Subas Rai article and Tachyonisation

[Guest guest]

Elizabeth wrote, "Scientifically, this website appears to be a load

of rubbish. ...And, if there's simply no solid scientific work on the

beads, then let's dispense of speaking of them in scientific terms

until there is. OTherwise, it just looks like more energetic jive

talk such as you see all over the place in half-baked New Age

products and literature, and my sense is, that these beads deserve

better than that..."

 

Amen! I wasted 4 years at university to get an electrical engineering

degree:-) (i don't do it professionally though) and i can assure you

that the article is bollocks. You can see the flaws with even a basic

knowledge of electronics. Without getting into jargon, the problem

with this article is that it claims that the benefits of Rudraksha's

are due to its electro magnetic properties. As your friend pointed

out, these are quantifiable so where are the results? Also, assuming

say the 5 mukhi bead that was tested by Rai's team exhibited a

certain capacitance, what is the guarantee that the 5 mukhi you are

wearing would do the same? Which brings me to tachyonisation. I have

major problems with this as well. Here the theory seems to be that by

doing a process (tachyonisation) to a bead you can make that bead

take on the energetic characteristics of beads with different mukhis.

For this you need to 1) know what the numbers are for the various

mukhis (an unknown as far as i can tell, unless Dr. Ramesh or whoever

it is that is marketing this can prove otherwise) 2)prove that these

numbers are uniform within a certain tolerance (that is if you can

prove that the 7 mukhi from your tree and that from your neighbor's

tree both exhibit the same quantifiable charateristics give or take a

microfarad for example) 3)prove that after tachyonisation beads with

different mukhis exhibit the same quantifiable characteristics.

Since to prove 2) and 3) you would first need to establish 1) the

theory, IMO, falls flat on its tachyonized face:-)

I love rudrakshas but trying to prove their worth in pseudo

scientific jargon is IMO the big problem.

Suraj

[Guest guest]

Dear Suraj,

 

Thanks for your comments!

 

Did you read the Subas Rai book?

 

As for the claims from Dr. Ramesh about a tachyonized bead of any

mukhi taking on energetic characteristics of all natural beads/mukhis

combined; Ramesh has not done any scientic research that I am aware

of, otherwise he would certainly have chosen to answer the related

questions I asked him in my letters, all I have is his claims based

on his own experiences and the people who obtain them from his

workshops. But I can inform you that his energetic theory relating to

the tachyonization effect on Rudraksha beads is not in harmony with

the official paradigm from the Tachyon Institute.

In any case, I shortly intend to test a tachyonized 5-mukhi bead

against a full natural Siddha mala and may have that mala or another

Siddha mala custom tachyonized.

Btw, there is no need to obtain tachyonized beads through Dr. Ramesh,

if anyone wants to, they can send their own Rudraksha beads to ATTI

in California and have them custom tachyonized. I also think that can

be done cheaper, Dr. Ramesh charges $50 for a tachyonized bead,

typically a large excellent 5- or 6-Mukhi from Nepal. (he wouldnt

disclose who his wholeseller was)

 

Provided my own test of tachyonized beads will reveal somehow that

Dr. Ramesh may be on to something, then I would definitely encourage

DDji, Syji and other experienced Rudraksha users to begin testing

such tachyonized beads themselves for comparison with regular beads.

 

As for the energetic effects of other tachyonized products from

Advanced Tachyon Technologies, there is quite a lot of diverse

research having been done by researchers in different fields,

including some very interesting DNA studies by the biophysicist Dr.

Glen Rein. Much of that research is published in the Tachyon book by

David Wagner, the inventor of the Tachyonization process and Dr.

Gabriel Cousens.

 

Ole

 

 

 

--- In

, "surajraghavan2002"

<suraj_raghavan@h...> wrote:

> Elizabeth wrote, "Scientifically, this website appears to be a

load

> of rubbish. ...And, if there's simply no solid scientific work on

the

> beads, then let's dispense of speaking of them in scientific terms

> until there is. OTherwise, it just looks like more energetic jive

> talk such as you see all over the place in half-baked New Age

> products and literature, and my sense is, that these beads deserve

> better than that..."

