Hidden Facts About Taj Mahal – Tejo Mahalayaa Hindu Lord Shiva Temple

Believe thisHidden and Politically Suppressed Truth of Taj Mahal 

BBC says about Taj Mahal—Hidden Truth – Never say it is a Tomb

Note the veranda is typical Rajput architecture.
Inverted water-pots on top. Their number is always odd, 11 in this case, typical of the Vedic system. Notice also the cobra design in pairs below the gallery. Koranic inscriptions were a graffiti added by Shahjahan.
Wall decorations as we see here are typical Rajput style. There is also a balcony at first floor level.

Note the Trident within the lotus form at the apex. Both of which are Vedic references, the trident being connected with Lord Shiva.
The Cenotaph chamber with marble screen. The point is why have an octagonal screen around two graves? It is more likely to have been an area of where sacred activities once took place. 
The Cenotaphs, or the supposed graves of Shahjahan (on the left) and Mumtaz.
If the tiles on the graves can me mimiced with the design on the outside then the scripting of the
kuran can also be mimiked thats a point to note
Survey plan of Taj Mahal by Col Hodgson, 1825. Note the platform on the north side running from N/W to N/E tower and steps at two places from this platform to go to the river: a sure sign of planning for residential activity, not what you would need for a vacant mausoleum.
No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes the
whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says the   Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz’s tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of   Lord Shiva (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 term ‘ Mahal ‘ has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. ‘The unusual explanation that the term Taj   Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two respects.
Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani,’ he writes.
Secondly, 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 historians 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, worshipped 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 traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz’s death), describes the life of the cit y in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal 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 being a typical Hindu temple  rather   than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remained sealed since Shah Jahan’s time and are still inaccessible 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, government tried to have Prof. Oak’s book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition dire consequences . There is only one way to discredit or   validate Oak’s research.
The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal under U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.
Its not just taj mahal but even the red fort
The 5th generation Mogul emperor Shahjahan is credited with having built the Red Fort in Delhi. Shahjahan ascended the throne in 1628 A.D. This contemporary painting shows him receiving the Persian ambassador in 1628 itself, in the Diwan-i-Aam (Common Room) of the Red Fort itself. This painting preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, was reproduced in the Illustrated Weekly of India (page 32) of March 14, 1971. Since Shahjahan was in the fort in the year of his accession, this documentary evidence disproves the notion that he built the fort. Compare with this the photo of the tablet in English raised inside the fort by the Govt. of India’s archaeology department asserting that Shahjahan built the fort during 1639-48. This is emphatic proof of Indian history having been thoroughly falsified during Muslim rule in India.

The Red Fort in Delhi has in its Khas Mahal, alias the King’s apartment, the royal emblem of its builder King Anangoal. It consists of a pair of swords laid hilt to hilt curving upwards, the sacred Hindu pot (kalash) above the hilts, a lotus bud and a pair of scales of justice balanced over it. Dotted around are representations of the sun from whom Indian ruling dynasties claimed descent. At the sword points are two small conches considered sacred in Hindu tradition. Bigger conches may be seen at the left and right corners at the base.
This royal Hindu insignia of the Hindu king who built Delhi’s Red Fort, is still there in the Khas Mahal pavilion. But even this visual symbol has been blatantly misinterpreted. The two swords laid hilt to hilt, curving upward are being inadvertently styled by ignorant guides, archaeologists and historians as an Islamic crescent. The sacred Hindu Kalash (water pot) on the hilts is never noticed. The lotus bud on the kalash represents royal wealth. The pair of scales is symbolic of impartial justice.

The conical arch seen in Indian forts, palaces and temples though of native Hindu origin has been mistaken and misrepresented by erring Western scholars as Saracenic i.e. Muslim. This photo of a Saudi Arabian currency note shows the typical Muslim arch which is quite different from the conical Hindu arch. Had historic buildings in India been of Islamic origin they should have had such arches. In the top right corner is a palm tree and crossed, face-down swords. Even this typically Islamic motif exists nowhere on historic buildings in India.
and many others….
SOme other points to consider
Taj Mahal has the Vaidic architecture – 8 sided polygon. The 4 towers on 4 corners is ancient Vaidic method – just like the 4 pillars for a Mandap
The top border of walls , just above Kuraan , reveal designs made up of snake pairs
There is a “Ganesh Patti” – a single row of Ganesh images near the entrance – 3 sided elephants
Remember that no animals or birds are allowed to be sculptured near a kabar

The “chaand” at the top of Taj Mahal – its not Muslim Chand. You see a design with a Ghat (kumbh), two leaves and this chandrakor. There is no typical Muslim ‘almost circular moon with star’

- There are letters available which reveal that Shahjahan bought this land and the palace of Raja Mansingh in exchange of very little money

- In Badshah Naama – it clearly states that “we did the last rites of Mumtaj in Raja Mansingh’s palace and buried her there’

- There is a letter from Aurangjeb to Shahjahan about deteorating condition of roofs and walls of old buldings of Tajmahal – this letter dates just 3 years after when history believes ‘Shahjahan built a brand new Taj Mahal’

- Shahjahan had thousands of wives along with affairs with maids and also his own daughter – why would he spend so much on one wife. He never built anything when she was alive.

- Just 3 years before the so called date of construction of Tajmahal, Shahjahan had come on the throne after intense battles – he had no money left – forget about spending so much on 1 structure

- Taj Mahal has 5 levels. On two of its visible levels/floors, there are two Kabars of Mumtaz. When did you see a kabar built on 1st floor, so above from the ground ? The intent was clear – t0 snatch the structure away from Rajputs – build kabars on every floor and declare it as a property of Mughal empire.

- But you can have Shivling on two floors – AhilyaBai’s mandir and other mandirs have same architecture of levels

- You see Mumtaz’s kabar in the middle of that 8 sides structure – an empty huge tile sits facing it near an entrance – There was a Nandi there which has been removed. Under that kabar is remains of ancient shivlinga

-Shahjahan himself did not intent to take the credit of Tajmahal. He stripped it off of its gold , diamonds and even the world famous Mayur Sinhasan – used all that money for his empire. He basically wanted to snatch that structure away from Rajputs and so he ordered to change it and convert it into a kabaristan – so that they will not want to take it back

- He never intended to take the credit though – In fact he never even mentions it in any of his papers. It is the historians who hyped it to please the government later on. Add to it the
lack of communication modes at that time, uneducated people and you have an excellent mix
None of the structures have been built by Mughals – not Taj Mahal, not Laal Kilaa , not Kutub Mahaal ..nothing. Laal Killa , like TajMahal gets mentioned before Shahjahan in hisory.

- Mahal is not even a word in Farsi/Iranian/Turki history. Apart from Taj Mahal, none of the structures from India to Turkey has ‘Mahal’ in its name. Whereas, even in Shiavji’s papers , he mentions ‘mahal, paragane’ etc

- Mughals were fighters, conqureres and pluderers. The intent was to survive against other kingdoms, kill or die , grab as much as you can from the region you conquer. They never worried about building grand structures like these.


#buttons=(Accept !) #days=(1)

Our website uses cookies Learn..
Accept !