Are Nepali & Indonesian Rudraksha the Same Powers ???

[Guest guest]

The morphological characters of Indonesian or Java rudraksha are totally

different than

that of Nepal beads.  The ornamentation of both the beads is totally different. 

 

In Nepali bead the tubercled ornamentation is more prominent than in Java

beads. The

fruit  ornamentation is  with  smooth elevated structures in case of  Indonesian

beads. 

Clefts of Nepal beads are also more prominent than that of the Indonesian or

Java beads.  I

had sent both the types for species identification to the Royal Botanical

Garden, Kew,

England last year. They reported that both the species are the same though the

beads look

different. 

 

Question: Nepal Rudraksha and Indonesian Rudraksha were reported to both be the

same

species, though the beads are quite different. BUT: Can a totally mundane

organization

like the Royal Botanical Garden tell the difference in metaphysical "Powers?"

Example: a

lazy, useless man from the left, and a strong productive man from the right, are

BOTH to

be the same because of species ???

 

Best regards

R_

[Guest guest]

---

Respected Shri. Richard ji,

 

Thank you very much for your mail. The Royal Botanical Garden, Kew,

Surrey, England is concerned only with the pure taxonomical research

in the botany. It is necessary to study dimagnetic and

paramangenetic properties of both types of rudraksha i.e. Nepal

rudraksha and Indonesian rudraksha also Indian rudraksha (mainly

1,2, and 3 mukhi oval, 2 mukhi flat, 1 mukhi Cashewnut type etc.)

using most modern methods in physics. The other method as suggested

by you to experience the beads will also throw some useful light on

their properties. Modern science and spiritual science are totally

different from each other and personally though I am working as a

scientist, of the opinion that 'There is no answer to many questions

in Modern Science though such mystic things exists'.

 

Thanking you and with personal regards,

 

Chandrashekhar Phadke

 

 

In sacred-objects, "Richard Shaw Brown"

<rsbj66> wrote:

> The morphological characters of Indonesian or Java rudraksha are

totally different than

> that of Nepal beads.  The ornamentation of both the beads is

totally different. 

>  

> In Nepali bead the tubercled ornamentation is more prominent than

in Java beads. The

> fruit  ornamentation is  with  smooth elevated structures in case

of  Indonesian beads. 

> Clefts of Nepal beads are also more prominent than that of the

Indonesian or Java beads.  I

> had sent both the types for species identification to the Royal

Botanical Garden, Kew,

> England last year. They reported that both the species are the

same though the beads look

> different. 

>

> Question: Nepal Rudraksha and Indonesian Rudraksha were reported

to both be the same

> species, though the beads are quite different. BUT: Can a totally

mundane organization

> like the Royal Botanical Garden tell the difference in

metaphysical "Powers?" Example: a

> lazy, useless man from the left, and a strong productive man from

the right, are BOTH to

> be the same because of species ???

>

> Best regards

> R_

[Guest guest]

yes phadkesir, there is difference in the power of these

beads..though all seem powered. i have found power in haridwari

dana, nepali dana and even indonesian dana. but it feels, the nepali

dana is much powerful.

science can touch physics and can only unravel that at the moment.

metaphysics is yet to reveal itself to modern scientific methods.

wregds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sacred-objects, "Chandrashekhar"

<chphadke> wrote:

> ---

> Respected Shri. Richard ji,

>

> Thank you very much for your mail. The Royal Botanical Garden,

Kew,

> Surrey, England is concerned only with the pure taxonomical

research

> in the botany. It is necessary to study dimagnetic and

> paramangenetic properties of both types of rudraksha i.e. Nepal

> rudraksha and Indonesian rudraksha also Indian rudraksha (mainly

> 1,2, and 3 mukhi oval, 2 mukhi flat, 1 mukhi Cashewnut type etc.)

> using most modern methods in physics. The other method as

suggested

> by you to experience the beads will also throw some useful light

on

> their properties. Modern science and spiritual science are

totally

> different from each other and personally though I am working as a

> scientist, of the opinion that 'There is no answer to many

questions

> in Modern Science though such mystic things exists'.

>

> Thanking you and with personal regards,

>

> Chandrashekhar Phadke

>

>

> In sacred-objects, "Richard Shaw Brown"

> <rsbj66> wrote:

> > The morphological characters of Indonesian or Java rudraksha are

> totally different than

> > that of Nepal beads.  The ornamentation of both the beads is

> totally different. 

