Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Dear Mr. Rajivji, I request you to go through the mails I have sent to Ms. Syzenith. You will get all answer. I do not want to impress people by using difficult botanical terms. If any body wants to study Rudrakshas he should first study the basics of classical botany. I never claimed that I am the only person having full knowledge of Rudraksha. In my mail also I have mentioned that I am not able to interprete anatomical structures and co-relation of it with external characters. I am a scientist, and as you know wonderful journey in science is never complete. It is eternal and for the benefit of a common man. One day somebody asked Dr. Chandrashekhar Raman about his views on patent laws. He said he is against it. Knowledge is for all. I always feel that one should not stick rigidly to some views. There should be transperancy and openness to constant study and research and to allow others to speak. As far Rudraksha beads are concerned, it is not a monopoly of any body. If any body thinks like that they are doing a mistake. Thanking you and with best wishes. Chandrashekhar Phadke Rajiv <sid_bal wrote: DEAR CHANDRASHEKHAR JI AND SY JI, OM NAMAH SHIVAYE! I HAVE BEEN READINGYOUR MAILS FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW. IT WAS REALLY QUITE SURPRISING THAT YOUR BEADS HAVE BEEN SEEN BY NEETA JI AND SHE HAS TOLD YOU THAT THEY ARE FAKE, THEN WHY HAVE YOU NOT ASKED HER THE REASONS FOR DECLARING THEM FAKE. I WANT TO SHARE ONE OF MY EXPERIENCE WITH HER. SHE IS PERFECTIONIST.I HAD ONCE MET HER AT NAGPUR FEW YEARS BACK AND SHOWN HER SO CALLED ONE MUKHI ROUND RUDRAKSHA PURCHASED FROM CHINMIYA MISSION MUMBAI. SHE SAW MY ONE MUKHI AND DID NT COMMENTED ON IT AT ALL. BUT AFTER LOT OF PURSUATION FROM MY SIDE SHE TOLD ME THAT THIS IS A FIVE MUKHI BEAD, WHERE ONLY ONE MUKH IS VISIBLE AND REST 4 MUKHS HAVE BEEN ARTIFICIALLY HIDDEN. PLEASE BELIEVE ME IT WAS JUST LOOKING A PERFECT AND A REAL BEAD BUT SINCE I HAD SPENT QUITE A BIT OF MONEY IN PURCHASING THAT AND WAS VERY RELIGIOUSLY TAKING CARE OF THAT TOO, I WAS QUITE SHOCKED TO HEAR THAT AND FELT SAD AS WELL. SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE CAN CUT IT AND PROVE IT. SOMEHOW I MADE UP MY MIND AND SHE GOT THE BEAD CUT THROUGH HER ARTISIAN. I WAS STUNNED WITH HER JUDGEMENT AS AFTER CUTTING IT LATERALLY FIVE SEEDS INSIDE WERE VERY CLEAR AND NICELY SEEN. THEN SHE SHOWED ME AND EXPLAINED HOW THOSE MUKHS HAD BEEN ARTIFICIALLY CONCEALED. HATS OFF TO HER. THEN I SHOWED THAT CUT PIECES OF SO CALLED ONE MUKHI RUDRAKSHA TO MR. NARAIN BHATIA OF CHINMIYA MISSION AND GOT MY WHOLE MONEY REFUNDED FROM HIM. SO I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE HERE THAT HER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IDENTIFYING FAKE RUDRAKSHA IS SUPERB. I AM VERY SURE THAT SHE WILL RATHER NOT COMMENT ON ANYBODY"S PERSONAL COLLECTION UNTILL AND UNLESS YOU HAD GONE TO HER PLACE WITH THE INTENTION OF DISPOSING OFF YOUR BEADS. JUST BY KNOWING FEW DIFFICULT TERMS OF BOTANY ONE CANNOT REALLY CLAIM TO HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF RUDRAKSHA. RUDRAKSHA HAS TO BE KNOWN ETERNALLY. FIRST OF ALL ONE SHOULD KNOW HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND FAKE BEADS WITHOUT ACTUALLY CUTTING IT, I MEAN JUST BY SEEING THE BEAD FROM OUTSIDE THEN ONLY ONE CAN REALLY THINK OF SHOWING THE BEAD TO SOMEONE WHO IS TRUSTED BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. PLEASE DONT GET UPSET ON WHAT I HAD WRITTEN , MY INTENTION HERE IS NOT TO HURT YOU BUT TO JUST SHARE MY EXPERIENCE WITH YOU. BEST WISHES, RAJIV chandrashekhar phadake <c_phadake wrote: Dear Syzenith, Thank you very much for your mail. I will write to you in more detail about my interaction with rudra centre. I am confident about my beads shown to them. Though, rudra centre people like that of Ms. Neeta and Shri. Kamal Narayan Seethaji ( with due respect to both of them) claim that they are the only experts in the field, it is not so. They have to learn a lot about botany of elaeocarpus. I did not want to open this on the club site. However, as you opened the topic I was forced to write like this. It is necessary to learn the subject more critically. Critisising others without any fine knowledge or classical knowledge of the subject is easy. After all facts are facts. Thanking you and with best wishes. Chandrashekhar Phadke syzenith <syzenith wrote: Namaste Chandrashekhar, You are not going to like what I'm about to mention.. But please know that I mean well for consumer protection and also to learn the truth about genuine rudraksha. You can't