Hello Readers,
Its been too long since I have written or revealed anything to you. But I want to tell you to stay connected because countless buried truths are going to be revealed on this blog which were suppressed by the various powers of the world who distorted the true history of India completely.
Prof. P.N Oaks Theories appear to have some foundation to say that Taj Mahal was never a Tomb. No one has ever challenged it except prof. P.N Oak who believes that the whole world has been duped. In his book of Taj Mahal: The true story Oak say's the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an 'Ancient Hindu Temple Palace' of 'Lord Shiva'.
The palace was then known as Tejo Mahalaya. In the course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, 'Jai Singh'. In his own court Chronicle, Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai Singh for Mumtaz's burial. The Ex Maharaja of Jaipur still retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Taj building.
Using captured Temples and Mansions as a burial place for dead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers. For Example Humayun, Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal.
He Says the the Term 'Mahal' has never benn used for a building in any muslim countries from Afghanistan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two respects".
1. Her name was never 'Mumtaz Mahal' but 'Mumtaz-ul-Zamani', he writes.
2. One cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for the building, "Taj Mahal" he claims is a 'Corrupt Version' of 'Tejo Mahalaya' or 'Lord Shiva's Palace'.
Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created by court sycophants, blundering historian, and sloppy archaeologists. Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story.
Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a Temple dedicated to Shiva, worshiped by Rajputs of Agra city. for example, "Prof. Marvin Miller" of New York took a few samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj.
'Carbon dating' tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. 'European traveller Johan Albert Mandelslo, who visited Agra in 1638 (only 7 years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the city in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj being built.
The writings of 'Peter Mundy', an english visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time.
Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistencies that support the belief of the Taj Mahal bein a typical 'Hindu Temple' rather than a mausoleum.
Many rooms in the Taj Mahal have remained Sealed since Shah Jahan's time are still in accessible to the public.Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of 'Lord Shiva' and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu Temples.
FEARING POLITICAL BACKLASH, INDIRA GANDHI'S GOVT. TRIED TO HAVE PROF. OAK'S BOOK WITHDRAWN FROM THE BOOKSTORES AND THREATENED THE INDIAN PUBLISHER OF THE FIRST EDITION DIRE CONSEQUENCES.
Below it is the royal 'Hindu Insignia'. This proves the hollowness of the claim that Shah Jahan commissioned the Red fort.
Life-size elephants at its gate and elephants with riders atop its door knobs in the Khas Mahal pavilion. Had Shah Jahan built the red for, Such Hindu motifs should not have been there.
AT THIS LINK YOU WILL FIND THE DESCRIPTION OF EACH AND EVERY IMAGE
http://www.krishnapath.org/photographic-evidence-taj-mahal-a-vedic-temple/
Its been too long since I have written or revealed anything to you. But I want to tell you to stay connected because countless buried truths are going to be revealed on this blog which were suppressed by the various powers of the world who distorted the true history of India completely.
Prof. P.N Oaks Theories appear to have some foundation to say that Taj Mahal was never a Tomb. No one has ever challenged it except prof. P.N Oak who believes that the whole world has been duped. In his book of Taj Mahal: The true story Oak say's the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an 'Ancient Hindu Temple Palace' of 'Lord Shiva'.
The palace was then known as Tejo Mahalaya. In the course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, 'Jai Singh'. In his own court Chronicle, Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai Singh for Mumtaz's burial. The Ex Maharaja of Jaipur still retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Taj building.
Using captured Temples and Mansions as a burial place for dead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers. For Example Humayun, Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal.
He Says the the Term 'Mahal' has never benn used for a building in any muslim countries from Afghanistan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two respects".
1. Her name was never 'Mumtaz Mahal' but 'Mumtaz-ul-Zamani', he writes.
2. One cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name for the building, "Taj Mahal" he claims is a 'Corrupt Version' of 'Tejo Mahalaya' or 'Lord Shiva's Palace'.
Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created by court sycophants, blundering historian, and sloppy archaeologists. Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love story.
Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a Temple dedicated to Shiva, worshiped by Rajputs of Agra city. for example, "Prof. Marvin Miller" of New York took a few samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj.
'Carbon dating' tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. 'European traveller Johan Albert Mandelslo, who visited Agra in 1638 (only 7 years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the city in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj being built.
The writings of 'Peter Mundy', an english visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time.
Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistencies that support the belief of the Taj Mahal bein a typical 'Hindu Temple' rather than a mausoleum.
Many rooms in the Taj Mahal have remained Sealed since Shah Jahan's time are still in accessible to the public.Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of 'Lord Shiva' and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu Temples.
FEARING POLITICAL BACKLASH, INDIRA GANDHI'S GOVT. TRIED TO HAVE PROF. OAK'S BOOK WITHDRAWN FROM THE BOOKSTORES AND THREATENED THE INDIAN PUBLISHER OF THE FIRST EDITION DIRE CONSEQUENCES.
Below it is the royal 'Hindu Insignia'. This proves the hollowness of the claim that Shah Jahan commissioned the Red fort.
Life-size elephants at its gate and elephants with riders atop its door knobs in the Khas Mahal pavilion. Had Shah Jahan built the red for, Such Hindu motifs should not have been there.
AT THIS LINK YOU WILL FIND THE DESCRIPTION OF EACH AND EVERY IMAGE
http://www.krishnapath.org/photographic-evidence-taj-mahal-a-vedic-temple/
No comments:
Post a Comment