> >  

> > In Nepali bead the tubercled ornamentation is more prominent

than

> in Java beads. The

> > fruit  ornamentation is  with  smooth elevated structures in

case

> of  Indonesian beads. 

> > Clefts of Nepal beads are also more prominent than that of the

> Indonesian or Java beads.  I

> > had sent both the types for species identification to the Royal

> Botanical Garden, Kew,

> > England last year. They reported that both the species are the

> same though the beads look

> > different. 

> >

> > Question: Nepal Rudraksha and Indonesian Rudraksha were reported

> to both be the same

> > species, though the beads are quite different. BUT: Can a

totally

> mundane organization

> > like the Royal Botanical Garden tell the difference in

> metaphysical "Powers?" Example: a

> > lazy, useless man from the left, and a strong productive man

from

> the right, are BOTH to

> > be the same because of species ???

> >

> > Best regards

> > R_

[Guest guest]

Dear Aadi,

 

Your always right!!! Of course Nepali dhana is much more everything than the

others. As

for mundane science and spiritual belief, these are like oil and water, they

don't mix well.

And when I read scientific explainations of the powers of Rudraksha or Lakshmi

Shank it

makes me laugh. I am a gemologist, Gemology is a material science. But

planetary

gemology, like Ruby for the Sun, this is metaphysical... it deals with divinity

and aspects of

divinity, like the Grahadevas, etc. and if it works, thank God. Planetary

Gemology starts

where mundane gemology finishes. So when I hear these new age neo-scientific

explainations for sacred-objects it is not useful at all. Even if a fool has no

idea how food

is digested, still by eating he will benefit. Neither faith nor knowledge are

necessary to

benefit from a Rudraksha. Ah, luck is so easy! But actually what % of the global

population

use Rudraksha? In the West 99% have never even heard of it. So you must be

lucky to be

lucky; we must be blessed to get blessed.

 

Best rgds,

Richard

 

sacred-objects, "aadi291" <aadi291> wrote:

> yes phadkesir, there is difference in the power of these

> beads..though all seem powered. i have found power in haridwari

> dana, nepali dana and even indonesian dana. but it feels, the nepali

> dana is much powerful.

> science can touch physics and can only unravel that at the moment.

> metaphysics is yet to reveal itself to modern scientific methods.

> wregds

>

sacred-objects, "Chandrashekhar"

> <chphadke> wrote:

> > ---

> > Respected Shri. Richard ji,

> >

> > Thank you very much for your mail. The Royal Botanical Garden,

> Kew,

> > Surrey, England is concerned only with the pure taxonomical

> research

> > in the botany. It is necessary to study dimagnetic and

> > paramangenetic properties of both types of rudraksha i.e. Nepal

> > rudraksha and Indonesian rudraksha also Indian rudraksha (mainly

> > 1,2, and 3 mukhi oval, 2 mukhi flat, 1 mukhi Cashewnut type etc.)

> > using most modern methods in physics. The other method as

> suggested

> > by you to experience the beads will also throw some useful light

> on

> > their properties. Modern science and spiritual science are

> totally

> > different from each other and personally though I am working as a

> > scientist, of the opinion that 'There is no answer to many

> questions

> > in Modern Science though such mystic things exists'.

> >

> > Thanking you and with personal regards,

> >

> > Chandrashekhar Phadke

> >

> >

> > In sacred-objects, "Richard Shaw Brown"

> > <rsbj66> wrote:

> > > The morphological characters of Indonesian or Java rudraksha are

> > totally different than

> > > that of Nepal beads.  The ornamentation of both the beads is

> > totally different. 

> > >  

> > > In Nepali bead the tubercled ornamentation is more prominent

> than

> > in Java beads. The

> > > fruit  ornamentation is  with  smooth elevated structures in

> case

> > of  Indonesian beads. 

> > > Clefts of Nepal beads are also more prominent than that of the

> > Indonesian or Java beads.  I

> > > had sent both the types for species identification to the Royal

> > Botanical Garden, Kew,

> > > England last year. They reported that both the species are the

> > same though the beads look

> > > different. 

> > >

> > > Question: Nepal Rudraksha and Indonesian Rudraksha were reported

> > to both be the same

> > > species, though the beads are quite different. BUT: Can a

> totally

> > mundane organization

> > > like the Royal Botanical Garden tell the difference in

> > metaphysical "Powers?" Example: a

> > > lazy, useless man from the left, and a strong productive man

> from

> > the right, are BOTH to

> > > be the same because of species ???

> > >

> > > Best regards

> > > R_