>

> Amen! I wasted 4 years at university to get an electrical

engineering

> degree:-) (i don't do it professionally though) and i can assure

you

> that the article is bollocks. You can see the flaws with even a

basic

> knowledge of electronics. Without getting into jargon, the problem

> with this article is that it claims that the benefits of

Rudraksha's

> are due to its electro magnetic properties. As your friend pointed

> out, these are quantifiable so where are the results? Also,

assuming

> say the 5 mukhi bead that was tested by Rai's team exhibited a

> certain capacitance, what is the guarantee that the 5 mukhi you are

> wearing would do the same? Which brings me to tachyonisation. I

have

> major problems with this as well. Here the theory seems to be that

by

> doing a process (tachyonisation) to a bead you can make that bead

> take on the energetic characteristics of beads with different

mukhis.

> For this you need to 1) know what the numbers are for the various

> mukhis (an unknown as far as i can tell, unless Dr. Ramesh or

whoever

> it is that is marketing this can prove otherwise) 2)prove that

these

> numbers are uniform within a certain tolerance (that is if you can

> prove that the 7 mukhi from your tree and that from your neighbor's

> tree both exhibit the same quantifiable charateristics give or take

a

> microfarad for example) 3)prove that after tachyonisation beads

with

> different mukhis exhibit the same quantifiable characteristics.

> Since to prove 2) and 3) you would first need to establish 1) the

> theory, IMO, falls flat on its tachyonized face:-)

> I love rudrakshas but trying to prove their worth in pseudo

> scientific jargon is IMO the big problem.

> Suraj

[Guest guest]

Dear Ole

I haven't read Subas Rai's book. I was commenting on the article on

RR website which I believe is from the book. My comments were not

meant to be an attack on tachyonisation since i don't know what the

process involves. They were directed against the idea that by

tachyonising a rudraksha bead you can make that bead take on the

energetic characteristics of other mukhi beads. Like i said in the

earlier post, to prove this hypothesis you first need to state what

those characteristics are in terms that other physicists can

understand. Since this hasn't been done, the theory is pure

conjecture IMO.

Also I personally have no use for "reductionist" studies which claim

that a botanical is useful because it has this or that active

ingredient or exhibits a certain property. The more i study Ayurveda,

the more i'm convinced that science does not have to be reductionist

at all. Just my thoughts. Take care

Suraj

[Guest guest]

Hi Suraj!

 

Thanks for your further informing commentaries on the article,etc.!

Wanted to clarify that I was not using "all is god" to mean more than

that I understand intellectually that this is the conclusion of

conclusions according to Vedanta. By no means do I "get it", in

fact, mulling over this perspective often gives me hours of fruitless

confoundment. I agree with you about devotion seeming a more

practical (and even heartening) route for most of us.

 

Very good to hear all your thoughts!

 

take care,

elizabeth

[Guest guest]

Dear Suraj,

 

Thanks for your reply. I certainly understand and agree with your

point about first defining the energetic characteristics of other

mukhi beads before one can begin to scientifically examine if

tachyonization can expand the characteristics to encompass all other

mukhi beads. So far, Dr. Ramesh has not provided any proof, let

alone a theory which is in harmony with the energetic paradigm of

tachyonization.

Since the scientific research by Subas Rai at best seems to be very

limited, my own interest now lies in subjectively testing a

tachyonized bead against a full Siddha mala. I will be updating the

group about my experiences as soon as I begin next month and hope

that others much more experienced with Rudraksha therapy may follow.

My personal belief is that Rudraksha beads emit finer energies from

higher energetic realms than merely gross frequencies, so therefore

it is not illogical for me to assume along those lines that

Tachyonization could possibly have some substantial effect, which is

yet to be acknowledged. In any case, I definitely experience

tachyonized energetic tools as being a part of Lord Shivas Mercy for

this Kali Yuga.

 

Love, Ole

 

--- In

, "surajraghavan2002"

<suraj_raghavan@h...> wrote:

> Dear Ole

> I haven't read Subas Rai's book. I was commenting on the article

on

> RR website which I believe is from the book. My comments were not

> meant to be an attack on tachyonisation since i don't know what

the

> process involves. They were directed against the idea that by

> tachyonising a rudraksha bead you can make that bead take on the

> energetic characteristics of other mukhi beads. Like i said in the

> earlier post, to prove this hypothesis you first need to state

what

> those characteristics are in terms that other physicists can

> understand. Since this hasn't been done, the theory is pure

> conjecture IMO.

> Also I personally have no use for "reductionist" studies which

claim

> that a botanical is useful because it has this or that active

> ingredient or exhibits a certain property. The more i study

Ayurveda,

> the more i'm convinced that science does not have to be

reductionist

> at all. Just my thoughts. Take care

> Suraj