The following message has been received by me with a request for its onward messaging, lest adverse impacts may be experienced. The 'lest' component prompts me to comply, as there is nothing to lead to it's non compliance . The message goes as below, as regards which kindly render your enlightened comments and reaction.
ताजमहल को प्यार की निशानी कहने
वालो, मुमताज का मकबरा कहने
वालों ध्यान से पढो
ताजमहल किसी शाहजहाँ ने
नही बनवाया था।
साडी दुनिया अभी तक
इस धोखे में थी की ताजमहल शाहजहाँ ने
मुमताज के लिए बनवाया था।
पर professior ओक ने अपनी खोज में
पाया की ये ईमारत कोई
मकबरा नही है बल्कि एक प्राचीन शिव
मंदिर है। जिसका नाम
तेजो महालय था।
जिसको शाहजहाँ ने महाराजा जय सिंह
जी से अवैध रूप से छिन्
लिया था। और उसके बाद इससे तमाम
ऐसी चीजे मिटा दी जिससे
की भविष्य में किसी को पता ना चले
की ये एक। शिव मंदिर था।
और फिर शुरू की झूठी अफवाह
की शाहजहाँ ने कारीगरों के हाथ
कटवा दिए।
लेकिन सच छुपता नही छुपाने से।
शाजहाँ सभी सबूत नष्ट नही कर
पाया और अब धीरे धीरे इस झूठ से
पर्दा उठ रहा है।
डॉ सुब्रमण्यम स्वामी जी ने ताजमहल
को लेकर कोर्ट में केस
भी फ़ाइल् कियाहै। और अभी तक केस हम
हिन्दुओ के पक्ष में है।
क्योकि सबूत बोलते है की ये
तज्मह्ल्न्हि तेजो महालय था। और जल्द
ही पूरी दुनिया के सामने होगा सच
की दुनिया की सबसे खुबसुरत
ईमारत मकबरा नही एक शिव मंदिर है। वहा पर गिरने वाली पानी की बुन्द मुमताज का आसु नही नही शिवलिंग पर गिरनेवाला कुदरती जलाभीषेक है  भारत के इतिहास को बदला  गया है .
( जिसे भी ये जानकारी अच्छी लगे शेयर
करे।)
जय महादेव

एक बार इसे भी पढ़े ...
१) मुमताज शहाजहानकी चौथी बीवी थी..
२) शहाजहानने मुमताज से शादी करने के लिए उसके पति का खून किया था
३) १४ वे बच्चे को जन्म देते हुए मुमताज़ की मौत हुई थी
४) मुमताज के मरने के बाद शहाजहानने उसकी बहन से शादी कर ली .
इसमें प्रेम कहा है..?
 plzz share to all
एक बात बोलू इंकार मत करना आपको आप जिसे चाहते हे उनकी कसम हे। शिव जी 5 नाम
1"शिव शंकर
2"भोले नाथ
3"नील कंठ
4"महारुद्र
5"मृत्युंजय
10 लोगोको सेंड करो पर मुझे नहीं ।आज  आपको गुड न्यूज़ मिलेगी,अगर पढ़कर अन्जान बने रहे तो शानिवार तक कुछ ऐसा होगा  
जो कभी सोचा भी नहीं ।


Sent from my iPhone

With due respect to any one who might feel offended, I may state that computer technology has failed to sink into our psyche, more particularly if one is an Indian. Computer functions on logic system. We prefer to defy that. It is easy to opine, especially when you don't have to reason it out, for reasoning out would show you the mirror that would refuse to hide the ugly face that an opinion might be hiding. As such, let us check our premise.

• 

  Rajesh Sahai Nitish, you are wrong. You were not given charge to do things in exclusion, nor to desert your partner, nor to copy Sonia Gandhi in inventing your version of Manmohan Singh for Bihar in the form of a non descript Jitan Ram Manjhi, nor to put on decepti...See More

  Like · Reply · 1 · July 20 at 11:04am
• 

  Birju Kumar Sorry sir...I think u r prejudiced... Now this coalition is really meant for " DEVELOPMENT WID SOCIAL JUSTICE UNTILL SOCIO-ECONOMY EQUALITY

