Guest guest Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Jay has written that Shalagram Shila is a fossil. YES! An AMMONITE to be exact. Shalagram being an Ammonite fossil that debunks the " crab " theory and probably the " Vajrakita " theory too. Shalagrams are Ammonite fossils from Gandaki River. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 According to rational science they are indeed said to be ammonite fossils. But, according to the scriptures they are not fossils but are formed by Vajra keetam, a special kind of insect with diamond hard teeth.Richard Shaw-Brown <rsbj66 wrote: Jay has written that Shalagram Shila is a fossil. YES! An AMMONITE to be exact.Shalagram being an Ammonite fossil that debunks the "crab" theory and probably the "Vajrakita" theory too. Shalagrams are Ammonite fossils from Gandaki River. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 Namaste! Yes. So I wonder which is right: Fossil formed from remains (Ammonite)? Or stone carved by Vajrakita worms using their diamond hard tooth? Actually Shalagrams were formed millions of years ago... so perhaps they are BOTH correct. Any ideas? Y/s, Richard sacred-objects , Janardana Dasa <lightdweller wrote: > > According to rational science they are indeed said to be ammonite fossils. But, according to the scriptures they are not fossils but are formed by Vajra keetam, a special kind of insect with diamond hard teeth. > > Richard Shaw-Brown <rsbj66 wrote: Jay has written that Shalagram Shila is a fossil. YES! An AMMONITE to be exact. > > Shalagram being an Ammonite fossil that debunks the " crab " theory and probably the " Vajrakita " theory too. Shalagrams are Ammonite fossils from Gandaki River. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 Hello, Vajrakita is more mythic than scientfic but faith cannot be challenged. I remember an excerpt from King and I (Deborah Kerr and Yul Bryner 1956) when the King of Siam asks questions about The Bible when the patient and pragmatic English teacher justifies the differences between books of science and books of faith Excellent gem quality ammonite is found around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IridescentAmmonite.jpg Best Regards, JayRichard Shaw-Brown <rsbj66 wrote: Namaste! Yes. So I wonder which is right: Fossil formed from remains (Ammonite)? Or stone carved by Vajrakita worms using their diamond hard tooth? Actually Shalagrams were formed millions of years ago... so perhaps they are BOTH correct. Any ideas?Y/s,Richardsacred-objects , Janardana Dasa <lightdweller wrote:>> According to rational science they are indeed said to be ammonite fossils. But, according to the scriptures they are not fossils but are formed by Vajra keetam, a special kind of insect with diamond hard teeth.> > Richard Shaw-Brown <rsbj66 wrote: Jay has written that Shalagram Shila is a fossil. YES! An AMMONITE to be exact.> > Shalagram being an Ammonite fossil that debunks the "crab" theory and probably the "Vajrakita" theory too. Shalagrams are Ammonite fossils from Gandaki River.> > > > > > > > > > Do You ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 Dear Jay, Namaste!!! Yes! It's like science v/s faith... like the " big bang " verses creation. Why not both? Wouldn't God's creation start with a Big Bang!? Here is good info on Shalagram http://www.agt-gems.com/Book/Salagram.html The most " gem museum quality " Shalagram I have EVER seen is pictured here TOGETHER with Lakshmi Shank. I never saw a combo picture like this anywhere else. Page Includes: According to the Gautamiya Tantra, " a stone from any place other than the Gandaki River in Nepal can never be a Salagrama Sila. " Best wishes, Richard sacred-objects , Jay Munshi <jaymunshi wrote: > > Hello, > > Vajrakita is more mythic than scientfic but faith cannot be challenged. > > I remember an excerpt from King and I (Deborah Kerr and Yul Bryner 1956) when the King of Siam asks questions about The Bible when the patient and pragmatic English teacher justifies the differences between books of science and books of faith > > Excellent gem quality ammonite is found around the world. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IridescentAmmonite.jpg > > Best Regards, > > Jay > > Richard Shaw-Brown <rsbj66 wrote: > Namaste! Yes. So I wonder which is right: Fossil formed from remains (Ammonite)? Or stone carved by Vajrakita worms using their diamond hard tooth? Actually Shalagrams were formed millions of years ago... so perhaps they are BOTH correct. Any ideas? > > Y/s, > Richard > > sacred-objects , Janardana Dasa <lightdweller@> wrote: > > > > According to rational science they are indeed said to be ammonite fossils. But, > according to the scriptures they are not fossils but are formed by Vajra keetam, a special > kind of insect with diamond hard teeth. > > > > Richard Shaw-Brown <rsbj66@> wrote: Jay has written that Shalagram Shila is a > fossil. YES! An AMMONITE to be exact. > > > > Shalagram being an Ammonite fossil that debunks the " crab " theory and probably the > " Vajrakita " theory too. Shalagrams are Ammonite fossils from Gandaki River. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.