New Delhi: A Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court claiming that a Buddhist monastery (Baudh Vihar) existed at the site of Babri mosque and hence the disputed land at Ayodhya should be handed over to followers of the faith.
The SLP was filed by Udit Raj, the Chairman of Buddha Education Foundation and All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations yesterday against the judgement of Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench in the Ayodhya title suits.
Giving the information at a press conference on Friday, Raj told reporters, "The Budhists in India challenge the legality and constitutionality of the judgement. Not only the disputed land but even the construction before the existence of Babri mosque belong to Baudh Vihar."
Former Union Minister and Bhartiya Janshakti Party leader Sanghpriya Gautam, who accompanied Raj, quoted from the Allahabad High Court judgement to support the argument.
"Justice Sudhir Agrawal held that Kasauti pillars of disputed structures, strongly resemble Buddhist pillars of those seen at Varanasi. Justice S U Khan held that Carnegy (British Archeologist) has mentioned that the Kasauti pillars, were used in the construction of mosque, strongly resembled Buddhist pillars which he had seen in Varanasi," Gautam said.
"Accordinlgy, it is also possible that there were also ruins of some Buddhist religious place on and around the land on which the mosque was constructed and some material was thereof used in the construction of the mosque," he said.
Raj said that the ASI in its report submitted in 2003 had found that there was a circular shrine beneath the disputed structure after which the Allahahad High Court ordered further collection of evidences.
"So far it has not been done. It is most likely that this shrine is of Buddhists. The mosque is made on the ruins of Baudh Vihar and hence should be given to Buddhists," Raj said.
He said that the ASI had maintained that pillar bases in association of huge structure are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found assoicated with temples of Northern India.
"This itself supports that it could be a Buddhist place because temples of North India connote to Hindus, Jains and Buddhists all...Temples of North India are not necessarily Hindu temples. To conclude them as Hindu temples is not correct," he said.
Both Gautam and Raj at the same time maintained that they could consider withdrawing their demand if both Hindus and Muslims accepted the Allahad High Court verdict and refrained from further appeals into the matter.
"Had Hindus and Muslims brought an end to the dispute and accepted the judgement, we would have not made this move. We are the real claimants but in the larger interest of nation, we would have foregone our claim. But now since both parties have appealed in the Supreme Court, why should we, who are real claimants, remain silent," Gautam said.
Udit Raj agreed with the contention saying this can still be considered if both parties come to an agreement and stop further litigations.
http://www.zeenews.com/news679043.html
The SLP was filed by Udit Raj, the Chairman of Buddha Education Foundation and All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations yesterday against the judgement of Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench in the Ayodhya title suits.
Former Union Minister and Bhartiya Janshakti Party leader Sanghpriya Gautam, who accompanied Raj, quoted from the Allahabad High Court judgement to support the argument.
"Justice Sudhir Agrawal held that Kasauti pillars of disputed structures, strongly resemble Buddhist pillars of those seen at Varanasi. Justice S U Khan held that Carnegy (British Archeologist) has mentioned that the Kasauti pillars, were used in the construction of mosque, strongly resembled Buddhist pillars which he had seen in Varanasi," Gautam said.
"Accordinlgy, it is also possible that there were also ruins of some Buddhist religious place on and around the land on which the mosque was constructed and some material was thereof used in the construction of the mosque," he said.
Raj said that the ASI in its report submitted in 2003 had found that there was a circular shrine beneath the disputed structure after which the Allahahad High Court ordered further collection of evidences.
"So far it has not been done. It is most likely that this shrine is of Buddhists. The mosque is made on the ruins of Baudh Vihar and hence should be given to Buddhists," Raj said.
He said that the ASI had maintained that pillar bases in association of huge structure are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found assoicated with temples of Northern India.
"This itself supports that it could be a Buddhist place because temples of North India connote to Hindus, Jains and Buddhists all...Temples of North India are not necessarily Hindu temples. To conclude them as Hindu temples is not correct," he said.
