Talk:Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri

message: Kaivalya Darshanam was written around 1900 and not 1895.
:It was written in 1894. The introduction of the 1949 Indian edition ends with "Swami Sriyukteswar Giri; Serampore, Bengal; The 26th Falgun, 194 Dwapara. (A.D. 1894). Priyanath 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I have removed the incongruous reference to the Binary System Institute as there is no source provided for Sri Yukteswar Giri supporting the theory that the Sun has a companion star. Pilatus 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the quote from The Holy Science, where Sri Yukteswar says that the sun takes a ‘star for its dual’, and revolves around that star in about 24,000 years. Is this the same as a 'binary star' for our sun? I'm not an astronomer. Maybe there are other possible explanations for a 'star for its dual'? Priyanath 17:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not that it really matters, but in dual star systems the stars revolve around their centre of gravity. Only if one star is far more massive that the other, the smaller star could be said to revolve around the larger. Of course if you take a relative view, the other star rotates around the star that you stand on (in the same way that the planets revolve around the Earth). --Simon D M (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I just noticed that Binary Star is a Featured Article, with some wonderful diagrams and descriptions of what you describe. And thanks for re-adding that missing section on Sri Yukteswar's revolutionary activities. It adds an interesting sidelight on Indian independence and his active involvement. ~ priyanath talk 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, let us assume that astronomers have YET to find a dual star (or binary star) for our sun. However, if the findings proves to be negative, is it possible that Sri Yukteswar Giri had made a mistake? That idea is a disturbing one as it is like saying sometimes Jesus Christ had errors in his teachings! Or could it be that Sri Yukteswar was refering to an astral star? Only time may tell.... --Siva1979Talk to me 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that's why I changed the passage to NOT state that Sri Yukteswar was claiming a "binary star" for our sun. It's possible he meant something else, and modern scientists are trying to shoehorn "binary star" in there. It could have been astral, it could have been a point in space, it could have been a dual that's not a "binary star" but something else. He was so right on other points that hadn't been proven at the time (the idea of the galactic center being in Sagittarius, for example), that I'm surely giving him the benefit of the doubt. But the fact that scientists have looked for a "binary star" and not found one after all these years implies that maybe Sri Yukteswar meant something else by the word 'dual'. ॐ Priyanath 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Double Star" theory 

message: Hi, first time contributor (so I apologize up front if I'm out of line here).  Under the heading "A Revolutionary Interlude" there is a reference in the third paragraph to "Arabinda Ghose."  This is an alternate spelling of Aurobindo Ghose, who already has his own Wikipedia entry under the title "Sri Aurobindo."  I suggest that the two pages be linked. 68.101.136.225 (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Revolutionary Interlude" -- Suggested Internal Link 

message: As far as I know "our" sun is moving around the socalled black sun. But I cannot give any proof for that, only my memory. Austerlitz 88.72.11.196 16:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double sun theory 

message: User: Red Rose 13, someone systematically changing 'Paramahansa' to 'Paramhansa' on this page or any other is not vandalism and you should not be using that word to describe the recent edit of that nature.  This is a good-faith edit even if you don't agree with it. You throw that word out carelessly like yelling 'fire' in a movie theater. Jack B108 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User: Jack B108 - Fyi...please see this edit summary by Yworo who was reverting exactly the same thing on Paramahansa Yogananda page- (cur | prev) 06:54, 28 November 2012‎ Yworo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,994 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (Undid revision 525341775 by 85.159.196.21 (talk) vandalism to subject's name) Please notice that it is even the same editor back in Nov 2012.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paramhansa vs. Paramahansa 

message: as per Wikipedia:INDICSCRIPT do not revert Shrikanthv (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Indic script