see my face, eyes or my mouth. If you can, you will know that all is said without ill feelings, and all is said with love to everyone. You can kill me if you like :-) I've already died before :-) Thank you for your message too. Yes generally, many Eka mukhi wre made from 3 mukhi Oval. I cannot dispute your high qualifications and profession. Congratulations for your great talent in your field and reaching the position of senior scientist. But as a hobby and research, there is much to learn about rudraksha for everyone, everyday. I cannot agree regarding internal structures in the meantime. Your anatomical studies do not convince me, not yet.. There are further tests I need to do, then later discuss about it here. I'm not saying you are wrong. Maybe I am the one who is wrong. But after these tests, maybe we can agree about the truth. Thanking for rising to the occasion and offering out of your own free will to send the beads at no charge. Don't worry about Australian quarantine. They will scan the parcel, then open and check contents, then blast it with Gamma rays before releasing parcel for dispatch to me. Just write the words on the Customs Declaration form : "Hindu Religous Beads". If you don't register the parcel, it may get lost. But first, please read the rest of what I'm going to mention, then decide if you still want to send the beads to Australia. What is the botanical species of the One Mukhi Round you have in your possession? Again, it is my conviction that Eka Mukhi RounD is a legend, a myth having a place in the Scriptures but not found to date in modern times. Didn't you visit Miss Neeta to show your beads? Do you sell them? I heard last month that you again went from Pune to show 2 pieces of 21 mukhi at Rudra Centre. Then it was proved to you that these were 10 mukhi and 11 mukhi cut by sharp knife to get extra lines. The 13 and 14 mukhis previously shown by you were also lower mukhi beads carved to high mukhi. The 3 mukhi Oval from Rudra Centre for US$1.50 each, has exactly the same internal structure as the One mukhi Oval you had. Doesn't this mean it was cut from 3 mukhi oval bead? Last year you also took a 21 mukhi to show Miss Neeta which was made by gluing together 21 segments of lower mukhis. Tatt Twam Asi Sy , chandrashekhar phadake <c_phadake> wrote: > > > Dear Syzenith, > > Thank you very much for your mail. I do agree that you have not mentioned that above 3 mukhis are fake. As far as oval one mukhi bead is concerned, there is a general impression that these are always made from 3 mukhi oval bead by sealing the other two clefts. I am of the opinion that this is cent per cent not a correct opinion. There may be fakes but definitely there are genuine beads also in this type. Basically, I am a biotechnologist. I did my M.Sc., Ph.D. in Botany and presently working as a senior scientist. Rudraksha is my hobby and a research interest. I have mentioned my opinion about internal anatomical structures after careful studies. In short, 1, 2, and 3 mukhi oval beads show similar anatomical structures i.e. there is only one well developed locule and a seed, other two locules are not developed and one can see rudimentary structures of it. I am ready to send you the beads without any charge, as it is for a scientific research purpose and to remove > misunderstandings about the beads. However, I do not have any idea about quarantine regulations in Australia. I am also ready to send it to any body in India if you suggest. Kindly send your postal address. > > As far as one mukhi round bead you have mentioned, I have very few beads of this type. These beads are generally 10 to 14 mm. in its diameter. I have only one bead which has a larger diam. ( approx. 2 cms.). Colour of these beads is light yellowish brown to reddish brown, very rarely it is sandy white. The ornamentation is different from the normal rudrakshas. It is slightly angular pentagonal to hexagonal (you can see hexagonal and pentagonal structures on the bead instead of a granular structures). Stalk is natural and intact. There is only one cleft. This cleft is generally kept covered with the natural bluish black cover only in the cleft portion. Cleft is well developed but does not have any elevations in its margin (which is a main character of any cleft) and is in the plane of the other bead tissue. Definitely it is not a tampered bead by sealing the rest of the 4 clefts. However, if peduncle or fruit stalk is removed, you can see a natural hole. Surrounding > this natural opening one can see five very shallow groves of not more than 1mm. in length. This is an indication that there may be 5 locules inside the bead. I cut open only one bead so far, as it is expensive. It shows poorly developed 5 locules. It is very difficult to interprete these observations, as from the exterior it is a definitely round one mukhi bead, however internally it has 5 locules. >From its external character, I can not call it as fake bead. In this regard, I do agree with Chinmaya mission that no body really knows what is the internal structure of a genuine 1mukhi and can not critisise this bead. Logically, genuine 1 mukhi should have only one locule and a seed. But with the experience of the oval 1,2 and 3 mukhi as described earlier, it seems that one can not make any definite conclusion or interpretation. Botanical matertial has many times variations. > > Thanking you and with best wishes. > > Chandrashekhar Phadke > > > > > syzenith <syzenith> wrote: Namaste Chandrashekhar, > > Thank you for your message. I will have to re-read this and form my > own humble conclusions eventually about internal or anatomical > structures, locules, etc. Will post here after experimenting with a > few things, and only if there are successful results. > > An Oval One Mukhi, this is fascinating. Thanks for your kind offer > to send it for my examination. How much is this particular bead in > US dollars? Its been a long time since I journeyed in Mother India > so my brain can't translate rupees very well sometimes. Shall think > about it and see..... If you send to me, then I will have to buy it > from you because I would only test by cutting it open. While most > people do not want to keep cut-open beads, I believe the Shakti > still exists in rudraksha even after they're cut. > > Shall also check with other verification places to see if they will > test without cutting open. If they can do this, then you can send > them the bead. After that, they can return it to you safely. > > Please read my sentences slowly in previous messages. I didn't talk > about mukhis from 3 faces upwards being fakes. Nor did I criticise > about fakes. Was just putting info up for discussion, hoping that > someone can point the light towards me if I'm wrong in my studies. > > Pretty sure I said along the lines of "from 12 mukhi upwards, duds > are likely to be more abundant". > > I didn't say Oval shapes are not available, though I mentioned "One > Mukhi Round" is virtually extinct. > > Thanking yourself too, with good wishes. > > Om Namah Shivaya > Sy > > , chandrashekhar > phadake <c_phadake> wrote: > > Dear Syzenith, > > > > I do not agree with you in connection with the internal structures > of oval 1, 2 and 3 mukhi beads. I have in my collection all the > above three genuine types. External characters as far as no. of > clefts are concerned are definitely 1, 2 and 3 clefts, and not by > sealing 2 clefts living only one cleft in case of one mukhi. I have > critically observed this under a high resolution microscope and also > by boling in water, oil and by treating with nitrous oxide. If you > want I am ready to send 1 mukhi oval bead to you for its > examination. > > I have also studied internal anatomical structures of all the above > three types of the beads. Surprisingly, it is same for 1, 2 and 3 > mukhi beads. Only one developed locule with a well developed seed > was observed in all the above beads. Two locules were in the > rudimentory stage. I also checked botanical description for this. > It is mentioned that in case of ovary having less no. locules, > rudimentory locules is a rule in case of few species. > > I also > > checked the internal structures of a nepal 3 mukhi bead, it shows > 3 locules with 3 seeds inside it. > > I would like to know, in case of Indian beads (Haridwar oval beads > from 1 to 3 mukhi) if its internal structure is same, whether there > is any difference in its spiritual or medicinal characters ? > > As you know, cost of genuine Haridwar 1 mukhi varies from Rs. 2500/- > to Rs. 5000/-, two mukhi of the similar type costs Rs. 200 and a > three mukhi for Rs. 100/-. One mukhi authentic oval beads are > definitely available and there is no point in always critising that > it is a necessarily fake bead from 3 mukhi. I am ready to send you > the sample if you want. > > > > Thanking you and with best wishes. > > > > Chandrashekhar Phadke. > > > Sponsor > To send an email to: - > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard > > To send an email to: Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard To send an email to: Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard To send an email to: India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.