Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

July 2, 2009

The question of Syamantaka Gem being the Koh-i-Noor diamond is impossible to

prove, and one can only speculate. But anyone can view the actual Koh-i-Noor

diamond in the Tower of London, and at mere 105 carats it is not impressive,

especially when compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it

looks small. Certainly nothing like the awesome Syamantaka Gem described in

Srimad Bhagavatam. It does not " look like the Sun " , and is hard to see even from

5 feet away. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd. If

the little Koh-i-Noor was proved to be the great Syamantaka gem then the Hindu

Scriptures could be found guilty of gross exaggerations. Seeing is disbelieving!

--- Y/s, Richard

sacred-objects , KRISNA <paraman777 wrote:

>

> DEAR SIRS

> THERE IS BELIEF THAT KOHINOOR WAS THE SYAMANTHAKA,TAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND CUT

INTO TWO FOR KING AND QUEEN

> BUT AS SAID BY SRI RICHARDJI,IT SEEMS BASELESS,AS KOHINOOR,USED TO PUT NEARLY

2KG OF GOLD EACH DAY WHEREVER IT WAS PUT

> ALSO SHINED LIKE THE SUN(MEANS VERY GLITTERING EMITTING LIGHT) AS STATED BY

SRI RICHARDJI

> BUT WHEVER POSSESSED HAD SOME PROBLEMS AS SEEN IN THE BHAGAVATHA PURANA

> IT COULD ONLY BE KEPT/TOUCHEDï¿½ BY VERY STAUCH DEVOTEES SUCH AS AKRURA,

SATRAJITH KING,THE GREAT JAAMBAVAN JI ETC ETC

> Krisna

>

> --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 wrote:

>

> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66

> Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?

> " Planetary Group Group " <planetary-gemology >, " Sacred

Group Group " <sacred-objects >

> Wednesday, 1 July, 2009, 9:27 PM

>

Hello all,

>

> Some kooks have been bugging me trying to say that the Koh i Noor diamond in

the Tower of London's Crown Jewels is the very same Syamantaka. Here is my reply

to such speculative nonsense...

>

> The question of Syamantaka is impossible to prove, and one can speculate in

any way one feels happy. Personally I have seen the Koh i noor, which you can

also see, in the Tower of London, and I was NOT impressed. At 105 carats it

looked small compared to it's reputation (less than 2 inches). It was not

impressive, compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it

looked tiny. Certainly NOT the great Syamantaka Gem as described in Bhagavatam.

It did NOT look like the Sungod. In fact, it was hard to see even standing 5

feet away. So, seeing is believing. With the so-called evidence at hand the

claim becomes absurd.

>

> Richard Shaw Brown, PG

>

> Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

>

> www.richardshawbrow n.com

>

> New Email addresses available on

>

> Get the Email name you & #39;ve always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

>

> Hurry before someone else does!

>

> http://mail. promotions. / newdomains/ aa/

>

New Email names for you!

> Get the Email name you & #39;ve always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

> Hurry before someone else does!

> http://mail.promotions./newdomains/aa/

>

July 3, 2009

In Hindu scriptures exaggeration is found many times....however i read somewhere that Koh I noor was originally from some temple of south India and it was fitted in temple moorti as one eye of that temple deity... Always wonder where is other eye????further the original Koh i noor was bigger than the present Koh i noor....after bringing koh i noor to UK they recut that stone...hence size got reduced....--- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 wrote:Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!sacred-objects Date: Friday, 3 July, 2009, 1:28 AMThe question of

Syamantaka Gem being the Koh-i-Noor diamond is impossible to prove, and one can only speculate. But anyone can view the actual Koh-i-Noor diamond in the Tower of London, and at mere 105 carats it is not impressive, especially when compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looks small. Certainly nothing like the awesome Syamantaka Gem described in Srimad Bhagavatam. It does not "look like the Sun", and is hard to see even from 5 feet away. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd. If the little Koh-i-Noor was proved to be the great Syamantaka gem then the Hindu Scriptures could be found guilty of gross exaggerations. Seeing is disbelieving! --- Y/s, Richardsacred-objects , KRISNA <paraman777 wrote:>> DEAR SIRS> THERE IS BELIEF THAT KOHINOOR WAS

THE SYAMANTHAKA,TAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND CUT INTO TWO FOR KING AND QUEEN> BUT AS SAID BY SRI RICHARDJI,IT SEEMS BASELESS,AS KOHINOOR,USED TO PUT NEARLY 2KG OF GOLD EACH DAY WHEREVER IT WAS PUT> ALSO SHINED LIKE THE SUN(MEANS VERY GLITTERING EMITTING LIGHT) AS STATED BY SRI RICHARDJI> BUT WHEVER POSSESSED HAD SOME PROBLEMS AS SEEN IN THE BHAGAVATHA PURANA> IT COULD ONLY BE KEPT/TOUCHEDï¿½ BY VERY STAUCH DEVOTEES SUCH AS AKRURA, SATRAJITH KING,THE GREAT JAAMBAVAN JI ETC ETC> Krisna> > > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 wrote:> > Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66> Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?> "Planetary Group Group" <planetary-gemology >, "Sacred Group Group"

<sacred-objects >> Wednesday, 1 July, 2009, 9:27 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all,> > > > Some kooks have been bugging me trying to say that the Koh i Noor diamond in the Tower of London's Crown Jewels is the very same Syamantaka. Here is my reply to such speculative nonsense...> > > > The question of Syamantaka is impossible to prove, and one can speculate in any way one feels happy. Personally I have seen the Koh i noor, which you

can also see, in the Tower of London, and I was NOT impressed. At 105 carats it looked small compared to it's reputation (less than 2 inches). It was not impressive, compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looked tiny. Certainly NOT the great Syamantaka Gem as described in Bhagavatam. It did NOT look like the Sungod. In fact, it was hard to see even standing 5 feet away. So, seeing is believing. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd.> > > > Richard Shaw Brown, PG> > Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author> > www.richardshawbrow n.com> > > > New Email addresses available on > > Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. > > Hurry before someone else does!> > http://mail. promotions. /

newdomains/ aa/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New Email names for you! > Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. > Hurry before someone else does!> http://mail.promotions./newdomains/aa/>---

July 3, 2009

Dear Sriman,The Idol's (middle) eye that you mention is (now called) the blue Hope diamond, in Smithsonian. The Koh-i-Noor, even if cut down by 50% could still not appear like the description of Syamantaka in Bhagavatam. It would have to be a million times greater to look like Syamantaka. The Koh-i-Noor is NO big deal. It is little and nothing like Syamantaka. Anyone can go see for themselves. If you see a brilliant GREAT GEM and it's like looking into the Sun, then it's real. But if you see a small diamond of 105 cts with no brightness you will know you're NOT looking at Syamantaka Gem from Surya.Y/s,RichardRichard Shaw Brown, PGMusician, Designer, Gemologist & Authorwww.richardshawbrown.com--- On Fri, 3/7/09, himanshu gupte <hrgupte wrote:himanshu gupte <hrgupteRe: Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!sacred-objects Date: Friday, 3 July, 2009, 10:24 AM

In Hindu scriptures exaggeration is found many times....however i read somewhere that Koh I noor was originally from some temple of south India and it was fitted in temple moorti as one eye of that temple deity... Always wonder where is other eye????further the original Koh i noor was bigger than the present Koh i noor....after bringing koh i noor to UK they recut that stone...hence size got reduced....--- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 > wrote:Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 > Re: Is Syamantaka Gem

the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!sacred-objectsFriday, 3 July, 2009, 1:28 AMThe question of

Syamantaka Gem being the Koh-i-Noor diamond is impossible to prove, and one can only speculate. But anyone can view the actual Koh-i-Noor diamond in the Tower of London, and at mere 105 carats it is not impressive, especially when compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looks small. Certainly nothing like the awesome Syamantaka Gem described in Srimad Bhagavatam. It does not "look like the Sun", and is hard to see even from 5 feet away. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd. If the little Koh-i-Noor was proved to be the great Syamantaka gem then the Hindu Scriptures could be found guilty of gross exaggerations. Seeing is disbelieving! --- Y/s, Richardsacred-objects, KRISNA <paraman777@. ..> wrote:>> DEAR SIRS> THERE IS BELIEF THAT KOHINOOR WAS

THE SYAMANTHAKA, TAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND CUT INTO TWO FOR KING AND QUEEN> BUT AS SAID BY SRI RICHARDJI,IT SEEMS BASELESS,AS KOHINOOR,USED TO PUT NEARLY 2KG OF GOLD EACH DAY WHEREVER IT WAS PUT> ALSO SHINED LIKE THE SUN(MEANS VERY GLITTERING EMITTING LIGHT) AS STATED BY SRI RICHARDJI> BUT WHEVER POSSESSED HAD SOME PROBLEMS AS SEEN IN THE BHAGAVATHA PURANA> IT COULD ONLY BE KEPT/TOUCHEDï¿½ BY VERY STAUCH DEVOTEES SUCH AS AKRURA, SATRAJITH KING,THE GREAT JAAMBAVAN JI ETC ETC> Krisna> > > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 wrote:> > Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66> Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?> "Planetary Group Group" <planetary-gemology>, "Sacred Group Group"

<sacred-objects>> Wednesday, 1 July, 2009, 9:27 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all,> > > > Some kooks have been bugging me trying to say that the Koh i Noor diamond in the Tower of London's Crown Jewels is the very same Syamantaka. Here is my reply to such speculative nonsense...> > > > The question of Syamantaka is impossible to prove, and one can speculate in any way one feels happy. Personally I have seen the Koh i noor, which you

can also see, in the Tower of London, and I was NOT impressed. At 105 carats it looked small compared to it's reputation (less than 2 inches). It was not impressive, compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looked tiny. Certainly NOT the great Syamantaka Gem as described in Bhagavatam. It did NOT look like the Sungod. In fact, it was hard to see even standing 5 feet away. So, seeing is believing. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd.> > > > Richard Shaw Brown, PG> > Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author> > www.richardshawbrow n.com> > > > New Email addresses available on > > Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. > > Hurry before someone else does!> > http://mail. promotions.

/

newdomains/ aa/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New Email names for you! > Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. > Hurry before someone else does!> http://mail. promotions. / newdomains/ aa/>------------ --------- --------- ------

July 3, 2009

Dear Richard JiCould you kindly describe how syamantaka is described in Bhagavatam and how we can visualize itbest regardsVignheshRichard Shaw Brown <rsbj66sacred-objects Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 12:52:50 PM Re: Is

Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

Dear Sriman,The Idol's (middle) eye that you mention is (now called) the blue Hope diamond, in Smithsonian. The Koh-i-Noor, even if cut down by 50% could still not appear like the description of Syamantaka in Bhagavatam. It would have to be a million times greater to look like Syamantaka. The Koh-i-Noor is NO big deal. It is little and nothing like Syamantaka. Anyone can go see for themselves. If you see a brilliant GREAT GEM and it's like looking into the Sun, then it's real. But if you see a small diamond of 105 cts with no brightness you will know you're NOT looking at Syamantaka Gem from Surya.Y/s,RichardRichard Shaw Brown, PGMusician, Designer, Gemologist & Authorwww.richardshawbrow n.com--- On Fri, 3/7/09, himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk>Re: Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!sacred-objectsFriday, 3 July, 2009, 10:24 AM

In Hindu scriptures exaggeration is found many times....however i read somewhere that Koh I noor was originally from some temple of south India and it was fitted in temple moorti as one eye of that temple deity... Always wonder where is other eye????further the original Koh i noor was bigger than the present Koh i noor....after bringing koh i noor to UK they recut that stone...hence size got reduced....--- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 > wrote:Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 > Re: Is Syamantaka Gem

the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!sacred-objectsFriday, 3 July, 2009, 1:28 AMThe question of

Syamantaka Gem being the Koh-i-Noor diamond is impossible to prove, and one can only speculate. But anyone can view the actual Koh-i-Noor diamond in the Tower of London, and at mere 105 carats it is not impressive, especially when compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looks small. Certainly nothing like the awesome Syamantaka Gem described in Srimad Bhagavatam. It does not "look like the Sun", and is hard to see even from 5 feet away. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd. If the little Koh-i-Noor was proved to be the great Syamantaka gem then the Hindu Scriptures could be found guilty of gross exaggerations. Seeing is disbelieving! --- Y/s, Richardsacred-objects, KRISNA <paraman777@. ..> wrote:>> DEAR SIRS> THERE IS BELIEF THAT KOHINOOR WAS

THE SYAMANTHAKA, TAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND CUT INTO TWO FOR KING AND QUEEN> BUT AS SAID BY SRI RICHARDJI,IT SEEMS BASELESS,AS KOHINOOR,USED TO PUT NEARLY 2KG OF GOLD EACH DAY WHEREVER IT WAS PUT> ALSO SHINED LIKE THE SUN(MEANS VERY GLITTERING EMITTING LIGHT) AS STATED BY SRI RICHARDJI> BUT WHEVER POSSESSED HAD SOME PROBLEMS AS SEEN IN THE BHAGAVATHA PURANA> IT COULD ONLY BE KEPT/TOUCHEDï¿½ BY VERY STAUCH DEVOTEES SUCH AS AKRURA, SATRAJITH KING,THE GREAT JAAMBAVAN JI ETC ETC> Krisna> > > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 wrote:> > Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66> Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?> "Planetary Group Group" <planetary-gemology>, "Sacred Group Group"

<sacred-objects>> Wednesday, 1 July, 2009, 9:27 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all,> > > > Some kooks have been bugging me trying to say that the Koh i Noor diamond in the Tower of London's Crown Jewels is the very same Syamantaka. Here is my reply to such speculative nonsense...> > > > The question of Syamantaka is impossible to prove, and one can speculate in any way one feels happy. Personally I have seen the Koh i noor, which you

can also see, in the Tower of London, and I was NOT impressed. At 105 carats it looked small compared to it's reputation (less than 2 inches). It was not impressive, compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looked tiny. Certainly NOT the great Syamantaka Gem as described in Bhagavatam. It did NOT look like the Sungod. In fact, it was hard to see even standing 5 feet away. So, seeing is believing. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd.> > > > Richard Shaw Brown, PG> > Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author> > www.richardshawbrow n.com> > > > New Email addresses available on > > Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. > > Hurry before someone else does!> > http://mail. promotions.

/

newdomains/ aa/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New Email names for you! > Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail. > Hurry before someone else does!> http://mail. promotions. / newdomains/ aa/>------------ --------- --------- ------

July 3, 2009

Syamantaka Ruby or Shyamantaka Blue Sapphire?

Many Hindus know this story, but a common mistake of spelling wrongly as

" Shyamantaka " has led to the incorrect idea that Syamantaka was a blue sapphire

(Saturn's gem). Even Amar Chitra Katha comic books in India, as well as Indian

artists make this mistake. They spell as Shyamantaka and show the Sun God is

giving a blue sapphire to Satrajit. If anyone looks at the Sanskrit they will

see it is not spelled Shyamantaka (Shyam means dark or dark blue), the real

spelling is " SYAMANTAKA " which is the Ruby (Sun's gem) after which the story is

named. According to Jyotish or Planetary Gemology, in the Navaratna setting ruby

is the gem of the Sun.

In support of Syamantaka being a ruby here are two verses from the Bhagavat

Purana, which describe Satrajit wearing the gem given to him by Surya, the

Sungod.

" Wearing the jewel on his neck, Satrajit entered Dvaraka. He shone as brightly

as the sun itself, O King, and thus he went unrecognized because of the jewel's

effulgence " . - Ref. SB 10.56.4 (Koh-i-Noor is not as bright as a hand-held flash

light - Haaa!!!)

" As the people looked at Satrajit from a distance, his brilliance blinded them.

They presumed he was the sun-god, Surya " . - Ref. SB 10.56.5 (Sun's gem is ruby -

daaah!).

The evidence and logic indicate that Syamantaka was a great ruby, gem of the

Sungod.[3][4][5].

---SURELY NOT THE PUNY DIAMOND IN TOWER OF LONDON.

Y/s,

Richard

sacred-objects , akshay vignhesh <akshay_vignhesh

wrote:

>

> Dear Richard Ji

>

> Could you kindly describe how syamantaka is described in Bhagavatam and how

we can visualize it

>

> best regards

> Vignhesh

>

> ________________________________

> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66

> sacred-objects

> Friday, July 3, 2009 12:52:50 PM

> Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO

SEE!!!

>

> Dear Sriman,

>

> The Idol's (middle) eye that you mention is (now called) the blue Hope

diamond, in Smithsonian. The Koh-i-Noor, even if cut down by 50% could still not

appear like the description of Syamantaka in Bhagavatam. It would have to be a

million times greater to look like Syamantaka. The Koh-i-Noor is NO big deal. It

is little and nothing like Syamantaka. Anyone can go see for themselves. If you

see a brilliant GREAT GEM and it's like looking into the Sun, then it's real.

But if you see a small diamond of 105 cts with no brightness you will know

you're NOT looking at Syamantaka Gem from Surya.

>

> Y/s,

> Richard

>

> Richard Shaw Brown, PG

> Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

> www.richardshawbrow n.com

>

> --- On Fri, 3/7/09, himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

>

> >himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk>

> >Re: Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? -

GO SEE!!!

> >sacred-objects

> >Friday, 3 July, 2009, 10:24 AM

> >

> >In Hindu scriptures exaggeration is found many times....however i read

somewhere that Koh I noor was originally from some temple of south India and it

was fitted in temple moorti as one eye of that temple deity...

> >Always wonder where is other eye????

> >further the original Koh i noor was bigger than the present Koh i

noor....after bringing koh i noor to UK they recut that stone...hence size got

reduced....

> >

> >--- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 > wrote:

> >

> >>Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 >

> >> Re: Is Syamantaka Gem

> >> the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

> >>sacred-objects

> >>Friday, 3 July, 2009, 1:28 AM

> >>

> >>The question of

> >> Syamantaka Gem being the Koh-i-Noor diamond is impossible to prove, and one

can only speculate. But anyone can view the actual Koh-i-Noor diamond in the

Tower of London, and at mere 105 carats it is not impressive, especially when

compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looks small.

Certainly nothing like the awesome Syamantaka Gem described in Srimad

Bhagavatam. It does not " look like the Sun " , and is hard to see even from 5 feet

away. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd. If the

little Koh-i-Noor was proved to be the great Syamantaka gem then the Hindu

Scriptures could be found guilty of gross exaggerations. Seeing is disbelieving!

--- Y/s, Richard

> >>

> >>sacred-objects, KRISNA <paraman777@ ..> wrote:

> >>>

> >>> DEAR SIRS

> >>> THERE IS BELIEF THAT KOHINOOR WAS

> >> THE SYAMANTHAKA, TAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND CUT INTO TWO FOR KING AND QUEEN

> >>> BUT AS SAID BY SRI RICHARDJI,IT SEEMS BASELESS,AS KOHINOOR,USED TO PUT

NEARLY 2KG OF GOLD EACH DAY WHEREVER IT WAS PUT

> >>> ALSO SHINED LIKE THE SUN(MEANS VERY GLITTERING EMITTING LIGHT) AS STATED

BY SRI RICHARDJI

> >>> BUT WHEVER POSSESSED HAD SOME PROBLEMS AS SEEN IN THE BHAGAVATHA PURANA

> >>> IT COULD ONLY BE KEPT/TOUCHEDï¿½ BY VERY STAUCH DEVOTEES SUCH AS AKRURA,

SATRAJITH KING,THE GREAT JAAMBAVAN JI ETC ETC

> >>> Krisna

> >>>

> >>> --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@> wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@>

> >>> Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?

> >>> " Planetary Group Group " <planetary-gemology>,

" Sacred Group Group "

> >> <sacred-objects>

> >>> Wednesday, 1 July, 2009, 9:27 PM

> >>>

> >>> Hello all,

> >>>

> >>> Some kooks have been bugging me trying to say that the Koh i Noor diamond

in the Tower of London's Crown Jewels is the very same Syamantaka. Here is my

reply to such speculative nonsense...

> >>>

> >>> The question of Syamantaka is impossible to prove, and one can speculate

in any way one feels happy. Personally I have seen the Koh i noor, which you

> >> can also see, in the Tower of London, and I was NOT impressed. At 105

carats it looked small compared to it's reputation (less than 2 inches). It was

not impressive, compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it

looked tiny. Certainly NOT the great Syamantaka Gem as described in Bhagavatam.

It did NOT look like the Sungod. In fact, it was hard to see even standing 5

feet away. So, seeing is believing. With the so-called evidence at hand the

claim becomes absurd.

> >>>

> >>> Richard Shaw Brown, PG

> >>>

> >>> Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

> >>>

> >>> www.richardshawbrow n.com

> >>>

> >>> New Email addresses available on

> >>>

> >>> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

> >>>

> >>> Hurry before someone else does!

> >>>

> >>> http://mail. promotions.

> >> / >> newdomains/ aa/

> >>>

> >>> New Email names for you!

> >>> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

> >>> Hurry before someone else does!

> >>> http://mail. promotions. / newdomains/ aa/

> >>>

> >>

> >>------------ --------- --------- ------

> >>

July 3, 2009

dear richard jithanks for enlightenmentbest regardsVignhesh Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66sacred-objects Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 3:01:54 PM Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

Syamantaka Ruby or Shyamantaka Blue Sapphire?

Many Hindus know this story, but a common mistake of spelling wrongly as "Shyamantaka" has led to the incorrect idea that Syamantaka was a blue sapphire (Saturn's gem). Even Amar Chitra Katha comic books in India, as well as Indian artists make this mistake. They spell as Shyamantaka and show the Sun God is giving a blue sapphire to Satrajit. If anyone looks at the Sanskrit they will see it is not spelled Shyamantaka (Shyam means dark or dark blue), the real spelling is "SYAMANTAKA" which is the Ruby (Sun's gem) after which the story is named. According to Jyotish or Planetary Gemology, in the Navaratna setting ruby is the gem of the Sun.

In support of Syamantaka being a ruby here are two verses from the Bhagavat Purana, which describe Satrajit wearing the gem given to him by Surya, the Sungod.

"Wearing the jewel on his neck, Satrajit entered Dvaraka. He shone as brightly as the sun itself, O King, and thus he went unrecognized because of the jewel's effulgence". - Ref. SB 10.56.4 (Koh-i-Noor is not as bright as a hand-held flash light - Haaa!!!)

"As the people looked at Satrajit from a distance, his brilliance blinded them. They presumed he was the sun-god, Surya". - Ref. SB 10.56.5 (Sun's gem is ruby - daaah!).

The evidence and logic indicate that Syamantaka was a great ruby, gem of the Sungod.[3][4] [5].

---SURELY NOT THE PUNY DIAMOND IN TOWER OF LONDON.

Y/s,

Richard

sacred-objects, akshay vignhesh <akshay_vignhesh@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Richard Ji

>

> Could you kindly describe how syamantaka is described in Bhagavatam and how we can visualize it

>

> best regards

> Vignhesh

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66

> sacred-objects

> Friday, July 3, 2009 12:52:50 PM

> Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

>

> Dear Sriman,

>

> The Idol's (middle) eye that you mention is (now called) the blue Hope diamond, in Smithsonian. The Koh-i-Noor, even if cut down by 50% could still not appear like the description of Syamantaka in Bhagavatam. It would have to be a million times greater to look like Syamantaka. The Koh-i-Noor is NO big deal. It is little and nothing like Syamantaka. Anyone can go see for themselves. If you see a brilliant GREAT GEM and it's like looking into the Sun, then it's real. But if you see a small diamond of 105 cts with no brightness you will know you're NOT looking at Syamantaka Gem from Surya.

>

> Y/s,

> Richard

>

> Richard Shaw Brown, PG

> Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

> www.richardshawbrow n.com

>

> --- On Fri, 3/7/09, himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

>

> >himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk>

> >Re: Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

> >sacred-objects

> >Friday, 3 July, 2009, 10:24 AM

> >

> >In Hindu scriptures exaggeration is found many times....however i read somewhere that Koh I noor was originally from some temple of south India and it was fitted in temple moorti as one eye of that temple deity...

> >Always wonder where is other eye????

> >further the original Koh i noor was bigger than the present Koh i noor....after bringing koh i noor to UK they recut that stone...hence size got reduced....

> >

> >--- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 > wrote:

> >

> >>Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 >

> >> Re: Is Syamantaka Gem

> >> the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

> >>sacred-objects

> >>Friday, 3 July, 2009, 1:28 AM

> >>

> >>The question of

> >> Syamantaka Gem being the Koh-i-Noor diamond is impossible to prove, and one can only speculate. But anyone can view the actual Koh-i-Noor diamond in the Tower of London, and at mere 105 carats it is not impressive, especially when compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looks small. Certainly nothing like the awesome Syamantaka Gem described in Srimad Bhagavatam. It does not "look like the Sun", and is hard to see even from 5 feet away. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd. If the little Koh-i-Noor was proved to be the great Syamantaka gem then the Hindu Scriptures could be found guilty of gross exaggerations. Seeing is disbelieving! --- Y/s, Richard

> >>

> >>sacred-objects, KRISNA <paraman777@ ..> wrote:

> >>>

> >>> DEAR SIRS

> >>> THERE IS BELIEF THAT KOHINOOR WAS

> >> THE SYAMANTHAKA, TAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND CUT INTO TWO FOR KING AND QUEEN

> >>> BUT AS SAID BY SRI RICHARDJI,IT SEEMS BASELESS,AS KOHINOOR,USED TO PUT NEARLY 2KG OF GOLD EACH DAY WHEREVER IT WAS PUT

> >>> ALSO SHINED LIKE THE SUN(MEANS VERY GLITTERING EMITTING LIGHT) AS STATED BY SRI RICHARDJI

> >>> BUT WHEVER POSSESSED HAD SOME PROBLEMS AS SEEN IN THE BHAGAVATHA PURANA

> >>> IT COULD ONLY BE KEPT/TOUCHEDï¿½ BY VERY STAUCH DEVOTEES SUCH AS AKRURA, SATRAJITH KING,THE GREAT JAAMBAVAN JI ETC ETC

> >>> Krisna

> >>>

> >>> --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@> wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@>

> >>> Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?

> >>> "Planetary Group Group" <planetary-gemology >, "Sacred Group Group"

> >> <sacred-objects>

> >>> Wednesday, 1 July, 2009, 9:27 PM

> >>>

> >>> Hello all,

> >>>

> >>> Some kooks have been bugging me trying to say that the Koh i Noor diamond in the Tower of London's Crown Jewels is the very same Syamantaka. Here is my reply to such speculative nonsense...

> >>>

> >>> The question of Syamantaka is impossible to prove, and one can speculate in any way one feels happy. Personally I have seen the Koh i noor, which you

> >> can also see, in the Tower of London, and I was NOT impressed. At 105 carats it looked small compared to it's reputation (less than 2 inches). It was not impressive, compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looked tiny. Certainly NOT the great Syamantaka Gem as described in Bhagavatam. It did NOT look like the Sungod. In fact, it was hard to see even standing 5 feet away. So, seeing is believing. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd.

> >>>

> >>> Richard Shaw Brown, PG

> >>>

> >>> Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

> >>>

> >>> www.richardshawbrow n.com

> >>>

> >>> New Email addresses available on

> >>>

> >>> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

> >>>

> >>> Hurry before someone else does!

> >>>

> >>> http://mail. promotions.

> >> / >> newdomains/ aa/

> >>>

> >>> New Email names for you!

> >>> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

> >>> Hurry before someone else does!

> >>> http://mail. promotions. / newdomains/ aa/

> >>>

> >>

> >>---------- -- --------- --------- ------

> >>

July 4, 2009

siralso no ruby or blue sapphire is known to put gold where it is placed as said about syamantakahence syamantaka is not either,but it is syamantaka onlythere are deva manis and earthly gemsgems of GODS are miraculous in many ways it is saidit is said in Gruda purana that a cobra is blinded with true original emeraldcan any body blind a cobra with their what they call original emaralds ?with the present gem sellers?no never,we have heard italso in garuda purana there is reference about BHISHMA MANI,which if possessed gives many pleasures wealth health etc and even lion can not approach him who possess thisit is described as having orange hue and belongs to Burma regioncan we know what the gem is?nobody has an idea?nature's mystic gifts????sairamkrisna--- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard

Shaw Brown <rsbj66 wrote:Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!sacred-objects Date: Friday, 3 July, 2009, 4:31 PM

Syamantaka Ruby or Shyamantaka Blue Sapphire?

Many Hindus know this story, but a common mistake of spelling wrongly as "Shyamantaka" has led to the incorrect idea that Syamantaka was a blue sapphire (Saturn's gem). Even Amar Chitra Katha comic books in India, as well as Indian artists make this mistake. They spell as Shyamantaka and show the Sun God is giving a blue sapphire to Satrajit. If anyone looks at the Sanskrit they will see it is not spelled Shyamantaka (Shyam means dark or dark blue), the real spelling is "SYAMANTAKA" which is the Ruby (Sun's gem) after which the story is named. According to Jyotish or Planetary Gemology, in the Navaratna setting ruby is the gem of the Sun.

In support of Syamantaka being a ruby here are two verses from the Bhagavat Purana, which describe Satrajit wearing the gem given to him by Surya, the Sungod.

"Wearing the jewel on his neck, Satrajit entered Dvaraka. He shone as brightly as the sun itself, O King, and thus he went unrecognized because of the jewel's effulgence". - Ref. SB 10.56.4 (Koh-i-Noor is not as bright as a hand-held flash light - Haaa!!!)

"As the people looked at Satrajit from a distance, his brilliance blinded them. They presumed he was the sun-god, Surya". - Ref. SB 10.56.5 (Sun's gem is ruby - daaah!).

The evidence and logic indicate that Syamantaka was a great ruby, gem of the Sungod.[3][4] [5].

---SURELY NOT THE PUNY DIAMOND IN TOWER OF LONDON.

Y/s,

Richard

sacred-objects, akshay vignhesh <akshay_vignhesh@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Richard Ji

>

> Could you kindly describe how syamantaka is described in Bhagavatam and how we can visualize it

>

> best regards

> Vignhesh

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66

> sacred-objects

> Friday, July 3, 2009 12:52:50 PM

> Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

>

> Dear Sriman,

>

> The Idol's (middle) eye that you mention is (now called) the blue Hope diamond, in Smithsonian. The Koh-i-Noor, even if cut down by 50% could still not appear like the description of Syamantaka in Bhagavatam. It would have to be a million times greater to look like Syamantaka. The Koh-i-Noor is NO big deal. It is little and nothing like Syamantaka. Anyone can go see for themselves. If you see a brilliant GREAT GEM and it's like looking into the Sun, then it's real. But if you see a small diamond of 105 cts with no brightness you will know you're NOT looking at Syamantaka Gem from Surya.

>

> Y/s,

> Richard

>

> Richard Shaw Brown, PG

> Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

> www.richardshawbrow n.com

>

> --- On Fri, 3/7/09, himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

>

> >himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk>

> >Re: Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

> >sacred-objects

> >Friday, 3 July, 2009, 10:24 AM

> >

> >In Hindu scriptures exaggeration is found many times....however i read somewhere that Koh I noor was originally from some temple of south India and it was fitted in temple moorti as one eye of that temple deity...

> >Always wonder where is other eye????

> >further the original Koh i noor was bigger than the present Koh i noor....after bringing koh i noor to UK they recut that stone...hence size got reduced....

> >

> >--- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 > wrote:

> >

> >>Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 >

> >> Re: Is Syamantaka Gem

> >> the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

> >>sacred-objects

> >>Friday, 3 July, 2009, 1:28 AM

> >>

> >>The question of

> >> Syamantaka Gem being the Koh-i-Noor diamond is impossible to prove, and one can only speculate. But anyone can view the actual Koh-i-Noor diamond in the Tower of London, and at mere 105 carats it is not impressive, especially when compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looks small. Certainly nothing like the awesome Syamantaka Gem described in Srimad Bhagavatam. It does not "look like the Sun", and is hard to see even from 5 feet away. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd. If the little Koh-i-Noor was proved to be the great Syamantaka gem then the Hindu Scriptures could be found guilty of gross exaggerations. Seeing is disbelieving! --- Y/s, Richard

> >>

> >>sacred-objects, KRISNA <paraman777@ ..> wrote:

> >>>

> >>> DEAR SIRS

> >>> THERE IS BELIEF THAT KOHINOOR WAS

> >> THE SYAMANTHAKA, TAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND CUT INTO TWO FOR KING AND QUEEN

> >>> BUT AS SAID BY SRI RICHARDJI,IT SEEMS BASELESS,AS KOHINOOR,USED TO PUT NEARLY 2KG OF GOLD EACH DAY WHEREVER IT WAS PUT

> >>> ALSO SHINED LIKE THE SUN(MEANS VERY GLITTERING EMITTING LIGHT) AS STATED BY SRI RICHARDJI

> >>> BUT WHEVER POSSESSED HAD SOME PROBLEMS AS SEEN IN THE BHAGAVATHA PURANA

> >>> IT COULD ONLY BE KEPT/TOUCHEDï¿½ BY VERY STAUCH DEVOTEES SUCH AS AKRURA, SATRAJITH KING,THE GREAT JAAMBAVAN JI ETC ETC

> >>> Krisna

> >>>

> >>> --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@> wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@>

> >>> Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?

> >>> "Planetary Group Group" <planetary-gemology >, "Sacred Group Group"

> >> <sacred-objects>

> >>> Wednesday, 1 July, 2009, 9:27 PM

> >>>

> >>> Hello all,

> >>>

> >>> Some kooks have been bugging me trying to say that the Koh i Noor diamond in the Tower of London's Crown Jewels is the very same Syamantaka. Here is my reply to such speculative nonsense...

> >>>

> >>> The question of Syamantaka is impossible to prove, and one can speculate in any way one feels happy. Personally I have seen the Koh i noor, which you

> >> can also see, in the Tower of London, and I was NOT impressed. At 105 carats it looked small compared to it's reputation (less than 2 inches). It was not impressive, compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looked tiny. Certainly NOT the great Syamantaka Gem as described in Bhagavatam. It did NOT look like the Sungod. In fact, it was hard to see even standing 5 feet away. So, seeing is believing. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd.

> >>>

> >>> Richard Shaw Brown, PG

> >>>

> >>> Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

> >>>

> >>> www.richardshawbrow n.com

> >>>

> >>> New Email addresses available on

> >>>

> >>> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

> >>>

> >>> Hurry before someone else does!

> >>>

> >>> http://mail. promotions.

> >> / >> newdomains/ aa/

> >>>

> >>> New Email names for you!

> >>> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.

> >>> Hurry before someone else does!

> >>> http://mail. promotions. / newdomains/ aa/

> >>>

> >>

> >>---------- -- --------- --------- ------

> >>

July 6, 2009

dear friend

your value addition in supplementing with information on more manis is

appreciated and i too would search for getting more information on the hitherto

unknown manis and their importance based on scriptures and their avaialability,

if any.

with best wishes and blessings

pandit arjun

www.rudraksharemedy.com

sacred-objects , KRISNA <paraman777 wrote:

>

> sir

> also no ruby or blue sapphire is known to put gold where it is placed as said

about syamantaka

> hence syamantaka is not either,but it is syamantaka only

> there are deva manis and earthly gems

> gems of GODS are miraculous in many ways it is said

> it is said in Gruda purana that a cobra is blinded with true original emerald

> can any body blind a cobra with their what they call original emaralds ?with

the present gem sellers?no never,we have heard it

> also in garuda purana there is reference about BHISHMA MANI,which if possessed

gives many pleasures wealth health etc and even lion can not approach him who

possess this

> it is described as having orange hue and belongs to Burma region

> can we know what the gem is?nobody has an idea?

> nature's mystic gifts????

> sairam

> krisna

>

> --- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 wrote:

>

> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66

> Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO

SEE!!!

> sacred-objects

> Friday, 3 July, 2009, 4:31 PM

>

Syamantaka Ruby or Shyamantaka Blue Sapphire?

>

> Many Hindus know this story, but a common mistake of spelling wrongly as

" Shyamantaka " has led to the incorrect idea that Syamantaka was a blue sapphire

(Saturn's gem). Even Amar Chitra Katha comic books in India, as well as Indian

artists make this mistake. They spell as Shyamantaka and show the Sun God is

giving a blue sapphire to Satrajit. If anyone looks at the Sanskrit they will

see it is not spelled Shyamantaka (Shyam means dark or dark blue), the real

spelling is " SYAMANTAKA " which is the Ruby (Sun's gem) after which the story is

named. According to Jyotish or Planetary Gemology, in the Navaratna setting ruby

is the gem of the Sun.

>

> In support of Syamantaka being a ruby here are two verses from the Bhagavat

Purana, which describe Satrajit wearing the gem given to him by Surya, the

Sungod.

>

> " Wearing the jewel on his neck, Satrajit entered Dvaraka. He shone as brightly

as the sun itself, O King, and thus he went unrecognized because of the jewel's

effulgence " . - Ref. SB 10.56.4 (Koh-i-Noor is not as bright as a hand-held flash

light - Haaa!!!)

>

> " As the people looked at Satrajit from a distance, his brilliance blinded

them. They presumed he was the sun-god, Surya " . - Ref. SB 10.56.5 (Sun's gem is

ruby - daaah!).

>

> The evidence and logic indicate that Syamantaka was a great ruby, gem of the

Sungod.[3][4] [5].

>

> ---SURELY NOT THE PUNY DIAMOND IN TOWER OF LONDON.

