Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Dear Dr. Phadake, Thank you for you information. I have a deep interst in the beads and in their uses in healing. It is important for me to have as much information as possible when I deal with my clients. I hope you will coninue to make your posts fearlessly so that we all can learn. Arjuna 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Dear Jose Reymundi, The three mukhi eiether Indian or Nepal beads which you have purchased from Rudra Centre may not be fake. Thanking you and with best wishes. Chandrashekhar Phadke JOSE REYMUNDI <STARGATE40 wrote: sir: do you think the 3 mukhis oval rudraksha are fake it's not realy a 3 faces bead? because i buy from rudra center (108) 3 mukhis oval rudraksha beads and for me look natural the form it have. 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: 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...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Namaste Chandrashekhar, Thank you for your message. You keep saying the word "criticism" so this must be what you think all the time, that others or me are critical. Whatever you say to me, I never feel you are critical but just here to share as a rudraksha sadhak. Criticism of perceived criticism does not make a person more knowledge, only more ignorant. My conscience is clear so there is no need for me to "feel" critical. Personally I'm detached, hence I'm able to stomach everything that is said to me. Don't worry, I only view all this as "Discussion" and to learn from one another. Nothing personal, not a personal attack on you, and no ill feelings. Everyone is a child of Siva whether they are wayward or true. The people who purchase beads for each Chinmaya Mission throughout different locations in India, do not necessary know the difference between genuine and dud. Hence they are innocent when they sell to the public at their ashrams. I have heard of Chinmaya Mission in Delhi and Bombay who have sold duds without realising it. This is not their fault. Maybe its rnanubandhana between them, their supplier and their customers or devotees. Of course Chinmaya Mission is a reputable foundation but this does not make them experts in procuring rudraksha. This also does not mean they are immune from making mistakes with differentiating between real and dud rudraksha. I must take my hat off to you, and clap my hands in praise for your ability to continue a good discussion (though we disagree) without losing your cool. You present your "personal truths" as you see them through your eyes, very smoothly and without anger. Chandrashekhar, very good! Maybe I vex you :-) But I like someone who can give as good as they get, and not let their feathers become ruffled :-)) The images of the beads you showed Rudra Centre are now uploaded on this club site so we can see them. Since they are images, one cannot really make out the difference between real and carved but the experienced eye may be able to differentiate. What everyone can see, is that they are beads from Nepal. Don't get me wrong, Rudra Centre also mentioned they have high regard for yourself too, though not for the beads you showed them. About 21 mukhi, if anyone really cuts open this bead, then please scan the two halves and send the image. Thank you for mentioning Dr. M.J.E. Coode, Herbarium, Royal Botanical Garden, Kew, Surrey, London, England. Shall try to get in touch with him soon. Since you are insisting on sending the beads at no charge for my personal research and asked for my postal address a few times, here it is: Simone Y. Little P.O. Box 478, Edgecliff, NSW 2027, Australia. Thanking you with all good wishes. Om Namah Shivaya Sy , chandrashekhar phadke <chphadke> wrote: > Dear Syzenith, > > Thank you very much for your mail. Criticism makes man more knowledgible. As mentioned in my earlier mail, I am writing to you in more detail. First I would like to discuss about oval 1, 2 and 3 mukhi beads. > > Few months back there was some discussion regarding oval one mukhi beads purchased by Rudra Centre from Chinmaya Mission, Bombay. > Rudra Centre claimed that the beads were fake and were made from 3 mukhi oval beads eiether by sealing or cutting two other faces. Rudra Centre returned the beads to Chinmay Mission and collected back the amount paid to them. This raised a question in my mind. Chinmaya Mission Foundation is a organisation with a high reputation. It was next to impossible that they will sell fake beads. I started hunting for these beads. I got few beads. I checked these thoroughly as mentioned in my earlier mail. I then cut the bead. I found that there are two locules in a rudimentory state and only one is well developed and formed a seed. In botanical material there is much variation observed and especially the genus Elaeocarpus is known for very high degree of variation. > > I had some telephonic and mail correspondence with Mrs. Neetaji regarding 21 mukhi Rudraksha beads. I went to Bombay at her residence after fixing appointment. I showed her two 21 mukhi beads of my collection. During discussion, out of curiosity I showed her the one mukhi oval cut bead. She then asked her assistant to cut two three mukhi beads. One Indian, and the other of Nepal origin. The Indian oval 3 mukhi showed similar structure like one mukhi i.e. only one well developed locule and a seed. Two locules were in a rudimentory stage. The Nepal three mukhi showed 3 locules and three seeds in it. Does this mean that even 3 mukhi Indian is a fake as does not fulfill the requirements of 3 locules and 3 seeds ? Definitely it is not since it is a classic example of anatomical variation. After returning, I cut my 2 and 3 mukhi beads. These also showed the similar anatomical structures. Two days back when there was a discussion about the one mukhi, I thought I should share > this with club members. As mentioned earlier, I am ready to send you the beads for research purpose. Of course, you are free to cut these. I will also send scanned pictures of it on club site for everybody's information. Definitely these are not tampered 1 mukhi from 3 mukhi. You can take expert's advise on it. I would suggest you to send these beads to Dr. M.J.E. Coode, Herbarium, Royal Botanical Garden, Kew, Surrey, London, England. Dr. Coode is a world expert in the genus Elaeocarpus. You can have his opinion directly. > > The other round bead I have mentioned which shows only one cleft externally but 5 locules internally, I showed to Shri. Kamal Narayan Seethaji during my recent visit to Nagpur. I took with me the two 21 mukhi and few other beads mainly 13 and 14 mukhi. I showed him both the beads i.e. oval one mukhi (cut bead and a normal) and also round ek mukhi. I never tried to sell these beads eiether to Mrs. Neetaji or to Shri. Kamal Narayanji. I told him about my studies of the two beads. I also told him that though the other bead appears to be a genuine round ek mukhi externally, it shows 5 locules inside. And though I am a botanist, I am not able to interprete it. He did not accept my views and said it is one of the classic example of a fake bead. Of course, opinions may differ. Even in my earlier mail to you I have mentioned that I am not able to interprete these anatomical structures according to the conventional logical knowledge of Rudraksha beads. I would like to send these > beads to you. Kindly send your postal address. I did not put any part of my interaction eiether with Mrs. Neetaji, or with Shri. Kamal Narayanji, as it was all personal disussion. Since, you opened the topic on club site I had to give explanation to it. Opinions may diiffer. I have always high regards for both of them. > > In connection with 21 mukhi, I am writing to you seperately. > > Thanking you and with best wishes. > > Chandrashekhar Phadke > 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.