XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.religion.hindu
XPost: uk.religion.hindu, alt.politics, talk.politics.misc
XPost: free.bharat, soc.culture.india
From: alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com

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.

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

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)