Talk:Yuga/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Just made an edit the main purpose of which was to move the Sri Yukteswar material into a separate section, as it is not the mainstream view and thus could be confusing to anyone wanting to research Hinduism. I actually know more about Sri Yukteswar's theories than I do about the traditional Hindu view (the material I added in the top part comes from the references I inserted, and everything below those references is from the previous writers). But I know they are not the same and feel they should not be conflated.

Am posting this here to alert any interested parties that anyone with more knowledge of Hinduism should probably chime in and expand this article. Or anyone more expert in Wikipedia might want to move the Sri Yukteswar section onto its own page. - Yarrowwood

Yarrowwood, I've edited the Sri Yukteswar section for clarity. It needs more work, in my opinion, to make its point in a more concise manner. ॐ Priyanath 00:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Genesis Agrees With Sri Yukteswar

The Dvapara means Duo-Pair. As 2400 it exists before the epoch 3102bc, and after it. The epoch 3102bc is Manu's Flood whose name Man-Nu means Man-Noah. It's 2-year variance of 3102-3100bc is found in the reflection of 1200 years later as 1901-1900bc, and again as 702-700bc. This is why Sri Yukteswar's declaration of 2400 Dvapara ending in 700bc is from that epoch 3102bc. However, it also precedes this 3102bc Flood of Manu by being reflected in the year 5500bc used by the first Christians (Africanus /Hippolytus) as Adam, and also by Egyptian Greeks as the Alexandrian Era. Thus it is as if to say 2400 years from Adam to Flood, and 2400 years from Flood to 700bc Hindu. The Hindu do have a list of ten pre-Flood kings. Thus the 2400 of 700bc leaves just one 1200-year Kali Yuga to 500 AD. But it is also one Kali Yuga from 1900bc. This too then is agreeing with Sri Yukteswar's statement that Kali descends in 499 AD (completes 700bc to 500 AD) and so ascends again. But Kali cycles from 3102bc to 1900bc to 700bc to 500 AD. The source of this is easily found in the agruing of whether THE CITY is Ur or Babylon. 3rd dynasty Ur falls in 1900bc, though some calculate it as 2029bc because Ibbi-Sin was a king in 2029bc when 1st dynasty fell, and so they insist it was 3rd dynasty rather than see him rule 24 years (1924-1901bc) at the ages of 135-159. Millenia has presumed that he appointed Ishbi-Erra to the throne Isan after his own rule fell. The Hindu issue arose in 700bc regarding the source of the Venus Tablets (Ur or Babylon). The 19-year lunar dates are exact for 1900bc as 1625bc because in these 275 years Venus has the same Julian dates in 243 years, and the 32 years retreats 8 leap days where the moon will have the same date 275 years apart. This indicates that in 1200 years of dwelling in India (1900-700bc) the tablets were brought to them in 1625bc and then in 700bc they claimed the tablets had come with them in 1900bc. According to Genesis the death of Amizaduga in 1625bc would be Adams 2400 and expect 3600 more years to year 6000 as the End. This indicates that Hindu theology held Genesis construction before Moses ever wrote it down. Apparently the Kali Yuga was extended because it was created as the year 1200 after the Flood (3102-1900bc) yet was being used as the current world 700bc to 500 AD. Thus how could the Kali spread (3600 years) from 3102bc to 500 AD unless it was more than 1200 years. Solution was translate 432,000 days as being 432,000 years. Claim the awaited end of the world on Earth again is instead the end of the greater universe. BUT today's science believes we should not conclude an ELE asteroid cannot hit us for the next 427,000 years. The Arabic definition of Khali is one-quarter as Saudi Arabia's Khali Desert. Thus it seems that Kali means one-of-four where as Krta and Krita (Quarta) means four-of-four though European language uses quart as one-of-four. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

DH Agrees With Sri Yukteswar

Changing the term 'Eschatology' Sanatana Dharma and Hinduism have been relegated in the eyes of the world to that of a belief system, yet it is the original science that emerged in India long before the Christian era making the term 'Eschatology' (used under the graphic) demeaning. Hindu astronomers having observed the cosmos over a sufficiently long period, recorded the data and calculated with reasonable accuracy what modern astronomers refer to as axial precession [[1]]. Another grave error is that this page should be indexed under cosmology instead of Hunduism, a subject negatively portreyed on many wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DH-Mairehau (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

How old is Universe in Hindu theology was wrong

I changed the length of universe before destruction, it was way off. The authentic number is here http://veda.wikidot.com/srishti-and-pralaya not the 4 million plus change years mentioned originally in the article. shiva das 02:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Surat Shabd

Just made an edit to remove the reference to Surat Shabd yoga. The reference to one of many minor schools is really relevant (that too right at the beginning).-MT

Yuga unit of measurement (Merging request with Maha Yuga)

The addition of the 4 Yugas sum to Maha Yuga. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See Hindu units of measurement BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC).

The merger has to be done carefully. There could be articles those could be using this Yuga as a unit of measurement, and some could be using this article as the sum of four Yugas. Only the articles those referring to the sum of the four yugas need to be pointing here (After merger Maha Yuga). The rest need to point to Yuga Unit.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

List of articles pointing to Yuga Special:Whatlinkshere/Yugas, Special:Whatlinkshere/Yuga. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dwapara Yuga

I suggest that some parts of Sri Yukteswar's holy science should be transcripted, concerning his proofs that we are indeed in Dwapara Yuga. It is undeniable that the world has changed much more in the past 150 years when compared to the 2.000 years that preceed it. Historically speaking, we changed from such primitive technology to our current technology in the blink of eye. Humanity used chariots and candle light for a long long time. Now we have spaceships, electric vehicles, satelite information and electro-magnetic energy. It is obvious that a shift on humanity's consciousness and habilities has occured. Only a fool would deny that. So, although Sri Yukteswar's explanation is still seen as not being mainstream as someone stated, it is quite clear that he was the right person to point out the mistakes and show the right direction, and show why the mainstream calculations are indeed mistaken. Galilee was also not mainstream in his days, and yet he was right. We are obviously not in Kali Yuga anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.112.21 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation problem

One sentence in the article reads: The Kali Yuga lasts for Eka (one) part; the consonant K appears in the name Kali.[citation needed]. I wonder what or why one needs to cite sources to confirm that the "K" consonant appears in the word Kali?

I guess the entry isn't there anymore, but to address you question, I'm thinking that the desire for a citation probably relates not to a need to substantiate the fact that they share a consonant but rather to provide evidence for a connection between the two words. That is, does the "k" or the "ka" in 'Eka' have a connection to the "k" or "ka" in "Kali" -- as in, are the two words linguistically connected? If not, then it's no more useful than saying that the words "cat" and "claw" share the letter "c" (or the voiceless velar stop consonant, /k/). Balarick (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A Wrongly Titled Article !!

This article describes the views of Shri Yukteshwar, a modern sadhu who challenged the ancient scriptures like Mahabharata, Puranas and astrological siddhantas by putting the extent of a Mahayuga (Great Age) at 12000 human, while ancients held it to be of 12000 divine years, each divine year being of 360 human (maanusa) years.

Statements from ancient texts should be stated properly, whether they are in tune with our tastes or not. Or, the article should be titled "A New Concept of Yuga Against the Traditional Concept".

-VJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.45.81 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is primarily about the philosophy of an individual. This is a particular instance of a more general problem: there are a great diversity of philosophies originating from the sub-continent (modern day India, Pakistan, etc) which use the same vocabulary and reference the same ancient texts and pre-historic tradition (as an example: Gavin Flood mentions that the term 'Hinduism' is a neologism created by the British about 1830 - see his Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, 1996 with 2002 reprint, page 6), In such a heterodox environment, it is very difficult to define a term in a general sense. Yet, the concept of Yuga is essential for understanding cosmologies originating in this geographic area (including Buddhist) and throughout its cultural diaspora. With this in mind, what shall be done with this article? 92.21.166.223 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (a Professor of Philosophy, Oxford + Switzerland).

At Least A Wrong Title

Yeah true said... I think Shri Yukteshwar is not aware about the world he is living in currently, instead he is pretty much engaged in the understanding of Yuga. It is commonly known to us that we are currently living in Kali Yuga "The Dark Age" - when the dharma values have gone very down and nudity, evil, diseases, sufferings are at the peak; corruption is spread everywhere & lifespans become very short.

Not even a kid will say that we are in Dwapara Yuga. Lols ~

So, at least the title must be modified.

It is NOT what is Yuga in real terms of Hinduism !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.106.82 (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the common doubt raised by people when they hear that we are currently living in Dwapara Yuga.

When earth enters a higher Yuga from a lower Yuga ( as witnessed when we entered Dwapara Yuga from Kali Yuga), advancement in all the levels are seen i.e physical, mental and spiritual levels of the society in general and man in particular. While we have definitely seen physical and mental advancement in the form of better civic society, laws, infrastructure and technology, we have not seen spiritual advancement. In fact it appears that it has come down.

But I think that the spiritual awakening is also coming. We all very well know about the various theories related to 2012 which says we will see a mass scale awakening and the earth is going to enter a higher dimension or higher level of consciousness. Well, I think, if this theory is really true then the last (the most important but the most difficult) advancement, the spiritual one, that was missing is also coming and we will be truly living in Dwapara Yuga! -Utsav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.103.229 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The consciousness of an age is reflected in mass consciousness, the aggregate of all peoples on the planet. Although debased behavior may seem to predominate, we should consider that may be because it is more visible (especially in the media) than the powerful antidotal behavior of people operating at a higher level of consciousness: those who live their lives quietly in the company of the Divine. Some believe that higher consciousness is more potent than lower consciousness on an individual to individual basis. For example, David Hawkins in Power vs. Force (Hay House, 2002), proposes that one individual operating at even a moderately high level of consciousness counterbalances the impact of 90,000 individuals of lower consciousness, one conclusion he came to after extensive research in which he developed a methodology for calibrating consciousness.

Another thing to consider when evaluating present conditions with respect to their appropriateness (or not) to Dwapara Yuga is, according to Sri Yukteswar, the Kali Yuga from which we've just emerged has been the "Kali of Kalis": the "lowest" in the larger universal cycle which encompasses the equinoctial cycles. So what we see of the remnants of Kali remaining would be especially pernicious. Citizen Peter (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yugas + Precession

I'm not editing anything i'm just here to question the bias of "most recent and popular theory", are these not somehow weasle words? Logic would seem to dictate that the yuga cycle is tied into the precessional somehow, so just as it is a little foolish to believe in a virgin birth over a birth to a virtuous woman by ignoring an obvious mistranslation, I humbly believe it's stupid to throw Occham's razor out of the window because some crank thinks one year actually means three and a half centuries. Just sayin'.

ZRL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.38.171 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read an interesting observation form a researcher from the early 19th century who stated that all numbers of years from ancient texts had to be divided by at least 1,000 to get the real number, as it was a technique to hide the correct information. The base to the yugas seems to be 432,000 years - divide by 1,000 = 432 years. 432 x 5 = 2160 years, the accepted date by many for the length of a precessional age. Terry Macro (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yuga and Milankovitch

There are 3 components to Milankovitch cycles: • the Earth's orbital eccentricity (the sun is at one focus of an orbit which changes from nearly circular to 3% elliptical), with a 95,000 year cycle; • the Earth's axial obliquity (the polar axis is not normal to the plane of the Earth's orbit), with a 42,000 year cycle and a 2.5% change around a mean of 23.5°; • equinoctial precession (the direction of the polar axis traces a circle around 'mean north'), with a 25,000 year cycle. While cycles with these periods show up in geological data, they show up only in time-series analyses. One cannot look at glaciation cycles (say), and Milankovitch cycles, and 'match wiggles'.

The combination of uncertainty about yuga timing, Sri Yukteswar's eccentric views, and the minor contribution of precession to Milankovitch, makes mention of Milankovitch cycles a bit dodgy. The claim that 'thus the yuga cycle may have some basis in known terrestrial cycles' is over interpretation, considering how difficult it has been to (1) discover the Milankovitch cycles, (2) discover glaciation cycles, and (3) discover a detectable relation between (1) and (2). The whole of Hindu existence covers about half of a precessional cycle. Egyptian record-keeping, flat horizon, and absence of clouds, made it possible for them to detect a day difference between the Nile flood (Indian Ocean Monsoon) and the heliacal rising of Sirius every 72 years, and thus *compute* the length of the precessional cycle. Do the Hindus have similar records?