Both Gautam and Raj at the same time maintained that they could consider withdrawing their demand if both Hindus and Muslims accepted the Allahad High Court verdict and refrained from further appeals into the matter.
"Had Hindus and Muslims brought an end to the dispute and accepted the judgement, we would have not made this move. We are the real claimants but in the larger interest of nation, we would have foregone our claim. But now since both parties have appealed in the Supreme Court, why should we, who are real claimants, remain silent," Gautam said.
Udit Raj agreed with the contention saying this can still be considered if both parties come to an agreement and stop further litigations.
http://www.zeenews.com/news679043.html
Tirupati Balaji was a Budhhist Shrine यह 30 अध्याय की यह पुस्तक श्री जमनादास जी ने लिखी है जो की एक आंबेडकरवादी है और इस पुस्तक के जरिये भारत के लगभग हर बड़े हिंदू तीर्थ को बोद्ध मंदिर बताने की कोशिश की है ।
ReplyDeleteमुझे जमनादास की इस पुस्तक को गलत सिद्ध करने के लिए 30 अध्याय की पुस्तक लिखने की जरुरत नहीं क्युकी तिरुपति का उल्लेख एक भी बोद्ध ग्रंथ में नहीं ,तो क्या स्वयं गौतम बुद्ध जमनादास जी को सपने में बताकर गए थे की तिरुपति एक बोद्ध मंदिर है ? तिरुपति आदि हिंदू मंदिरों को बोद्ध मंदिर सिद्ध करने के लिए जो तर्क जमनादास जी ने दिए है वे बचकाने है ,जैसे की वनवासी या आदिवासी बोद्ध ,यदि वनवासी बोद्ध होते तो उनके कर्म काण्डो में आज भी बोद्ध धर्म के अंश होते जो की नहीं है ,साथ ही एक और तर्क यह भी है की इन मंदिरों में दलितों को आने की इज़ाज़त है जो इन मंदिरों के बोद्ध होने की पुष्टि करता है ,हा जैसे की बोद्ध अपने मंदिरों में दलितों को जाने देते थे ,लालिताविस्तारासुत्त में गौतम बुद्ध कहते है की बोधिसत्व केवल ब्राह्मण और क्षत्रिय कुल जैसे पवित्र कुल में ही जन्म ले सकता है ।बोद्ध धर्म दलितों के लिए कितना भला सोचता है यह बताने की अब जरुरत नहीं । चुकी तिरुपति दंतिवार्मन पल्लव के काल में बना था इसीलिए यह सिद्ध होता है की वह कोई बोध मंदिर नहीं था जिसको बाद में हिंदू बना दिया गया । बालाजी की मूर्ति में जनेउ भी है और उनकी छाती पर लक्ष्मी जी है ,इसपर जमनादास कहते है की वे लक्ष्मी नहीं बल्कि एक बोद्ध देवी है जिसे ब्राह्मणों ने लक्ष्मी बना दिया जो की गलत है साथ ही जमनादास कहते है की बालाजी की या विष्णु जी की मूर्ति में कोई हथियार नहीं अर्थात वह हिंदू मूर्ति नहीं ,पहले तो यह बताओ की कहा लिखा है की हिंदू मूर्तियों में देवताओ के हाथ में हथियार होना ही चाहिए ?? श्री कृष्ण जी की कई मूर्तियों में हथियार नहीं बल्कि बांसुरी है ,तो क्या श्री कृष्ण जी भी गौतम बुद्ध थे ?सिलाप्पतिकाराम यह एक बोद्ध ग्रंथ है और इसमें उल्लेख है की एक ब्राह्मण तिरुमल्लाई पर्वत जाता है जहा तिरुपति स्थित है ,वहा वह एक विष्णु मंदिर में भजन गाता है और वह मंदिर और कोई नहीं बल्कि तिरुपति बालाजी ही है ।
खुद बोद्ध ग्रंथ कहते है की तिरुपति कोई बोध मंदिर नहीं अपितु एक हिंदू मंदिर है ।