Round one mukhi debate--pure knowledgeware

[Guest guest]

Dear Richardsir,

I have been following this debate..but I am surprised why the other

person is thinking that Ole (whom I don't know) is a 'broker' for

some other site...why these personal insinuations?? tomorrow, it will

be against me, chandrashekharji, or someone else also..see, phadkeji

(again, i dont know him personally), feels the beads could be genuine

one mukhi round and that is his opinion!

i remember, somebody had cast similar aspersions on phadkeji on this

group..nobody, not me, not you, not ole, can dispute phadkeji's

insight into rudra beads..and as he says, he could be wrong

too....you need humility to say that...we all can have our opinions

and we may differ...despite your profound knowledge and expertise (it

shows, one need not go to your weblinks) you are so polite, gentle,

courteous...and i am not being liberal with adjectives..i know that

even you might be cheated or duped by some tradesite...

but these qualities seem missing in the present debate..let me remind

you that this is happening for the first time on this group...i, like

many, would desire pure exchange of knowledge without an egowarfare--

Only I am Right attitude--even if somebody is saying the truth, he or

she should say it and move away...Ole has already made it clear that

he has nothing to do with the said webite...the debate rests there

although the knowledge exchange continues...warm regards>>aadi

 

sacred-objects, Ole Alstrup <alstrup

wrote:

>

> My comments in BOLD GREEN below this time:

>

> Siddharth Mishra <sidhmis wrote: PL read my comments

below.

>

> In case this is Siddarth Mishra's followup reply, it is quite

obvious that he is not able to refute ANY of the arguments I

presented. So to my other fellow members, although I think this mail

speaks for itself - please do not be mislead by such empty word

jugglery, please read very carefully each of my points to Siddharth

Mishra in my previous reply and you will see that I have completely

exposed his imaginary claims which he promotes as the absolute truth.

> RUBBISH.

>

> I just received a mail from Chandrahsekharji informing me of some

server problems he had yesterday to access the group, but he will try

again tomorrow.

>

> LETS WAIT.

>

> Thanks,

> ~Ole

>

> You appear to be a broker of this particular site.

> I AM NOT

> Just learn to accept truth.

> OF COURSE, I WILL READILY ACKNOWLEDGE SUCH TRUTH IF I ENCOUNTER

IT, SO FAR HAVE NOT SEEN IT, THAT IS WHY AM PRESSING YOU TO ANSWER

> Dont get frustrated if you are unable to prove your point.

> WHY SHOULD I GET FRUSTRATED IF I ENCOUNTER TRUTH, THIS IS NOT A

PERSONAL THING

> I want to discontinue this discussion because my purpose of

informing the devotees has been acheived and this was unnecessarily

creating negativity in the fine group.

> WE HAVE TO MAKE A STAND IF SOMEONE IS MISLEADING, OTHERWISE WE

ARE ALSO CHEATING, SO THAT IS ALLRIGHT

> You pl buy these type of 1 mukhi and let other devotees also take

their own decision of buying this or not.

> OF COURSE, EVERYONE IS FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT IN LIFE, I NEVER

OBJECT TO THIS AT ALL, BUT WHY SHOULD I BUY THIS BEAD, I AM

DISCUSSING AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT

> Try to increase your knowledge. Laxmi will come to you

automatically. You need not do publicity for any product on some one

else behalf.

> I HAVE TO SAY I RESENT YOUR INSINUATIONS IN THIS REGARD

> I have again answered your querries. Pl go thro.

>

> I would request the club owner to stop further mails on this

subject. We have put allegations and counter allegations enough. Lets

make this platform a healthier platform for discussions and not for

commercial gains.

> OF COURSE I WOULD REQUEST THE CLUB OWNER TO LET THIS THREAD

CONTINUE, WHY SHOULD YOU TELL HIM TO INTEFERE AND STOP THIS WHEN WE

ARE DISCUSSING AND EXPOSING THE FINER POINTS OF OUR DIFFERENT VIEWS?

YOU OBVIOUSLY THINK THIS IS ABOUT MONEY, TO ME IT IS NOT ABOUT MONEY,

SO I FIND THIS DISCUSSION MOST ENLIGHTENING AND I AM ALSO LEARNING,

CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MAY THINK.

