago

No, Manu Samhita does not say years of the gods. If you look at many translations years of the gods will be in (), thus (years of the gods) because its not literally in the sutra. Its such a part of hindu culture to have such long yugas that they always add year of the god's to the translations. The puranas give excessively long yugas but they are not correct as the puranas were penned between 400 and 700 AD. We do not have the original versions of the puranas and like all hindu literature, they excessive yuga length was inferred due to prevailing thought. 

Practically speaking, we are in the electrical age just as Yuktesvar said. If we examine human history the Yuga based on the precession of the equinoxes shows itself working. How we do explain a chnage of the rise and fall of many great cultures in the last few thousand years on a 432,000 year long kali yuga?

Reply
1 Reply
Narottama
(@narottama)
Joined: 3 years ago

Reputable Member
Posts: 164

@ernst

Dear Ernst, as I said already, I dont know Sanskrit and I cant proof that „years of Gods“ is in the text nor can I disproof that its not there. So I want even try.

What I can say is that if we look at the context of this chapter, or in other words, if we look at the texts before 1.69. we can see that time is explained, from small to big.

1.64. Eighteen nimeshas (twinklings of the eye, are one kashtha), thirty kashthas one kala, thirty kalas one muhurta, and as many (muhurtas) one day and night.
1.65. The sun divides days and nights, both human and divine, the night (being intended) for the repose of created beings and the day for exertion.
1.66. A month is a day and a night of the manes, but the division is according to fortnights. The dark (fortnight) is their day for active exertion, the bright (fortnight) their night for sleep.
1.67. A year is a day and a night of the gods; their division is (as follows): the half year during which the sun progresses to the north will be the day, that during which it goes southwards the night.
1.68. But hear now the brief (description of) the duration of a night and a day of Brahman and of the several ages (of the world, yuga) according to their order.
1.69. They declare that the Krita age (consists of) four thousand years (of the gods); the twilight preceding it consists of as many hundreds, and the twilight following it of the same number.
1.70. In the other three ages with their twilights preceding and following, the thousands and hundreds are diminished by one (in each).
1.71. These twelve thousand (years) which thus have been just mentioned as the total of four (human) ages, are called one age of the gods.
1.72. But know that the sum of one thousand ages of the gods (makes) one day of Brahman, and that his night has the same length.

In 1.67 it is explained what a year of the Gods is. In 1.68 a night and day of Brahma is explained. Brahma is certainly a God and it further says that the Yugas are explained. That to me gives a good hint that years of Gods are meant to be taken for Yuga calculation because that was the natural progression of the text-time from small to big. The last thing before the Yugas are explained was the establishment what a year of the Gods is. So it makes sense that this is to be taken for the Yuga calculation and not human years. That „years of Gods“ is in brakets in text 1.69 can just mean that it was explained earlier and does not nesecarrily mean that it was assumed by someone because they did not know better.

In Srimad Bhagavatam 3.11.18 it says:

maitreya uväca
kåtaà tretä dväparaà ca
kaliç ceti catur-yugam
divyair dvädaçabhir varñaiù
sävadhänaà nirüpitam

SYNONYMS

maitreyaù uväca—Maitreya said; kåtam—the Satya age; tretä—the Tretä age; dväparam—the Dväpara age; ca—also; kaliù—the Age of Kali; ca—and; iti—thus; catuù-yugam—four millenniums; divyaiù—of the demigods; dvädaçabhiù—twelve; varñaiù—thousands of years; sa-avadhänam—approximately; nirüpitam—ascertained.

TRANSLATION

Maitreya said: O Vidura, the four millenniums are called the Satya, Tretä, Dväpara and Kali yugas. The aggregate number of years of all of these combined is equal to twelve thousand years of the demigods.

Here we have:

divyaiù—of the demigods

dvädaçabhiù—twelve

varñaiù—thousands of years

 

Surya Siddhanta says:

Text 14:

suräsuränämanyonyamahorätram viparyayät/ tatsastih sargunä divyam varsamäsurameva ca//14//

The day and night for the demigods (suras) and demons (asuras) are oppositional—meaning the daytime for one is the night time for the other. Three hundred sixty celestial days (divya) and nights constitute one year for the demigods (suras) and demons (asuras).

Text 15

taddvädaçasahasräëi caturgamudährtam/ suryäbdasankhyaä dvitri sägarairayutähataih//15// 12,000 of these divine years (divyamäna) make one cycle of four ages (chaturyuga). In other words, about 4,320,000 (10,000 X 432) solar years.

You say that the Puranas where penned in 400 and 700 AD. According to Srila Jiva Gosvami in his Tattva Sandarbha he establishes that the Vedas are eternal, and because they come from the Supreme Lord, an coherent unit. Just because some texts seem the beeing written at an certain time does not mean they come from that time! At the end of every Dvapara Yuga the Veda is divided and then passed on by different sages and lineages created and written down, etc. etc. Therefore, for me, your statement that the „years of Gods“ is infered based on the understanding of the time is not acceptable. As shown above one can see from different sources that years of Gods are mentioned. These statements are for me authoritative enough and the understanding that these where interpolated is not convincing to me. We may agree to disagree here, thats alright.

Also I am not saying that Yuktesvaras „Yuga“ cycle theory is not valid but I would not call it „Yuga“ cycles but something else.

Reply
Scott-M-19
Posts: 376
(@scott-m-19)
Honorable Member
Joined: 2 years ago

The book, 'The Yugas' by Joseph Selbie and David Steinmetz is a book about verifying Sri Yukteswar's take on the Yugas by going into extensive historical evidence to support it. It is a book with about 3 decades of research and is an amazing read. 

Reply
Ernst Wilhelm
Posts: 2310
Admin
(@ernst)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago

In the end, if it does nto have practical value, its valueless. If you can make extremely long yugas make sense with the human experience of the past history of man, then use long yugas. Personally, I cannot make any practical use of yugas lasting that long in respect to the actual historical events and i have to enter a world of extreme fantasy that is not supported by any realities past or present. 

Reply
Page 2 / 2
Share: