Jay: Namaste Swamiji, Lot of articles on Internet says, by wearing rudraksh one can enhance their positive aura and it keeps negativity away. Can wearing rudraksh of different Mukhi benefits us from Negative energy? Does it has any medical benefits? Thanks in advance.
Swami Ram Swarup: Namasteji. In this regard, I paste my article-

Wearing gems for good luck

Gems like Pukhraj and pearl etc., have not been mentioned in Vedas. We have to face result of our previous lives deeds, good or bad, in the shape of happiness or sorrows, respectively and the deeds which we are doing at present, these will be faced in future births. So wearing of gems will do nothing in the matter of facing the result of our deeds unchangeable law which has been made by God Himself. So Vedas never accept such claims.


Yajurveda mantra 7/48 and similar types of several mantras of Vedas state that we, the human beings are free to do pious deeds or sins. But result thereof is always awarded by Almighty God in the shape of happiness and sorrows respectively. Everybody knows that Almighty God is supreme judge, so how can a man, woman or a gem change the result of the deeds of a person. For example- God has given punishment to a person due to his sins of previous lives and person has to face sorrows, accident etc., then how can an astrologer or gem change the award of Almighty God. Actually, due to lack of the knowledge of Vedas, fundamental law of nature/God has now become unknown to the innocent public, with the result, several man made worships/rules etc., have been forced on the innocent public and in this way, the public is being divested of money and happiness. Our country has been a land of rishis and munis who have never deceived the people.

Instead, they serve the people whole heartedly and maintain peace. Yes, somebody can claim that he has been benefited by wearing gem, present astrology and by following the path of false saints etc. But, it is not a reality, say Vedas. Actually, what happens is that the benefit achieved by such people is due to the result given by God to them based on their pious deeds of previous lives. Vedas –shastras further tell that even in the absence of adoption of the said false path, the benefit would have inevitably accrued to the person. Otherwise several people adopt the false path, which is against the Vedas, but only few get the said benefit. If the path had been true according to Vedas then everyone could receive the benefit. Our pious human body has been blessed by the God to achieve the true path stated in Vedas by which final liberation is attained.

Future is based on present pious deeds. If anyone wants to make his future bright, he is required to do hardworking, pious deeds to maintain honesty, firm decision and daily worship of God. Yajurveda mantra 7/48 states that human beings are free to do pious deeds or sins but result is awarded by God in the shape of pleasure, long, happy life and sorrows respectively. So why to worry about the future. In fact we should be concerned about our present pious deeds which
will make our future bright. It is a fundamental law of Vedas that present pious deeds alongwith eternal worship of God based on Vedas destroys the result of previous lives’ sins which have to be borne in our future or present life.

So instead of wasting our energy in baseless thoughts or worries about future, we should channelize our energy in doing pious deeds in our present time.

Nitesh: Pranam swamiji does Hanumanji really existed or it is false story? Is he still present?
Swami Ram Swarup: Here I paste my one of articles in this regard—-


Logically, scientifically and even based on the unchangeable laws of the nature, a vanar cannot be human-being and human-being cannot be a vanar. Secondly, Valmiki Ramayan is authentic holy book written by Rishi Valmikiji. Valmikiji and Sri Ram were contemporary to each other. Valmikiji has nowhere mentioned in his book that Hanumanji was a vanar (monkey). In Valmiki Ramayan it is mentioned that when Sri Ram and laxman were searching Sitaji in the jungle they met with Hanumanji for the first time. After having discussion with Hanumaji, Sri Ram told to Laxman that Oh! Laxman, see Hanumanji, he is a learned of four Vedas and Sanskrit grammer. I mean to say that vanar cannot be a learned of four Vedas, Sanskrit grammer, he can’t have talk with Sri Ram, Laxman and can never go to lanka to search mata Sita. You see, Sugreev, Bali, Hanumanji, Angad etc., are being called vanars (monkeys) but their wives have never been called “she-monkeys”
nor their faces have been projected to be like monkeys/she-monkeys. So, there was a tribe called vanar but in the said tribe, men-women were there and not monkeys.

Monkeys or parrots etc., when will be taught then they may act accordingly but they cannot act as intelligently as man. Secondly, God has stated that He (God) first gives the knowledge of the four Vedas to four Rishis, who are men. Then the rishis give to the other human-beings. Secondly, God states in the Vedas that worship/study of Vedas etc., are the deeds entrusted to human-beings only and not to others. So, the fundamental law of Almighty God cannot be challenged.

The proof of word “vanar” that it relates to the human-beings is stated above by the discussion between Hanumanji and Sri Ramji where Sri Ram addresses Hanumanji as vanar and side by side immediately states that vanar is learned of four Vedas. There are several other statements in Valmiki Ramayan which prove the fact that Hanumanji was not monkey but he belonged to vanar tribe.
For example- When Hanumanji met Sri Ram, then he gave his full introduction that he is the special warrior of king Sugreev. Sri Ram told Laxmanji that Hanumanji is sweet spoken, neither his sound pitch is high nor low. When a monkey meets a man, he cannot be sweet spoken or speak slowly. Instead, the monkey will start screeching. You see, Valmikiji was a great philosopher of Vedas and yoga at that time. He was Rishi-Muni. Rishi-Muni can never tell lies. Secondly, Rishi- Munis
cannot tell or write in such a manner which may become difficult to understand. Whatever, they see or experience, they write exactly the same. Then how Valmikiji could write Hanumanji as monkey. It is not a matter of Sanskrit word “Vanar” alone but it is a matter of creation which is created by Almighty God. When we study the matter of creation in the Vedas, we find that human beings are meant to worship and not the other living beings. So, Hanumanji, studied Vedas being a human-being and not monkey. You see, if nowadays also, we try to give the knowledge of the Vedas to some man or woman, it will be found that hardly a right person will be able to gain its knowledge, then what to talk about an animal which is not earmarked by Almighty God even to listen the Vedas.

Can any animal or monkey define the meaning of formless God who is omnipresent and can the monkey meditate and realise God? I mean to say, it is quite impossible for a monkey to follow the said path under the rules and regulations of even Almighty God. Suppose, there is an electric switch. You train a boy of 6-8 years of age to switch it on. Simultaneously, a baby of monkey is also trained to do so. No doubt, both will switch it on. Now, you educate giving several examples to
both about electric current in the wire that if anyone will touch the naked electric wire, then a person shall die. If the switch is now broken and the naked wire in which electric current is flowing is seen there, now if you order both of them to switch it on, you will observe that boy shall not touch the switch considering how fatal the naked wire is but the monkey will immediately obey and touch the switch. Naturally, the monkey will also touch the naked wire and die because the monkey
was also trained to tell that the current is flowing in the naked wire but mere training by words, monkey could not be made to understand. Monkey can never understand that there exists electric current since he is animal who cannot be as intelligent as man. Can a monkey who is trained in some activities open an institute to train the other monkeys like a man? Certainly not.