Rating: 
Summary: Complex
Review: This book is small in size but the information is Mammoth, I have read this book countless times but the information is so complex it is hard to come away with all the knowledge given. This book must be read more than one time for the reader to come away with all it's enlightening information.
Rating: 
Summary: A narrow path, blinded by the light?
Review: Travelling a path of illumination, one sees too little at times. TOO FAULTY REFERENCES: In the Holy Science it is impossible to find essential literature the author says he draws on in very many of his Sanskrit quotations, for their references are not given. It is, in fact, not really nice to write for budding scientists and similar minded individuals and leave out pertinent source references, because the lack of them makes one turn sour and at least frustrated when there is a desire to penetrate the mere surface of the bulk of assertions he substantiates his thinking with. It is too unworthy for scholars and aspiring students to leave out essential references like that.
For the lack of that necessary information, much of the text has to be put aside as a scholarly piece of work. METHOD: The author was given his basic ideas to evolve. If he was free to reject some faulty or dubious notions among those first (or basic) premises of writing, his layout would have to be different. Among those "first, defective ideas" we find that "Hinduism" and some of its orthodox philosophies, especially sankhya, seems to hold one unified view, while there are many and very conflicting views in Hinduism - and also divergent sankhya opinions to be found.. Hinduism is NOT unified, no matter what is told in the book to the contrary. I don't think it is clever to assemble quotes in order to show that a said similarity between Hindu and Christian basic views exist. By selecting the passages that suit what was asked for, and - by the way - not showing the Hindu sources one draws on in that process either - confusing ideas may be forthcoming, but how may they appeal to men and women of science who are taught to inspect and not believe in appearances at all times? It is far better to sample very TYPICAL views from Christianity and deal with them as squarely as one can in the first place. If that is done, it might stand out that Christianity does not give a damn about many features of Samkhya. The book strives to present a harmony and unity with Hinduism that many a Christian pastor feels it is wise to reject rather than embrace. In the latter chapters the author delves into a sort of samkhya (Hindu philosophy) that I have not found in many regular sankhya sources. So what Sri Yukteswar presents as samkhya thinking, does *not* conform to common sankhya, as far as I know. ERRORS OF CALCULATION IN THE BOOK: In the first part of the book the author goes into yuga (era, ages) tenets and combines two time cycles: (a) the yugas (eras, ages) in *The Laws of Manu*, which is an ancient Hindu work; and (b) the Platonic Year of astronomy. The first cycle is of 24.000 years, the latter is nearly 27.800 years - a notable difference. But the author calculates as if they were identical. That is faulty, and yields errors when Sri Yukteswar's reckonings are applied. Besides, the way the author attempts to confirm his ages reckonings are coloured by his design - he seeks and finds "confirmations" with no alternative notions (no counterhypotheses) into it. CONCLUSION: There is a greater need to point of Sri Yukteswar's miscalculations and missing, vital information than to hail him for the obscurity such errors bring. The publishers should set to work and find the passages the author has assembled and present the references. That is needed. It is of course likewise needed to show where his time (era) calculations are wrong, and how. All this would enhance the value of the book.
| 