  Like · Yesterday at 1:02pm
• 

  Rajesh Sahai It is time Indians liberate themselves from the bondage that political jargans tend to incarcerate the lesser mortals in. How did Nitish got empowered and against whom? People voted not Nitish in exclusion nor did his voters gave him licence to quit his partnership and join hands with those against whom the vote was harvested. Nor was the vote harvested for the likes of Jitans or Rams or Majhis. If there is any logic in defence, let Nitish declare in the ensuing bye elections that he would be free to repeat such feat again, if voted to power. Then would he see how smartly he harvests stout slaps from the electorate. But if he still reaps garlands and bouquets, it would mean he was, is and shall be right. Let Nitish nod in agreement and taste the crushing defeat or massive mandate, as may be the case. And for heaven's sake , avoid talking about social justice etc. when power hungry politicians are in reference. These terms are for public consumption which enlightened masses now refuse to subscribe to.

  Like · Yesterday at 3:11pm
• 

  Rajesh Sahai It is time Indians liberate themselves from the bondage that political jargans tend to incarcerate the lesser mortals in. How did Nitish got empowered and against whom? People voted not Nitish in exclusion nor did his voters gave him licence to quit his partnership and join hands with those against whom the vote was harvested. Nor was the vote harvested for the likes of Jitans or Rams or Majhis. If there is any logic in defence, let Nitish declare in the ensuing bye elections that he would be free to repeat such feat again, if voted to power. Then would he see how smartly he harvests stout slaps from the electorate. But if he still reaps garlands and bouquets, it would mean he was, is and shall be right. Let Nitish nod in agreement and taste the crushing defeat or massive mandate, as may be the case. And for heaven's sake , avoid talking about social justice etc. when power hungry politicians are in reference. These terms are for public consumption which enlightened masses now refuse to subscribe to.

Recently an interesting discussion ensued in a friend circle. Who is secular? This was being ardently discussed. One who was most vocal was all praise for Lalu. It was Lalu who took a stand against Advani. Lalu still maintains his stance till date even though Modi is at the helm. Another participant was quick to dismiss that argument, saying his admiration for Nitish who had divorced the communal forces. The two got into spitting venom against one another, the former acclaiming Lalu as the one and the only one to have stopped the communal forces to rise, but even when it has risen, it is Lalu who stands committed to fight it out. In this  battle, Nitish had joined the fray, not as a help or supplement, but rather as an impediment, having divided the secular forces in two streams. The splitting of the forces against communalism had indirectly aided and assisted communalism, thereby weakening secular forces' combat power.
After some hot exchanges, the vehemence of the two participants flagged, paving way for an onlooker to but in. He asked, what , after all, is the exact meaning of secularism? Ok, leave aside its exact meaning, what are its synonyms and also what are its antonyms?
The question came in as a stopper of the hitherto ambulant discussions, which did not traverse only the above mentioned precincts, for numerous others that visited would fill volumes, if gone into.
The pause lasted for some moment, until answers were explored in under-confident stammers, all being unsure of what actually and what exactly the term, 'secular' means.
The interlocutor butted in once again, with some of the synonyms and antonyms he could figure out.
Synonyms of secular, are material, non- religious, worldly, non-spiritual, non- believer, etc.
Antonyms of secular, are religious, spiritual, God fearing, believer, etc.
Now please go ahead with your respective arguments, the interlocutor added, eliciting analyses as regards who are fighting against whom and what.
Does secularism oppose or obstruct the religious practices, asked a pious gentleman who had been attentively listening so far, without jumping into the cross-fire.
No,no. Secularism means complete indifference  towards what a religious practitioner might be doing within himself of within a close group, but without affecting or infecting public life or politics. In the reckoning of a secular state, it is immaterial or of no significance or value as to which faith, belief or religion one subscribe to. Matter and material is sacred, faith and opinions are free which do not overstep forbidden areas.
Well, well, now please spare us. These difficult terrains are for philosophers and lunatics to traverse. The commonly understood definitions of secular and communal  are more efficacious for us to handle and discuss, both the rival participants spoke out in unison, coaxing upon one another to resume their knee- jerk arguments against one another on who is a more profound protector of secularism and who is more competent to fight out communalism.

