[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 17:06
Author: Waqidi - 2 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Response to Waqidi
In reply to:
Mike Drake - 1 Jun 2001
's message, "Response to Waqidi" on 17:05
Thank you for your response. Let me clear up a few things before I get to your main points.
1) The new findings I am referring to relate to the measurements that the bodies of the universe are expanding and that the expansion rate is increasing with time. This is not what I understand Hubble discovered. This is a very shocking finding to the field of cosmology and astronomy. This information is only a few months old. One of the possible explantations for this phenomena is that approximately 90% or more of the universe is composed of dark matter, which may be "pulling" or "pushing" on normal matter.
Hence my postulation that there may be a dark matter dual for the sun. As no scientist has been able to prove or detect dark matter or show how it even functions, anything is possible in this regard. At this point I would agree that there is no dual star that we know of for the sun. Based on the English translation of the Holy Science I would agree that this appears to be scientific mistake that is made by Sri Yukteswar (or the translator made a mistake.) However, the approximate length of the cycle of the earth in relation to the heavenly bodies appears to be correct. This was the main thing that Sri Yukteswar was concerned with - the cycles of mankind from an astrological standpoint. I of course have no way of confirming that Sri Yukteswar was correct on either of these issues. Although his discussion on how man would evolve does hold up with what we have seen in the last century since his book was written.
2) The edition of Autobiography of Yogi you refer to is the earliest edition. I did not find this statement in the edition I have. Perhaps this statement was removed from later editions because of its inaccuracy, perhaps not. Yogananda did work on the later editions so he may have been the one to edit out this quote.
3) The letter from Luther Burbank that is published in the Autobiograpy of a Yogi is very positive about the teachings of Yogananda. If as you say Burbank was a materialist, his statements in the letter seem to be at odds with your conclusion about his spiritual views.
On to your main point or points.
Your main issue appears to be this in a nutshell:
If you can prove that Yogananda made one or more innacurate statements on an issue, a person or a topic that this somehow diminishes his stature and that this proves that he was not all-knowing, and if he is not all-knowing that this indicates that Kriya Yoga is not a means to achieving self-realization or that even self-realization is in fact even possible.
I can say from personal experience that a certain level of spiritual consciousness will in fact give one a link into a "universal" knowledge base. I have proved this to myself many times. However, although I can do this on occasion, I would not say that I can do it on all subjects or all the time. One first has to have an understanding of a technical subject to even understand what information you have "received". According to eyewitness accounts, Yogananda and Sri Yukteswar revealed on several occasions that they could spontaneously tap into the "Universal Knowledge Database". However, I don't base my inherent faith in Yogananda and Kriya Yoga on whether or not I believe Yogananda or Sri Yukteswar were infallible human beings. (One wonders how you would approach the supposed infallibily of the Pope with regard to the issues of the Church in light of the fact that he is not able to be an expert on all subjects.) What I base it on is their behavior and actions in their life and the quality of their legacy of writings and talks and works and my inner spiritual connection to them. Based on my reading and understanding of Yogananda and Sri Yukteswar, they did not have any trouble with someone critically looking at something they said or did. They did not represent themselves as being omnipotent, merely spiritual enlightened (compared to the average person). Yogananda and Sri Yuketeswar made many references to mistakes they made earlier in life. This is one of the things which endears myself to them. So can you likely find "mistakes" in their writings - of course you will. For example, Yogananda's writings on spiritual cosmology is slightly different than Sri Yuketeswar's in several places. Indeed we all know that Yoganananda when he was a student was not all-knowing - he was "given" just enough information to pass his tests and get a degree. This is one of the interesting issues of his life. He on occasion did reveal an astounding ability to know and do things that are unexplainable. For example, there is the story of him doing a better portrait painting than a well-known artist when he was challenged to do so.
You may continue to put the life and words of Yogananda and Sri Yuketeswar under a microscope. This is OK with me. I have done this with Christian writings such as the New Testament, The Nag Hammadi writings, the writings of Josephus and others. I find that if you look very carefully you can find all kinds of "problems" with any of the "writings" of the saints of religions. For example, I find that the references to Jesus in the writings of Jesuphus (an historian not a saint!)are not likely to have been written by him and most likely to have been added after the time of Origen. This fact and others I can name do not change my deep spiritual connection and inspirational feelings I have with Jesus's teachings and his fundamental message. I find many things in the New Testament as being unlikely to be the teachings of Jesus. For example, the statements attributed to Paul in Corinthians (and other books of the New Testament) stating that women should not be spiritual teachers, I do not believe represent the teachings of Jesus or for that matter Paul himself (see Romans 16). However, I am still able to accept the fundamental teaching in the New Testament even with these apparent inconsistencies and the fact that some of the writings are not "perfect". A classic example is the apparent support of slavery by God after the Ten Commandmants are given. Based on your approach, I could just as easily say that Moses was off the mark on this and therefore was not truly a messenger of God. I just think he was a messenger but not a perfect human being. He was given just information and insight to perform his role at the time.
If it pleases you to find other statements by Sri Yukteswar and Yogananda that "prove your point" please do so. However, many of us on this group, base our connection to Gurus of Kriya Yoga in a manner that is based on spiritual experiences that are not easily changed by such information. I and others have revealed some of these experiences on the newsgroups in the past. From my point of view these personal spiritual experiences are the real basis of my connection to Kriya Yoga. Such spontaneous experiences are not easily explained with modern science which still has yet to explain the spontaneous energy creation that appears to exist in our universe.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |