Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fact about Taj Mahal and the global influence of Vedic culture.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fact about Taj Mahal and the global influence of Vedic culture.

    Here's a site i got from a friend which shows evidences that Taj Mahal was the Lord Shiva temple and it existed 300 centuries even before Shah Jahan even existed. It was then called as Tejo Mahalaya. There is also evidence of other monuments like Red Fort, Qutub Minar, Humayun's tomb had vedic influence.The site also shows pictures of the Vedic culture spread in other parts of the world.

    Here's the link for the site - Click here to see the site

  • #2
    I did not visit the link but it is said that Kabba in Saudi Arabia was also a Vedic temple and the rock there is actually a Shivlingam. Infact in the inner chambers and wall, statues and mantrams are still engraved and public is not allowed to visit these areas. Shivaism is the oldest spiritual path like 10,000 years. Visit www.natha.dk for good readings.
    Last edited by hound; 25 Aug 06,, 10:11.

    Comment


    • #3
      www.natha.dk

      Where a Lion shall "lay" down with a blond bombshell?
      Last edited by gilgamesh; 25 Aug 06,, 10:47.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gilgamesh
        www.natha.dk

        Where a Lion shall "lay" down with a blond bombshell?
        The baitch looks more like a tranny....
        Seek Save Serve Medic

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 667medic
          The baitch looks more like a tranny....
          Prolly a she-male.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mega-drive
            Here's a site i got from a friend which shows evidences that Taj Mahal was the Lord Shiva temple and it existed 300 centuries even before Shah Jahan even existed. It was then called as Tejo Mahalaya. There is also evidence of other monuments like Red Fort, Qutub Minar, Humayun's tomb had vedic influence.The site also shows pictures of the Vedic culture spread in other parts of the world.

            Here's the link for the site - Click here to see the site
            hmmm... maybe Taj Mahal was built on an ancient site but it defenitely has Moghul influence (i.e. the architecture and style...)
            Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
            -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

            Comment


            • #7
              i remember, St.Peters basilica was also a hindu temple dedicated to Ravana.
              A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jay
                i remember, St.Peters basilica was also a hindu temple dedicated to Ravana.
                lol... and the Kaaba at Mecca was dedicated to Vishnu...
                Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tronic
                  hmmm... maybe Taj Mahal was built on an ancient site but it defenitely has Moghul influence (i.e. the architecture and style...)
                  Taj mahal/Tejo mahalay was already built before Shah Jahan's reign. It was brought from the Jaipur Maharaja Jaisingh, redocorated in moghul style.
                  These r some proof from the site -:

                  NAME

                  1.The term Tajmahal itself never occurs in any mogul court paper or chronicle even in Aurangzeb's time. The attempt to explain it away as Taj-i-mahal is therefore, ridiculous.

                  2.The ending "Mahal"is never muslim because in none of the muslim countries around the world from Afghanistan to Algeria is there a building known as "Mahal".

                  3.The unusual explanation of the term Tajmahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal, who is buried in it, is illogical in at least two respects viz., firstly her name was never Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani and secondly one cannot omit the first three letters "Mum" from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name of the building.

                  4.Since the lady's name was Mumtaz (ending with 'Z') the name of the building derived from her should have been Taz Mahal, if at all, and not Taj (spelled with a 'J').

                  5.Several European visitors of Shahjahan's time allude to the building as Taj-e-Mahal is almost the correct tradition, age old Sanskrit name Tej-o-Mahalaya, signifying a Shiva temple. Contrarily Shahjahan and Aurangzeb scrupulously avoid using the Sanskrit term and call it just a holy grave.

                  6.The tomb should be understood to signify NOT A BUILDING but only the grave or centotaph inside it. This would help people to realize that all dead muslim courtiers and royalty including Humayun, Akbar, Mumtaz, Etmad-ud-Daula and Safdarjang have been buried in capture Hindu mansions and temples.

                  7.Moreover, if the Taj is believed to be a burial place, how can the term Mahal, i.e., mansion apply to it?

                  8.Since the term Taj Mahal does not occur in mogul courts it is absurd to search for any mogul explanation for it. Both its components namely, 'Taj' and' Mahal' are of Sanskrit origin.

                  DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

                  18. Shahjahan's own court chronicle, the Badshahnama, admits (page 403, vol 1) that a grand mansion of unique splendor, capped with a dome (Imaarat-a-Alishan wa Gumbaze) was taken from the Jaipur Maharaja Jaisigh for Mumtaz's burial, and the building was known as Raja Mansingh's palace.

                  19. The plaque put the archealogy department outside the Tajmahal describes the edifice as a mausoleum built by Shahjahan for his wife Mumtaz Mahal , over 22 years from 1631 to 1653. That plaque is a specimen of historical bungling. Firstly, the plaque sites no authority for its claim. Secondly the lady's name was Mumtaz-ulZamani and not Mumtazmahal. Thirdly, the period of 22 years is taken from some mumbo jumbo noting by an unreliable French visitor Tavernier, to the exclusion of all muslim versions, which is an absurdity.

                  20. Prince Aurangzeb's letter to his father,emperor Shahjahan,is recorded in atleast three chronicles titled `Aadaab-e-Alamgiri', `Yadgarnama', and the `Muruqqa-i-Akbarabadi' (edited by Said Ahmed, Agra, 1931, page 43, footnote 2). In that letter Aurangzeb records in 1652 A.D itself that the several buildings in the fancied burial place of Mumtaz were seven storeyed and were so old that they were all leaking, while the dome had developed a crack on the northern side.Aurangzeb, therefore, ordered immediate repairs to the buildings at his own expense while recommending to the emperor that more elaborate repairs be carried out later. This is the proof that during Shahjahan's reign itself that the Taj complex was so old as to need immediate repairs.

                  21. The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur retains in his secret personal `KapadDwara' collection two orders from Shahjahan dated Dec 18, 1633 (bearing modern nos. R.176 and 177) requestioning the Taj building complex. That was so blatant a usurpation that the then ruler of Jaipur was ashamed to make the document public.

                  22. The Rajasthan State archives at Bikaner preserve three other firmans addressed by Shahjahan to the Jaipur's ruler Jaising ordering the latter to supply marble (for Mumtaz's grave and koranic grafts) from his Makranna quarris, and stone cutters. Jaisingh was apparently so enraged at the blatant seizure of the Tajmahal that he refused to oblige Shahjahan by providing marble for grafting koranic engravings and fake centotaphs for further desecration of the Tajmahal. Jaising looked at Shahjahan's demand for marble and stone cutters, as an insult added to injury. Therefore, he refused to send any marble and instead detained the stone cutters in his protective custody.

                  23. The three firmans demanding marble were sent to Jaisingh within about two years of Mumtaz's death. Had Shahjahan really built the Tajmahal over a period of 22 years, the marble would have needed only after 15 or 20 years not immediately after Mumtaz's death.

                  24. Moreover, the three mention neither the Tajmahal, nor Mumtaz, nor the burial. The cost and the quantity of the stone also are not mentioned. This proves that an insignificant quantity of marble was needed just for some supercial tinkering and tampering with the Tajmahal. Even otherwise Shahjahan could never hope to build a fabulous Tajmahal by abject dependence for marble on a non cooperative Jaisingh


                  To see more views visit the site Click here to goto the site

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sorry about the spelling error - redecorated*

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      With geo-thermal imaging they should be able to see sub-structures underneath, if any.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        'lol... and the Kaaba at Mecca was dedicated to Vishnu'

                        http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

                        tronic, you sikhs like to make fun of the hindu religion but you should know that you sikhs have a religion with no actual root or basis, it was a bastardly compromise to please/stop the invading mughals from beheading you all, yours is a religion of surrender and that is why sikhs prosituted themselves to Pakos in 1984. India should be very careful of the sikhs in both peace and war time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by hound
                          'lol... and the Kaaba at Mecca was dedicated to Vishnu'

                          http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

                          tronic, you sikhs like to make fun of the hindu religion but you should know that you sikhs have a religion with no actual root or basis, it was a bastardly compromise to please/stop the invading mughals from beheading you all, yours is a religion of surrender and that is why sikhs prosituted themselves to Pakos in 1984. India should be very careful of the sikhs in both peace and war time.
                          Hound dont be an idiot. The Sikh gurus protected many Hindus. So what if they dont identify with some Hindu practises, all religions especially relatively new ones which are seeking to carve out their own identity, differentiate themselves by pointing out elements of their "old faith" that they dont agree with.

                          Also you have no clue about the ties between hindus and Sikhs and how deep they are. In Punjab, in many Hindu families, the eldest son would become a Sikh out of tradition, whilst the remaining family would continue to be Hindu. Shrines such as Vaishno Devi see a large number of Sikhs visiting.

                          That apart, whatever some Sikhs may say about Hindus or whatever, by and large, the Sikhs have protected Hindus and others from the depredations of Mughals. The Sikh community has contributed immeasurably to modern India as well. Your comments ridiculing their faith are in bad taste, reflect badly on you, and for Lords sake, get some sense before acting like such a boor.
                          Last edited by Archer; 26 Aug 06,, 03:53.
                          Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mega-drive
                            Sorry about the spelling error - redecorated*
                            That is NOT proof. Those are conjecture. In fifty odd years of Indian existence, has nobody ever been able to get inside the Taj Mahal and prove these claims?
                            These claims not regarded as particularly credible amongst historians, even amongst those who have reversed the trend of Marxist whitewashing of Islamic depradations in India.
                            Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Archer
                              Hound dont be an idiot. The Sikh gurus protected many Hindus. So what if they dont identify with some Hindu practises, all religions especially relatively new ones which are seeking to carve out their own identity, differentiate themselves by pointing out elements of their "old faith" that they dont agree with.

                              Also you have no clue about the ties between hindus and Sikhs and how deep they are. In Punjab, in many Hindu families, the eldest son would become a Sikh out of tradition, whilst the remaining family would continue to be Hindu. Shrines such as Vaishno Devi see a large number of Sikhs visiting.

                              That apart, whatever some Sikhs may say about Hindus or whatever, by and large, the Sikhs have protected Hindus and others from the depredations of Mughals. The Sikh community has contributed immeasurably to modern India as well. Your comments ridiculing their faith are in bad taste, reflect badly on you, and for Lords sake, get some sense before acting like such a boor.
                              thanx for that bro... but posts by trolls shouldn't be taken to heart... I don't... ;)
                              Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                              -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X