EVIDENCE FOR RAM MANDIR IN AYODHYA: B B LAL *** Jai Maharaj posts
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Friday, December 11, 2009
Evidence for Ram Mandir in Ayodhya: B B Lal
The evidence marshaled by Dr. B B Lal is emphatic. (B. B. Lal, 2008,
Rama: his historicity, mandir and Setu: evidence of literature,
archaeology and other sciences, New Delhi, Aryan Books
International.)
There were temples below the structure where Babari dhaancha stood.
The chapter in BB Lal's book is titled: �Was there a temple in the
Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari
Masjid?'
See the vivid photos and read the remarkable Chapter II of BB Lal's
work URL reference:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19288715/Chapter-2ayodhyabblal
K.V. Ramesh's note on Ayodhya Vishnu-Hari temple inscription on a stone
slab 115 cms x 55 cms. Read
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19263264/ayodhya1
Appendix from B B Lal's book (Inscription read by KV Ramesh) This is
Appendix II referred to in Chapter II of B B Lal's book.
B B Lal's summing up is emphatic and unambiguous, expressed in
anguish, but in subdued tones: "The evidence presented in the
foregoing paragraphs in respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in
the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the
Babari Masjid is so eloquent that no further comments are necessary.
Unfortunately, the basic problem with a certain category of
historians and archaeologists -- and others of the same ilk -- is
that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite
of them the truth has revealed itself."
S. Kalyanaraman
Govt. should file affidavit in SC: Swamy.
December 11, 2009.
*Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party. *
The Report of the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry, unwittingly
and ironically, supports the VHP's case for a Ram temple in Ayodhya.
In Chapter 15 (Recommendations), Page 978, Para 176.5, the
Commission states: ".....The question whether a structure was a
temple or a mosque can only be answered by a scientific study by
archaeologists, historians and anthropologists." This is precisely
the VHP's stated position for the last 25 years.
The Allahabad High Court on VHP's petition in the year 2002 got
extensive investigation done at the disputed site through scientific
GPR Survey and archaeological excavations. Vide orders, dated August
01, 2002 and October 23, 2002, the High Court Bench asked the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to carry out Ground Penetrating
Radar Survey/Geo-radiology Survey (GPR) of the disputed land, so as
to ascertain possibility of proof of remnants of some earlier
structure. In compliance of these orders, the ASI, with the help of
Tozo Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. undertook this exercise.
The High Court thereafter *suo moto* passed a detailed order on
March 05, 2003, issuing a commission to ASI to investigate into the
matter by excavating the relevant area of the disputed land. The ASI
took about five months in carrying out the excavation work and
thereafter submitted a bulky report in two volumes together with 45
site notebooks, 12 albums containing 329 black & white photographs,
28 albums having coloured photographs, 11 video cassettes, 6 DVD
cassettes, registers of pottery, unsealed bones, architectural
objects stored in tin-shed at the excavated site, individual list of
9 boxes containing bones, glazed wares, antiquities, day-to-day
registers, antiquity register etc., etc..
In this excavation report (Ayodhya 2002-03, Vol.1 text,
Chapter-X, Summary of Results, Page Nos. 268-269, 270, 271 and 272),
the ASI states in the last paragraph: ".......Now viewing in totality
and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive
structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of
continuity in structural phases from 10th Century onwards up to the
construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone
and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple
and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, Amlaka,
Kapotapali, Door Jamb, and semi-circular plaster, broken octagonal
shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having
Pranala (water chute) in the North, 50 pillar bases in association of
a hue structure, *are indicative of remains which are distinctive
features found associated with the temples of North India.**"*
Other observations of the Liberhan Commission too support the
VHP case for a Rama temple at the disputed site:
In Chapter No.2 (Ayodhya & its Geography) page No. 23 the Liberhan
Report says:
Para 9.1: "Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the
birthplace of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy
and historical city."
Para 9.2: "Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu
life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious
society. It was a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors
pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants, monks, travelers, tourists."
9.3: "Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala, Khosla (sic) or
Maha Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ram Janam Bhoomi.
9.4: "Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the sect of
Ram believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in Hindu
Religion. The place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for Hindus,
Monks, travelers, pilgrims, sadhus & sants irrespective of their
region & faith."
9.5: "This place had become emotive issue owing to its position as
the birth place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of the
culture, connecting the past with the present & the future, this
religious fervour had kept the town for centuries alive after
successive rulers had gone by".
Page 25, Para-10.3: "On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a
population of about 2,10,000. It has large number of temples mostly
dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu."
Page 26, Para-10.10: "The town is currently inhibited (sic) (means
inhabited!) with a multi-religious population consisting of Muslims,
Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the
population is Hindu. The temples were open to public of all
denominations."
Page 29, Para 12.1: "There are large numbers of temples, mosques,
shrines, tombs, gardens and other religious monuments spread over a
large area: rather, metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every
house is a temple."
Page 29, Para 12.2: "Prominent temples were Sankat Mochan Mandir,
Shakti Gopal Mandir, Shesh Avatar temple, Ved Mandir, Maniram Ki
Chawni, Hanuman Garhi, Pr3eethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal,
Anand Bhawan, and Kaushalya Bhavan......."
Paga 32, Para 12.12: "The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj,
Ayodhya town or the Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the
disputed structure are however not disputed. The facts are
corroborated by NC Padhi in his statement with no contradiction."
Hence, since the Union Government has accepted the Liberhan
Commission Report and this Report, read with the Supreme Court's 1994
Constitutional Bench judgment in the Farooqui case, that a mosque *is
not an essential part of Islam *but a facilitation center for reading
of namaz, hence any government can acquire any mosque for a public
purpose and even demolish it,
I demand therefore the Government file an affidavit in the
Supreme Court declaring that it will acquire the disputed area in
Ayodhya and hand it over to the sants and sadhus associated with the
VHP enable Hindus to organize a Rama temple restoration at the
original birth site of Lord Rama.
(Subramanian Swamy)
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
fanabba <fan...@aol.com> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Friday, December 11, 2009
> >
> > Evidence for Ram Mandir in Ayodhya: B B Lal
> >
> > The evidence marshaled by Dr. B B Lal is emphatic. (B. B. Lal, 2008,
> > Rama: his historicity, mandir and Setu: evidence of literature,
> > archaeology and other sciences, New Delhi, Aryan Books
> > International.)
> >
> > There were temples below the structure where Babari dhaancha stood.
> >
> > Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the Babari
> > Masjid?'
> >
> > See the vivid photos and read the remarkable Chapter II of BB Lal's
> > work URL reference:
> >
> > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19288715/Chapter-2ayodhyabblal
> >
> > K.V. Ramesh's note on Ayodhya Vishnu-Hari temple inscription on a stone
> > slab 115 cms x 55 cms. Read
> >
> > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19263264/ayodhya1
> >
> > Appendix from B B Lal's book (Inscription read by KV Ramesh) This is
> > Appendix II referred to in Chapter II of B B Lal's book.
> >
> > B B Lal's summing up is emphatic and unambiguous, expressed in
> > anguish, but in subdued tones: "The evidence presented in the
> > foregoing paragraphs in respect of the existence of a Hindu temple in
> > the Janmabhumi area at Ayodhya preceding the construction of the
> > Babari Masjid is so eloquent that no further comments are necessary.
> > Unfortunately, the basic problem with a certain category of
> > historians and archaeologists -- and others of the same ilk -- is
> > that seeing they see not or knowingly they ignore. Anyway, in spite
> > of them the truth has revealed itself."
> >
> > S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Govt. should file affidavit in SC: Swamy.
> >
> > December 11, 2009.
> >
> > *Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party. *
> >
> > and ironically, supports the VHP's case for a Ram temple in Ayodhya.
> >
> > Commission states: ".....The question whether a structure was a
> > temple or a mosque can only be answered by a scientific study by
> > archaeologists, historians and anthropologists." This is precisely
> > the VHP's stated position for the last 25 years.
> >
> ot
> > extensive investigation done at the disputed site through scientific
> > GPR Survey and archaeological excavations. Vide orders, dated August
> > 01, 2002 and October 23, 2002, the High Court Bench asked the
> > Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to carry out Ground Penetrating
> > Radar Survey/Geo-radiology Survey (GPR) of the disputed land, so as
> > to ascertain possibility of proof of remnants of some earlier
> > Tozo Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. undertook this exercise.
> >
> on
> > March 05, 2003, issuing a commission to ASI to investigate into the
> > took about five months =A0in carrying out the excavation work and
> > thereafter submitted a bulky report in two volumes together with 45
> > site notebooks, 12 albums containing 329 black & white photographs,
> > 28 albums having coloured photographs, 11 video cassettes, 6 DVD
> > cassettes, registers of pottery, unsealed bones, architectural
> > objects stored in tin-shed at the excavated site, individual list of
> > 9 boxes containing bones, glazed wares, antiquities, day-to-day
> > registers, antiquity register etc., etc..
> >
> > Chapter-X, Summary of Results, Page Nos. 268-269, 270, 271 and 272),
> > the ASI states in the last paragraph: ".......Now viewing in totality
> > and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive
> > structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of
> > continuity in structural phases from 10th Century onwards up to the
> > construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone
> > and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple
> > Kapotapali, Door Jamb, and semi-circular plaster, broken =A0octagonal
> > shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having
> > Pranala (water chute) in the North, 50 pillar bases in association of
> > a hue structure, *are indicative of remains which are distinctive
> > features found associated with the temples of North India.**"*
> >
> > VHP case for a Rama temple at the disputed site:
> >
> > In Chapter No.2 (Ayodhya & its Geography) page No. 23 the Liberhan
> > Report says:
> >
> > Para 9.1: "Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the
> > birthplace of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy
> > and historical city."
> >
> > Para 9.2: "Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu
> > life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious
> > society. It was a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors
> > Commission Report and this Report, read with the Supreme Court's 1994
> > Constitutional Bench judgment in the Farooqui case, that a mosque *is
> > not an essential part of Islam *but a facilitation center for reading
> > of namaz, hence any government can acquire any mosque for a public
> > purpose and even demolish it,
> >
> > Supreme Court declaring that it will acquire the disputed area in
> > Ayodhya and hand it over to the sants and sadhus associated with the
> > VHP enable Hindus to organize a Rama temple restoration at the
> > original birth site of Lord Rama.
> >
> > (Subramanian Swamy)
> >
> > End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
> >
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
> >
> educational
> > purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may n=
> ot
> > have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of th=
> e
> > poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> > fair use of copyrighted works.
> ead,
> > considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, curre=
> nt
> > e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> others are
> > not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the arti=
> cle.
> >
> > FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> > which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> > owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> > understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> d
> > that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> itle
> > 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> uded
> > information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> ion
> > go to: =A0http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> > If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
> > your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> > copyright owner.
> >
> > Since newsgroup posts are being removed
> > by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
> > this post may be reposted several times.
You are welcome!