Granted, this is a minor quibble, nevertheless, relating Milankovitch and yuga seems to be claiming too much for an unsupported hypothesis.Ferren (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml

Number of Avatars is Vaishnava Nonsense

The number of the Avatars of Vishnu is Vaishnava Nonsense, derived of the allegedly 10 Avatars of Vishnu. But there are much more Avatars (I think, it was the Bhagavatam whhich states, that there are 31 Avatars of Vishnu) and so also in the yugas. So that is just the poit of view of a Hindhu sect, which has invented things which are not vedic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.197.43 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yukteswar's heretic theory of Yuga

Wikipedia is stooping to a new low, basing all their articles on Yugas on one sole heretic, Yukteswar, which impudently contrives that the Sages have had it wrong for countless millenia. The adoption of this by Western academics is an attempt to align with the "after the Great Flood" Christian view of history which is disputed by practically every scholar on the Subcontinent. This heretic theory of Yukteswar is the same kind of propaganda perpetrated by the Vatican-backed "Müller dating" of the Veda and the myth of the so-called Aryan Invasion that never happened (there isn't even an "Aryan race")!

The best way to look at this whole thing is to get some perspective, as if it where 'wheels-within-wheels'. A complete cycle of the mini-yugas equates to the Precession of the Equinoxes (roughly), and 18 of such cycles amounts to 432,000, the building blocks of the Maha-Yugas. Sheesh. Samsbanned (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yukteswar's theory of yugas is IMO given undue weight in this and related articles and the description is largely based on his own primary work. This is non-ideal. And the way to fix it is to rewrite the section based on what scholars have written about Yukteswar's theory and how it compares with other interpretations of Yuga. If you would like to put in the labour of looking up sources on the subject and reworking the article, that would be most welcome; however simply adding a loaded section title, or expounding on your own theory of how yugas "really" work is not the way to go. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "my own theory" - it is the traditional knowledge, accepted by practising Hindus and scholars alike, and not at all like the modernist POV that Yuckteswar or his disciples promulgate. I have no idea why this heresy propagandised by a sole individual's theories is given so much weight in the first place. It should be only briefly mentioned, if not removed altogether. As far as rewriting the section - I really can't be bothered when I know it will simply be reverted to make it fit in with the Biblical time frame that is the only reason that Yuckteswar's heretic theory has been embraced in the first place.

Wikipedia is a great place to learn mundane trivia, like how the carrot was from Afghanistan and only through cross-pollination and hybridisation overseas by the Dutch was the first orange variety produced; but when it comes to esoteric topics like the subject matter of the Veda, where there is no scientific provability, it cannot be considered a reliable source - when POV's such as the Eurocentric White Supremacist interpretation is given undue weight. The traditional teachings should always be given first and foremost. I give up! Samsbanned (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

on second thoughts, leaving Yuckteswar's fanciful meanderings unedited serves as a glaring warning to pundits and the general public alike of the inaccuracies that surreptitiously creep undetected into this "encyclopaedia" Samsbanned (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to better work to do deeper research before writing on Wiki. Articles related to Hinduism and India are grossly under researched, lot of content is just convincing to some people and not properly researched. We need to go beyond convincing, we need evaluation our theories with modern standards.

For Yuga cycle, Some people bring in Yukteshwar's theory, some bring in Brahma year. None of these are substantiated with deep research.

Yukteshwar's theory has many flaws. For example, Yukteswar said that Sun's orbit is around 2600 (which is Mahayuga as per him).

We need to zero down what was traditional significance of Yuga's, was it aligned to some way to nature. As a day is aligned to sun rise, a month is aligned roughy lunar cycle, as an year in aligned to seasons- do we have similar natural base of Yuga. What was intent being Yuga?

Also, we need to look biological evolution as well. We cannot come to millions of years cycles just like that, even if human did not exist in that early period.

Dixitsandeep (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've removed three unrelated navigation templates, and all the tables and pictures, which jammed the page. I've also drastically shortened Yukteswar, and moved him into a note. I think we've got a readable article now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add scripture references

This article is purely based on references from Blogs/Books, why there are no proper references from Scripture/Ancient texts? These references will further authenticate this article instead of all sorts of interpretations. I will try to add those references, but anyone who is aware of these things should add them to this article. By addings these references this unending debate on correct calculation would end. RDKB (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Dhiraj

Yes, Indeed. We need scripture references for what we really meant by Yuga. For scientific explanations as well, we need to mention whose research is that. Any opinion does not hold forever. There are many explanation of Yuga. Most people just go by anything appearing convincing. We need to go beyond what appears convincing, we need to find what meets the current scientific standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixitsandeep (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Which Scripture has following?

"Virtue reigns supreme. Human stature was 21 cubits. Average human lifespan was 100,000 years." Dixitsandeep (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)