>

> My comments in black bold letters below:

>

> Hello Ole Alstrup.

> Hello again

> It would be interesting if you could share more info about your

rudraksha business and your teaching.of therapy in Hyderabad.

> I dont think that this is relevant in the present context. I am

not asking about your background, and your knowledge about Rudraksha

you think is correct but I dont think so.

> I basically had an interest to know more in the context

> of your claims, that was all...

>

> NO ANSWER FOR THIS

> AS YOU WISH

> I would like to state that it is an ESTABLISHED fact that the

number of mukhis do not necessarily correspond to the number of seeds

inside a bead, so I wonder how many beads you actually have examined?

> Who say so? It is not an established fact that no. of beads do

not necessarily correspond to the no. of seeds inside. Here itself

you are wrong my dear friend. Pl confirm from your reputed site that

what you are writing is correct or incorrect.

> I ALREADY GAVE YOU THE LINK FOR THE SITE, BUT YOU REFUSE TO

ACKNOWLEDGE

>

> Well, first of all you did not answer my question of how many

beads you yourself have examined according to your own set

standards...

>

> MORE THAN 1000 BEADS. WE TEACH OUR STUDENTS ABOUT EACH BEADS AND

THEIR PROPERTIES. NOW DONT ASK WHAT IS THE NAME OF MY STUDENTS WHAT

IS THE NAME OF MY INSTITUTE.

>

> THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION. NOW IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU

COULD PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THIS. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE NAME OF

YOUR STUDENTS, BUT YOU SHOULD PROVIDE THE OTHER INFORMATION IF YOU

WISH TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

>

> Also pl confirm from your Botanist friend too that what you are

saying is right or wrong. If they think that you are right then let

them mail in the group and let other devotees also know about the

same.

>

> YES, THAT IS ALREADY CONFIRMED, HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE

IN OPEN RUDRAKSHA GROUP AND RSBC GROUP AND INFORMED ME HE WILL DO SO

HERE SHORTLY

>

> Of course, as you may know, Chandrashekharji is a frequent poster

here and will no doubt supply his input very soon...

>

> HAVE YOU ASKED HIM THAT YOUR THEORY SPECIFICALLY THAT 'NO. OF

SEEDS MAY NOT BE EQUAL TO NO. OF MUKHS' INSIDE THE RUDRAKSHA BEAD.

PL MAKE HIM ASNWER THIS.

>

> YES THAT IS CONFIRMED.

> BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORDS "NOT NECESSARILY"

IN THIS CONTEXT, YOU PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE POINT I AM MAKING WITH

THIS.

>

> Pl Mr. Ole come out of your mind set . What you are saying is

absolutely incorrect. Let us not beat around the bush any more. Tell

me how many 8 mukhis if you cut say 100 will have 7 seeds inside ?

pl ponder on this.

>

> AGAIN, I DO NOT KNOW SINCE I HAVE NOT PERFORMED SUCH A TEST.

>

> I do not know as I have certainly not performed such a test, have

you?

>

> I HAVE PERFORMED ON OVER 1000 BEADS OF NEPALI ORIGIN.

>

> WHICH MUKHIS DID YOU EXAMINE?

>

> THEN YOU SHOULD PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE FOR THIS, THAT WOULD BE

REQUIRED.

>

> Our botanist Chandrashekharji can supply much input in this

field, as he has shared that at the RSBC group earlier on and also at

the open rudraksha forum.

> I want to hear from Mr. Chandrashekar that how many 8 mukhi will

have 7 seeds inside or 9 seeds inside if he cuts 100 eight Mukhi

beads. Pl answer Mr. Shekhar.

>

> Well, I dont think that is any relevant test in the context of

our discussion, and not fair to Chandrahshekharji, I have supplied

you information which refute your theory and you refuse to

acknowledge it, so what can I do?

>

> NO AS OF NOW HE HAS NOT ANSWERED. LETS WAIT FOR HIS ANSWER . SO

PL DONT COMMENT THAT I REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

>

> I HAVE PROVIDED THE INFO FROM THE ZAREMBA WEBSITE. HE HAS EMAILED

ME AND WILL PUT UP MORE INFO SHORTLY.