>

> Y/s,

>

> Richard

>

> sacred-objects, akshay vignhesh <akshay_vignhesh@

....> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Richard Ji

>

> >

>

> > Could you kindly describe how syamantaka is described in Bhagavatam and how

we can visualize it

>

> >

>

> > best regards

>

> > Vignhesh

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> > Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@>

>

> > sacred-objects

>

> > Friday, July 3, 2009 12:52:50 PM

>

> > Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO

SEE!!!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Sriman,

>

> >

>

> > The Idol's (middle) eye that you mention is (now called) the blue Hope

diamond, in Smithsonian. The Koh-i-Noor, even if cut down by 50% could still not

appear like the description of Syamantaka in Bhagavatam. It would have to be a

million times greater to look like Syamantaka. The Koh-i-Noor is NO big deal. It

is little and nothing like Syamantaka. Anyone can go see for themselves. If you

see a brilliant GREAT GEM and it's like looking into the Sun, then it's real.

But if you see a small diamond of 105 cts with no brightness you will know

you're NOT looking at Syamantaka Gem from Surya.

>

> >

>

> > Y/s,

>

> > Richard

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Richard Shaw Brown, PG

>

> > Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

>

> > www.richardshawbrow n.com

>

> >

>

> > --- On Fri, 3/7/09, himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >himanshu gupte <hrgupte (AT) (DOT) co.uk>

>

> > >Re: Re: Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?

- GO SEE!!!

>

> > >sacred-objects

>

> > >Friday, 3 July, 2009, 10:24 AM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >In Hindu scriptures exaggeration is found many times....however i read

somewhere that Koh I noor was originally from some temple of south India and it

was fitted in temple moorti as one eye of that temple deity...

>

> > >Always wonder where is other eye????

>

> > >further the original Koh i noor was bigger than the present Koh i

noor....after bringing koh i noor to UK they recut that stone...hence size got

reduced....

>

> > >

>

> > >--- On Fri, 3/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 > wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >>Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66 >

>

> > >> Re: Is Syamantaka Gem

>

> > >> the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

>

> > >>sacred-objects

>

> > >>Friday, 3 July, 2009, 1:28 AM

>

> > >>

>

> > >>

>

> > >>The question of

>

> > >> Syamantaka Gem being the Koh-i-Noor diamond is impossible to prove, and

one can only speculate. But anyone can view the actual Koh-i-Noor diamond in the

Tower of London, and at mere 105 carats it is not impressive, especially when

compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it looks small.

Certainly nothing like the awesome Syamantaka Gem described in Srimad

Bhagavatam. It does not " look like the Sun " , and is hard to see even from 5 feet

away. With the so-called evidence at hand the claim becomes absurd. If the

little Koh-i-Noor was proved to be the great Syamantaka gem then the Hindu

Scriptures could be found guilty of gross exaggerations. Seeing is disbelieving!

--- Y/s, Richard

>

> > >>

>

> > >>sacred-objects, KRISNA <paraman777@ ..> wrote:

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> DEAR SIRS

>

> > >>> THERE IS BELIEF THAT KOHINOOR WAS

>

> > >> THE SYAMANTHAKA, TAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND CUT INTO TWO FOR KING AND QUEEN

>

> > >>> BUT AS SAID BY SRI RICHARDJI,IT SEEMS BASELESS,AS KOHINOOR,USED TO PUT

NEARLY 2KG OF GOLD EACH DAY WHEREVER IT WAS PUT

>

> > >>> ALSO SHINED LIKE THE SUN(MEANS VERY GLITTERING EMITTING LIGHT) AS STATED

BY SRI RICHARDJI

>

> > >>> BUT WHEVER POSSESSED HAD SOME PROBLEMS AS SEEN IN THE BHAGAVATHA PURANA

>

> > >>> IT COULD ONLY BE KEPT/TOUCHEDï¿½ BY VERY STAUCH DEVOTEES SUCH AS AKRURA,

SATRAJITH KING,THE GREAT JAAMBAVAN JI ETC ETC

>

> > >>> Krisna

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@> wrote:

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> Richard Shaw Brown <rsbj66@>

>

> > >>> Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond?

>

> > >>> " Planetary Group Group " <planetary-gemology >,

" Sacred Group Group "

>

> > >> <sacred-objects>

>

> > >>> Wednesday, 1 July, 2009, 9:27 PM

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> Hello all,

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> Some kooks have been bugging me trying to say that the Koh i Noor

diamond in the Tower of London's Crown Jewels is the very same Syamantaka. Here

is my reply to such speculative nonsense...

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> The question of Syamantaka is impossible to prove, and one can speculate

in any way one feels happy. Personally I have seen the Koh i noor, which you

>

> > >> can also see, in the Tower of London, and I was NOT impressed. At 105

carats it looked small compared to it's reputation (less than 2 inches). It was

not impressive, compared to the Cullinan diamonds (which are 5 times bigger) it

looked tiny. Certainly NOT the great Syamantaka Gem as described in Bhagavatam.

It did NOT look like the Sungod. In fact, it was hard to see even standing 5

feet away. So, seeing is believing. With the so-called evidence at hand the

claim becomes absurd.

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> Richard Shaw Brown, PG

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> Musician, Designer, Gemologist & Author

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> www.richardshawbrow n.com

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> New Email addresses available on

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and

@rocketmail.

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> Hurry before someone else does!

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> http://mail. promotions.

>

> > >> / >> newdomains/ aa/

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>> New Email names for you!

>

> > >>> Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and

@rocketmail.

>

> > >>> Hurry before someone else does!

>

> > >>> http://mail. promotions. / newdomains/ aa/

>

> > >>>

>

> > >>

>

> > >>

>

> > >>

>

> > >>

>

> > >>---------- -- --------- --------- ------

>

> > >>

>

> > >>

Sign In

Is Syamantaka Gem the Koh i Noor diamond? - GO SEE!!!

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads