Vedic astrologer suggested I get a substitute gem instead of
the more expensive one. What do you think of this?
astrologers have extensive skills in analyzing the planetary
deficiencies that need strengthening in the chart. They have
for the most part selected their substitute system based on the
less expensive and far more readily available gems. As yet, I
have not read what I consider an authoritative source for deciding
what the substitutes are and how well they work. I am satisfied
that the primary gems came from the rishis, but who decided upon
the substitutes? Edgar Cayce recommended gems and stones to individuals
but his non Vedic gems were never specifically prescribed for
a single planetary focus.
a deep respect for his legacy. But, unfortunately, though I have
read his pioneering work many times, his reference to substitutes
is not covered. I have had my chart done many times and when
it has come to the area of substitute gems the advice has been
very wide and varied. Though astrologers can differ widely on
which stone to recommend as a substitute, this is not to say
that the stones are not highly beneficial. My first Vedic astrologer
strongly recommended that I get a blue topaz. As a gemologist
I already knew that natural blue topaz is so rare it is virtually
non existent on the market. What he didn't know was that he was
advising that I wear a topaz that had been nuclear irradiated
with gamma rays which had changed its electron structure in such
a way that it will trap the blue rays of light in the spectrum.
Neutron or electron bombardment is also common to change Topaz
color. The US Customs has often in past years turned back blue
topaz coming from Brazil because it had a too high radioactive
reading with their Geiger counters! As I had this reading in
India, and having traveled that land widely, I have never seen
a blue topaz there that has not been enhanced by radiation.
is often advised instead of yellow sapphire. Very few realize
that most citrine is smoky quartz or low quality amethyst that
has been heat treated in a Brazilian kiln to turn it yellow.
Golden topaz often shares the same procedure. Many times I have
seen people wearing laboratory grown amethyst or quartz thinking
it naturally occurring. Goldstone has been recommended as a substitute,
being a misnomer it is in fact always glass with copper filings
in it and does not exist naturally. A diamond is 140 times harder
than its next hardest neighbor, a white sapphire, yet some recommend
it as a diamond substitute. White sapphire is very often heat
treated to melt out inclusions. Doesn't it make sense that it
would be closer to the influence of a light yellow sapphire?
So you see there is a definite need to clarify the knowledge
influencing these substitute recommendations. When time allows,
I look forward to doing a research project using some very high-tech
computers and biofeedback machines to help indicate substitutes.
But time as always waits for no one.
people disagree with my stand concerning the laboratory-grown
crystal emerald and ruby, and instead promote their dubious and
not universally accepted substitutes. There is an immediate reaction
that these gems are man-made. But this is not the case. The laboratory
is the environment that allows the gem crystals to grow using
Divine Mother Nature's laws of creation to develop. Is there
really that much difference between a wild-grown vegetable and
one grown in a laboratory greenhouse? I try to bring my detractors
to analyze the scientifically measurable similarities that one
can refer to on the charts. If you try to compare the substitutes
tourmaline or peridot to an emerald using the same scientifically
measurable characteristics on these charts, you will find that
these stones have few similarities. They do have a green color
range. And of course color is important. But of far more importance
is the crystal habit. The difference of the crystal is as pronounced
as the pyramid is to the cube. And that is how I relate to the
differences in substitutes. This is not to say the tourmaline
or the peridot are not wonderful gems to wear, but I question
whether they actually come close to harmonizing with the planetary
radiations they are supposed to replace.
I try to do when a client wants the gem but can not afford the
high price is get the same stone with a good weight and clarity,
but tumble polished. True, it certainly doesn't look as attractive,
but primarily we are aiming at an instrument of karmic mitigation,
not just cosmetic appeal. I sell substitute gems but feel happier
when the client has both sides of the story.
to Frequently Asked Questions