>

> I would refer anyone to look at David Zaremba's site at

www.rudraksha-center.com and click on inside rudraksha pictures. You

will find an examination of two 5 mukhis beads, which clearly prove

this point.

> This is not true.

>

> WHAT IS NOT TRUE?

>

> Yes, it is, you can see it if you will just look...

>

> YOU ARE BEATING AROUND THE BUSH. IF A BEAD IS HAVING MORE MUKHS

THAN THE SEEDS INSIDE THAN IT IS A DISEASED BEAD. IT HAS NOT GROWN

FULLY. IT IS JUST LIKE AN RETATRDED CHILD WHO HAS ALL THE BODY PARTS

BUT HIS BRAIN DOES NOT WORK LIKE A NORMAL CHILD. IT IS THE SEED

INSIDE WHICH IS THE ENERGY SOURCE. THE MUKHS ARE MERELY THE OUTLETS

FROM WHERE THE ENERGY GOES OUT ENERGY.

>

> THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE VERDICT OF THE RUDRAKSHA TRADITION, YOU

ARE PRESENTING YOUR OWN BOTANICAL SPECULATION. BEADS ARE EXAMINED

ACCORDING TO THEIR OUTSIDE AUTHENTIC NATURAL MUKHIS, NOT INNER SEEDS.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE FROM HOLY RUDRAKSHA SCRIPTURES

WHERE YOUR CLAIM IS MENTIONED.

>

> MAN CAN MAKE MUKHS ARTIFICIALLY ON THE BEED BUT HE CANNOT PLANT

SEED INSIDE IT CORRESPONDINGLY.

>

> OF COURSE

>

>

> Yes some times it happens that two seeds are so close that they

appear to be one.

>

> YES, WHY NOT

>

> That is not what this RANDOM test showed...

>

> I HAVE ANSWERED IT.

>

> WELL, YOU VAGUELY STATED IT WAS NOT TRUE, SO WHAT IS NOT TRUE;

ZAREMBAS EXAMINATION?

>

>

> But definitely it will not happen for all the 5 Mukhi beads.

> And we cannot generalise that a 5 mukhi will have 4 seeds or 6

seeds.

>

> No one claimed this, the result is still the same, seeds inside

do not necessarily correspond to number of outside mukhis..

>

> AGAIN BEATING AROUND THE BUSH. YOU YOUR SELF TAKE 5 NEPALI BEADS

AND CUT THEM LATERLLY AND SEE THE RESULTS YOUR SELF.

> I CHALLENGE IF I AM WRONG. ALL 5 BEADS WILL HAVE 5 SEEDS INSIDE.

PL CHECK IT YOURSELF DONT GO BY OTHER SITES AND PICTURES PEOPLE HAVE

SENT EARLIER. DO IT YOURSELF AND THEN TALK TO ME.

>

> AGAIN, YOU MISS MY POINT ENTIRELY, I AM STATING AS A GENERAL

RULE THAT WE CANNOT SAY THAT IE. ALL 5 MUKHI BEADS WILL NECESSARILY

HAVE 5 SEEDS INSIDE, THE TESTS BY ZAREMBA AND CHANDRASHEKHAR HAVE

ALREADY PROVEN THAT, AND YOUR YOURSELF ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BUT YOU

STATE IN SUCH A CASE A BEAD IS DISEASED. YES, ACCORDING TO BOTANICAL

KNOWLEDGE IT MAY BE "DISEASED", BUT ACCORDING TO HOLY RUDRAKSHA

TRADITION IT IS STILL A HOLY 5 MUKHI BEAD AND AGAIN WE FIND NOTHING

IN TRADITION WHICH SAY YOU EXAMINE BEADS ACCORDING TO SEEDS.

>

> This could be due to their abnormal growth. This is more of a

diseased bead. It happens in the little ones of animals and human

being as well that they are born with some abnormality. So they are

treated to remove this abnormality. Not that they become super human.

>

> A 5 mukhi bead with 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc seeds inside is still a 5

mukhi bead. Your comparison has absolutely no bearing on the result.