Yoga is science in its own right. But inadequacies on the part of those championing it is indeed perplexing.
Be that Yoga or Ayurveda, its experts continue to live in the past, using terminologies that are unsynchronised with those of the modern science.
Modern science accepts everything that is objective. It uses terminologies which are demonstrable.
In Ayurveda we have concept of cough, pitta and vayu, the imbalances whereof bring diseases curable by re-establishing its balance.
In yoga, the whole edifice is sustained on twin principles bearing varied names which materially and substantially imply prana and chetna, energy and consciousness.
Even prana has five broad divisions, prana, apana, samana , vayana and udana. Its imbalance is said to fetch equivalant consequence as in case of the above said triplet imbalance recognised by ayurveda.
Now coming to the point, is it not incumbent upon the experts dealing with or dwelling on the above ancient science of ayurveda and yoga to speak out what exactly these terms mean in terms of the terminologies that the modern science may recognise or interpret.
To be specific, i do kapalbhati pranayama or anulom vilom/ nadi shodhan, or mool bandh or udyan bandh or agnisar. It yields great experience, but that is what may be bracketted as subjective experience. 
Objective approach requires us to state exactly that which occurs in the body system. It is not enough to speak out in terms of prana or chetna or five pranic components. What is required is to state as to what happens when i breathe in, or retain the breath inside or outside, so on and so forth, but in terms of oxygen absorption, energy generation or transmission, metabolism, etc.
Likewise, the use of the ancient terminologies, in other areas is worthless,without indicating its equivalent terminologies interpretable in terms of modern science.
Your help in the above exploration is solicited.

Only a die hard muslim bearing that mindset which the post independence ruling class has fed into the inflexible mindset of muslims, can hold a view of this kind. In what way was the 2002 gujarat riots unforgivable whereas bhagalpur riots have been not only forgotten but forgiven too. Why is the muzaffernagar riots not in the reckoning at all. And above all, why no one, neither this commentator, nor the so called secular parties, nor even the bjp refers to the godhara episode while recalling and referring to the 2002 gujarat riots. And more over, what exactly modi did or contributed which satyendra singh, the then cm, bihar in case of bhagalpur riots of 1989 may not be accused of, or akhilesh in case of muzaffernagar riots. And above all, why is it that whoever outpours venom against modi , seems so emotionally charged whereas there is nothing so specific in case of gujarat as much as was bhagalpur.
It is time to detest. What to detest, can u guess? Detest that the framers of the constitution committed a grave omission, they omitted to give the right of franchise to animals and insects, which segment is only perfunctorily covered through those segments whose responses at election times represent that very characteristic. So if bona fide candate is rejected, dont lament, simply thank the Authors of constitution .

Bhagalpur law students have launched a trial, placing in the dock the Union Government, Delhi Government, Delhi Police and the Media.
All are named accused in a case now under its trial at a Moot Court Proceeding which the Ll.B Part II students have tastefully picked up.
The broad premise of the Moot Court trial postulates Arvind Kejriwal's recent Dharna episode to be a constitutional battle which the accused parties fought on the streets of Delhi, which gives rise to a serious constitutional issue which none, save and except the Apex Court of India, would resolve, rather adjudicate.
The warring parties at the trial are represented by as may as four broad groups of participants, one representing the Union of India, other the State of Delhi, the third the Delhi Police and last but not the least, the Media through the Union Information and Broacasting Ministry.
Each four groups, constitute prosecutor in its own right, while the test hold the briefs in defence of their tespective sides.
The pivotal question giving rise to the trial is common, inasmuch as rival parties are in agreement on the point that all the accused in the dock are State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the constitution which simultaneously entitle and forbid each about certain legal dos and donts.
The dos enable the state to exercise its legal powers whereas the donts likewise forbid the display of (il)legal prowess which, according to each contesting side, the rival party-in-dock wrongly and illegally did, which led to the precipitation of ordeals for the common man whom each side professes to represent.
The concise points advocated by each prosecution side decry one another for denigrating the authority which the Indian Constitution invests in the respective offices each adorn, Union Government for undermining the authority of the Delhi Government; Delhi Police for pooh poohing the tip off which the Delhi Government functionary provided seeking prompt action; Delhi Government for its negligence and failure to invoke the intervention of the Apex Court for legal redressal before overstepping into the streets of Delhi; and Media for its deplorable "cut and paste" role by which an already misconceived issue was presented in a grossly messed up fashion.
The rival sides have begun arguments after initializing written submissions which would further fetch filing of rejoinders by the respective defending sides.