Sunday, January 22, 2012

The Tajmahal is "Tejomahalay" A Hindu Temple: Some facts by 'P.N.OAK' An Indian Writer

Probably there is no one who has been duped at least once in a life time. But can the whole world can be duped? This may seem impossible. But in the matter of indian and world history the world can be duped in many respects for hundreds of years and still continues to be duped. The world famous Tajmahal is a glaring instance. For all the time, money and energy that people over the world spend in visiting the Tajmahal, they are dished out of concoction. Contrary to what visitors are made to believe the Tajmahal is not a Islamic mausoleum but an ancient Shiva Temple known as Tejo Mahalaya which the 5th generation moghul emperor
ShahjahanShahjahan commandeered from the then Maharaja of Jaipur. The Tajmahal, should therefore, be viewed as a temple palace and not as a tomb. That makes a vast difference. You miss the details of its size, grandeur, majesty and beauty when you take it to be a mere tomb. When told that you are visiting a temple palace you wont fail to notice its annexes, ruined defensive walls, hillocks, moats, cascades, fountains, majestic garden, hundreds of rooms archaded verendahs, terraces, multi stored towers, secret sealed chambers, guest rooms, stables, the trident (Trishul) pinnacle on the dome and the sacred, esoteric Hindu letter "OM" carved on the exterior of the wall of the sanctum sanctorum now occupied by the centotaphs. For detailed proof of this breath taking discovery,you may read the well known historian Shri. P. N. Oak's celebrated book titled " Tajmahal : The True Story". But let us place before you, for the time being an exhaustive summary of the massive evidence ranging over some points below:

  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.

  1.  The term Taj Mahal is a corrupt form of the sanskrit term TejoMahalay signifying a Shiva Temple. Agreshwar Mahadev i.e., The Lord of Agra was consecrated in it.
  2.  .The tradition of removing the shoes before climbing the marble platform originates from pre Shahjahan times when the Taj was a Shiva Temple. Had the Taj originated as a tomb, shoes need not have to be removed because shoes are a necessity in a cemetery.
  3. Visitors may notice that the base slab of the centotaph is the marble basement in plain white while its superstructure and the other three centotaphs on the two floors are covered with inlaid creeper designs. This indicates that the marble pedestal of the Shiva idol is still in place and Mumtaz's centotaphs are fake.
  4. The pitchers carved inside the upper border of the marble lattice plus those mounted on it number 108-a number sacred in Hindu Temple tradition.
  5. There are persons who are connected with the repair and the maintainance of the Taj who have seen the ancient sacred Shiva Linga and other idols sealed in the thick walls and in chambers in the secret, sealed red stone stories below the marble basement. The Archaeological Survey of India is keeping discretely, politely and diplomatically silent about it to the point of dereliction of its own duty to probe into hidden historical evidence.
  6. In India there are 12 Jyotirlingas i.e., the outstanding Shiva Temples. The Tejomahalaya alias The Tajmahal appears to be one of them known as Nagnatheshwar since its parapet is girdled with Naga, i.e., Cobra figures. Ever since Shahjahan's capture of it the sacred temple has lost its Hindudom.

  1.   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.
  2.  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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  1. A wooden piece from the riverside doorway of the Taj subjected to the carbon 14 test by an American Laboratory, has revealed that the door to be 300 years older than Shahjahan,since the doors of the Taj, broken open by Muslim invaders repeatedly from the 11th century onwards, had to b replaced from time to time. The Taj edifice is much more older. It belongs to 1155 A.D, i.e., almost 500 years anterior to Shahjahan.

  1. Had Shahjahan really built the Taj Mahal as a wonder mausoleum, history would have recorded a specific date on which she was ceremoniously buried in the Taj Mahal. No such date is ever mentioned. This important missing detail decisively exposes the falsity of the Tajmahal legend.
  2. Even the year of Mumtaz's death is unknown. It is variously speculated to be 1629, 1630, 1631 or 1632. Had she deserved a fabulous burial, as is claimed, the date of her death had not been a matter of much speculation. In an harem teeming with 5000 women it was difficult to keep track of dates of death. Apparently the date of Mumtaz's death was so insignificant an event, as not to merit any special notice. Who would then build a Taj for her burial?

  1. The cost of the Taj is nowhere recorded in Shahjahan's court papers because Shahjahan never built the Tajmahal. That is why wild estimates of the cost by gullible writers have ranged from 4 million to 91.7 million rupees.

  1.  Twenty thousand labourers are supposed to have worked for 22 years during Shahjahan's reign in building the Tajmahal. Had this been true, there should have been available in Shahjahan's court papers design drawings, heaps of labour muster rolls, daily expenditure sheets, bills and receipts of material ordered, and commisioning orders. There is not even a scrap of paper of this kind.
  2. It is, therefore, court flatterers,blundering historians, somnolent archeologists, fiction writers, senile poets, careless tourists officials and erring guides who are responsible for hustling the world into believing in Shahjahan's mythical authorship of the Taj.

  1. The Tajmahal has a reverberating dome. Such a dome is an absurdity for a tomb which must ensure peace and silence. Contrarily reverberating domes are a neccesity in Hindu temples because they create an ecstatic dinmultiplying and magnifying the sound of bells, drums and pipes accompanying the worship of Hindu deities.

 Source :
 Read more points here :

Tajmahal The True Story authored by Shri P.N. Oak can be ordered from :
A. Ghosh Publisher
5720, W. Little York #216
Houston, Texas 77091

Leave a comment on this.... 

Thursday, January 5, 2012

How to Deactivate Facebook Timeline and Get Back the Old Profile

For those who are fed up of Facebook Timeline and would like to deactivate facebook timeline view they can follow the steps listed here and get back the old Facebook profile view. But you can only disable yourself from watching timeline. If you have activated timeline then others can see your timeline, it will be you only who will not be able to watch timeline of anyone.
*Note: Its important to note that Facebook Timeline is a server side feature, change can only be deactivated from your profile by the Facebook team (which unfortunately is not a happening thing ) What we are going to do here is a client side trick that will get us back the old profile view only for your browser.

How to Deactivate Facebook Timeline

Firefox Users

Step 1. Open this [LINK]( add on of mozila ) and install the User Agent Switcher Addon. Restart Browser.
Step 2. Open Firefox, Press the Alt Key > Open Tools > Default User Agent > Internet Explorer and choose Internet Explorer 7.
Firefox Useragent
Step 3. Open Facebook and hard refresh your profile page (Ctrl+F5).

Chrome Users

Step 1. Right click on Chrome.exe Icon and Click on Properties.
Step 2. Make sure you are in the ‘Shortcut’ Tab.
Step 3. Paste the following code in the Target window after the : “C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe”
CODE – For Windows Vista & Windows 7 Users.
–user-agent=”Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0)”
CODE – For Windows XP Users.
–user-agent=”Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1)”

Note: Leave space between “C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe”–user-agent=”Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0)”
Chrome Useragent
Step 4. Close your Browser and Restart it and hard refresh your profile page (Ctrl+F5). You will get the Old profile view

Safari Users

Step 1. Open Safari Browser, go to the Preferences menu > Advanced > Tick the “Show Develop menu in menu bar” option.
Step 2. Click the page icon menu (next to the Gear icon near Search Bar) then select the Develop/user agent menu, Choose the User Agent as Internet Explorer 7.
Step 3. Open Facebook and hard refresh your profile page (Ctrl+F5). You will get the Old profile view 

Opera Users

Opera does support changing user agents to Internet Explorer, But there is no way to set it to specific version of IE so this trick wont work in Opera, Although if you want to learn how to change user agent in Opera for specific sites. The follow the steps below.
Step 1. Open the site where you want to change user agent.
Step 2. Press F12 Key.
Step 3. Choose Edit Site Preference > Network > Browser Identification.
Step 4. Choose Mask as Internet Explorer OR any other that you want to choose.

Internet Explorer

If you are using Internet Explorer 7 then no need as you already have the Non-Timeline aka old profile view. If you are using updated versions of IE then you can try to use the compatibility view of the browser to try and get the Old Profile View.
Step 1. Open Facebook Profile Page.
Step 2. Press Alt Key. Click on Tools > Compatibility View Settings.
Step 3. If is already filled in, Click on Add else fill in and Click on Add followed by Close.
Internet Explorer Compatibility View
Step 4. Refresh the page.
Hope you liked this Tutorial to Disable Facebook Timeline. Share it with your friends on Facebook, Do you like the way Facebook keeps updating? Leave your Vote and share your comments.
Waiting for your comments ....
Hit LIKE if you liked it.

Waiting for your comments