Now you are claiming that any bead with different number of seeds is

diseased, but the FACT remains that if you cut a bead, the number of

seeds inside will not NECESSARILY be the same as the outside mukhis.

You may view it as diseased, I do not. A rudraksha with NATURAL

number of mukhis is certainly that bead, because THIS IS HOW A BEAD

IS EXAMINED IN THE FIRST PLACE, NOT THE SEEDS, WE FIND NOTHING ABOUT

THAT FROM RUDRAKSHA TRADITION; SO THAT IS YOUR THEORY ONLY...

>

> HA HA ITS RUBBISH. ITS WHAT YOU THINK. DO THE TEST YOURSELF AND

FIND OUT THE TRUTH.

>

> PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENSIVE AND LAUGH AT THE KNOWLEDGE OF HOLY

RUDRAKSHA KNOWLEDGE GIVEN BY LORD SHIVA AND HIS SADHAKS, THEN YOU

ARE RUINED. PLEASE SHOW RESPECT TO THE DESCRIPTIONS GIVEN BY THE

SADHUS AND RISHIS, WE FIND NOTHING IN RUDRAKSHA TRADITION OF WHAT YOU

ARE SPEAKING ABOUT CONCERNING THE SEEDS, DO WE? YOU PLEASE ANSWER

THIS POINT VERY CLEARLY.

>

> So your theory that the number of seeds inside is the source of

the power in a bead is therefore proven wrong.

> My theory is unchallengable. Because I know what I am writing is

true to the core. I am not taking anybody's names to prove my point.

I challenge any knowledgable person of Rudraksha will say the same

thing what I have been saying. You ask any one.

>

> You may claim as you like, but there is no value to your claim.

>

> I HAVE ENOUGH FOLLOWERES AND STUDENTS. I DONT WANT MORE. I AGAIN

REITREATE THAT ANY KNOWLEDABLE PERSON WILL SAY WHAT I AM SAYING.

>

>

>

> Infact Lateral cutting is the only test by which you can

ascertain that the Rudraksha is actually how many mukhis. Again I am

sure your site person and Mr. Chandrashekhar will agree with me. I

want to read their comments and I am sure all group members would

like to read.

>

> Lateral cutting will show the number of seeds, not mukhis, thats

all.

>

> NO. YOU ARE WRONG. YOU HAVE TO DIVIDE THE BEAD IN TWO PARTS. YOU

CAN SEE THE SEEDS AS WELL AS MUKHS. YOU CAN TURN THE BEAD SLIGHTLY

AND SEE THE CORRESPONDING MUKH AS WELL . IT IS VERY EASY.

>

> AHA, OKAY.

>

> I cannot comment about the "Nirakar" bead, but I know that its

name is not derived from any scripture, I guess it means "no mukhi".

> Yes it is good that you are not commenting for some thing you do

not know. Pl go to BISHAL BAZAR in Kathmandu and you will see no. of

shops in ground and first floor inside this complex, pl ask them

whether they can give 'zero' mukhi bead and you will get atleast 5 TO

10 from them which will either have no mukh or will have one mukh and

believe me that they are genuine ones.

>

> So what do you mean by genuine ones?

>

> FROM OUTSIDE THEY ARE NOT TEMPERED. BUT ACTUALLY THERE GROWTH IS

NOT COMPLETE.

>

> OKAY

>

> The cost would be Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000 NC(NEPALI CURRENCY).

> Now here the difference is that on the site they are a bit

refined one, more good to look at. Thats all , but if cut laterally

they will have 3 seeds or 4 seeds or 5 seeds. Believe me I am right

because I have done it myself so I dont need any credantials for any

one.

>

> HA HA NO COMMENTS ON THIS ????

>

> THERE WAS NO REASON TO COMMENT THIS AS YOU ARE STATING THIS, BUT

I AM GLAD IF I AMUSED YOU

>

> It seems you are confusing the two beads shown at the Nepa

rudraksha site.

> My logic and conviction is beyond doubt. Pl be rest assured. I

have done my homework thoroughly before writing in this group.

>

> ???

>

> WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?

>

> Some more pics of the two bead will shortly be uploaded at the

Open Rudraksha Forum, courtesy by the owner and moderator of

that forum.

> I am sure with all this discussion the site person will not try

to befool devotees any more.

> That particular bead is still subject to investigation, contrary

to your premature conclusions.

>

> HE HAS TO TAKE IT OUT SOONER OR LATER. WATCH IT YOURSELF....

>

> TAKE IT OUT WHERE?

>

> I am informed that the One Mukhi round shown at the site has its

shape like three mukhi round nepali with only one mukhi, the other

mukhi is seen to be covered so it has to be considered as one mukhi

as well.

> It does not happen the way you think. The energy source in any

bead is the seed inside. So even if the mukhs are covered naturally

the bead continues to be equivalent to the number of seeds inside.

Its affect will be same as the no. of seeds inside.

> What you are stating here is again not stated in ANY authentic

rudraksha scripture and this is of course NOT the proper way of

identifying a bead, except for a botanical investigation, so we can

dismiss it.

>

> THIS WHAT YOU THINK. I AM WRITE I KNOW.

>

> HMM, YOU ARE RIGHT, ALL THE RUDRAKSHA SCRIPTURES AND ANCIENT

KNOWLEDGE IS MISLEADING?

>

> Botanically it is not possible to have 1 mukhi round bead. I

again reitreate that it has to be flat one and half moon shaped.

> Well, of course, according to your own BOTANICAL logic, IF you

ever encountered a TRUE 1 mukhi round bead, you would either label it

as a fake, diseased or a freak of nature, but it would still be a

TRUE 1 mukhi.

>

> IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. IT CANNOT BE ROUND. I AM NOT DENYING THAT 1

MUKHI DOES NOT EXIST, BUT WHAT I AM TELLING IS THAT I MUKHI CANNOT BE

ROUND IT WILL BE FLATTENED AND MORE LIKE A HALF MOON SHAPED BEAD.

> BUT YOU PL PURCHASE ROUND ONE MUKHI OIF YOU EVER FIND FROM THE

REPUTED SITE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE FOR YOU IT WILL BE A

GENUINE ROUND 1 MUKHI.

> It would be interesting to know how many Nepali suppliers are

there and what are their names?

> I dont think this will matter in any way.

> I was merely interested in your insights in this area.

>

> ???

>

> IT IS NOT CLEAR?

> Also, what is the Katiyani Purana - an upa purana? Where is it

available?

> Write me a personal mail. I will tell the source where you can

get this. My aim is not to take the shelter of any site or any

person otherwise people will start linking my name with them.

>

> I dont see what the big fuss is about this, but as you wish.

>

> DO NOT BECOME A BROKER OF A SITE FOR PETTY GAINS. NEVER EVER LINK

YOURSELF TO ANY PARTICULAR SITE.

>

> AGAIN, I CAN ASSURE YOU I AM NOT DOING THAT, I AM JUST A STUDENT

OF RUDRAKSHA AND HAVE NO COMMERCIAL INTEREST, SO PLEASE DO NOT

PROJECT THAT ON ME. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO KNOW ME FOR SEVERAL

YEARS HERE AND ON OTHER RUDRAKSHA FORUMS. I WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED

THE OPEN RUDRAKSHA FORUM TO BE TOTALLY FREE OF VESTED

COMMERCIAL INTEREST.

>

> DONT MAKE EGO ISSUE JUST ACCEPT THAT KNOWLEDGE CAN BE GAINED

FROM ANY BODY, AND YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERY THING ABOUT RUDRAKSHAS.

>

> OH YES, I READILY ACCEPT THAT, I NEVER CLAIMED I KNOW EVERYTHING

ABOUT RUDRAKSHAS, SO PLEASE STOP THIS KIND OF PROJECTION.

>

> I CONSIDER MYSELF STILL A STUDENT OF THIS SUBJEST. THIS IS

GREATNESS. OK. I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE CARE NEXT TIME.

>

> OF COURSE

>

> Thanks,

>

> Siddharthacharya

> Ole

>

> BEST WISHES,

> SIDDHARTH

>

> SAME TO YOU

>

> OLE

>

>

>

>

> Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and

used cars online search now

>

>