=================Quote=================== so pl understand > that i wasnt meant to harm anyones feelings. ==============Unquote==================== I do understand. Rest assured. I understand that we are discussing a very sensitive issue here and "karaNam thappinAl maraNam" is true here. Let me present my case here. I wanted to have an open discussion and hence when one discusses neutrally, there is no reason why one should feel hurt. In my opinion, afterall you had never written anything to hurt.
And many thanks for your insights regarding the co-existence of both the murthys, contrary to my assumption. Thanks for correcting me.
> > And many thanks for your insights regarding the co-existence of both > the murthys, contrary to my assumption. Thanks for correcting me. >
dear venkatesh
The two murthys co existed. not only that the daily rituals were taken care of by the thillai 3000. this is also sung.
some more questions are to be asked - for that we will need the green signal from the moderators...can we can table them as well. to do this we need an expert - so we need to call the kollaikaaran - sorry author of thillaiyil oru kollaikaran...venkat, can you give us the architecture of the temple ( prior to the 1930's renovation) - with particular reference of the consort shrines..
> we need an expert - so we need to call the kollaikaaran - sorry author > of thillaiyil oru kollaikaran...venkat, can you give us the > architecture of the temple ( prior to the 1930's renovation) - with > particular reference of the consort shrines..
Hi I am no expert on this. will need to check up. i am mentioning the people attributed with the building in the reverse. from modern to ancient as i know. the latest renovation of thillai was done by the nagarathars in 1900 or so. the present structure in stone can be attributed to them. prior to that there was a tripartiate agreement which restrained the priests of govindaraja from interfering with the pujas of natraja. this was brokered by the british i guess. how they were interfering is hard to guess.
the mudaliars of thondaimandalam were the previous renovators with opur own dubash pachaiyappa mudaliar doing up one gopuram with his sister. the french and hyders troops had seized the temple and natraja was moved for a second time - this time to thiruvarur . the temple seems to have suffered some damage in gun powder explosions.
prior to that it was the naiks - subsidaries of the vijayanagar who did some work in the temple. it was perhaps during this period that govindaraja was kept back.
before maliks entry the pandyas did a hell of a lot of work on the temple. the cholas of course preceded them.
I (for that matter SRB or KAN or Dr. Nagaswamy or any other acknowledged Scholar) fail to find a reason why a Chozha King should put a PERUMAL SCULPTURE into the Sea ..
In " Thillai & Nataraja" B. Natarajan has also discussed this in detail ..
It is Dr. Nagaswamy who discussed the worship in the form of PAADAGAM concept in one of his books ..
KAN Sastri wrote that first mention of co-existence of Nataraja & Govindaraja was by Manickavasagar (who's not figuring in Periapuranam - and so estimated to) belong to post Sundara - 8th AD.
Hi got one tidbit achutha rayan of vijay nagar installs a new govinda raja statue in 1539 in the outer parikrama. also alots 4 villages which yield 500 gold coins a year
gingee chieftan krishnappa kondama naicken insisted that govindaraja be shifted to the inner parikrama. this was opposed by the dhikshitars who commited suicide 20 of them from the gopuram top.two were also shot. this account is from an eyewitness report in the travelougue of jesuit father n pimenta. the accord restricting the bramhotsavams of the vaishnavites was signed by the priests of the govindaraja temple in 1867 and till that there sems to have been a friction between the two temples. venketesh
Good quotes! Just to know a little more about Kulasekhara Azhwar, he was a King of Chera dynasty. He was a very pure Rama bhaktha and he would lose everything for the sake of Rama. It is said that once, when he was listening to Ramayana upanyasam, during the "padai thirattum padalam" for the Lanka War, he forgot his identity and ordered all his chieftains to be prepared immediately to go and assist Rama. Then his clever minister, who knew him well, somehow conveyed the matter to the upanyasakar and the upanyasakar immediately completed the day by simply saying Rama killed Ravana and thus was victorious, without elaboration.
Such was his devotion to Rama and he saw everyone as mostly Rama and hence he saw the Vishnu Murthy of Chitrakoodam as Rama too.
> hence he saw the Vishnu Murthy of Chitrakoodam as Rama too. > > Regards, > Venkatesh >
so atleast that part is agreed -thillai had a vishnu/rama/govindaraja/sayana idol....and was sung as tirucitrakoodam, and was maintained at that time by the thillai 3000
now going to what ootakutthan says( thanks to divakar sir)
kadalil paLLikondavanukku kadalileeyee palli amaippathu
do we take this as it is literally - meaning is the statue a reclining ( sayana) vishnu idol that was thrown, dropped, kept in the sea - or is it just pun of the poet.
Kulasekhara Azhwar, he > was a King of Chera dynasty.
Hi
what was his approximate period before or after cheraman perumal? we certainly need to discuss his dynastyand the last chera man who converted to islam, and died in mecca also reportedly came from the same family
venketesh
He was a very pure Rama bhaktha and he > would lose everything for the sake of Rama. It is said that once, > when he was listening to Ramayana upanyasam, during the "padai > thirattum padalam" for the Lanka War, he forgot his identity and > ordered all his chieftains to be prepared immediately to go and > assist Rama. Then his clever minister, who knew him well, somehow > conveyed the matter to the upanyasakar and the upanyasakar > immediately completed the day by simply saying Rama killed Ravana > and thus was victorious, without elaboration. > > Such was his devotion to Rama and he saw everyone as mostly Rama and > hence he saw the Vishnu Murthy of Chitrakoodam as Rama too. > > Regards, > Venkatesh > > --- In ponniyinselvan@yahoogroups.com, "Vijay Kumar .S"
VEnkat2, I have heard it, the temple at Perur, coimbatore has two wonderful sculptures of the Shiva-Parvati dance competition. Parvati's scultpure shows anger if you see it on one side and shyness if you see it on another.
there is a lot of contreversy on this cheraman as he is supposed to have preceded the nayanmar of the same name by 150-200 years. perhaps there were two branches of cheras running parallely one from karur and one from vanji.
some trivia kannadasans cheraman kathali is about the muslim convert there is a european rock band named after kulasekara alvar
Hi venkat 3 is here now reminds me of my schooldays when 5 of were venkateshs out of a class of 30 when a new teacher came we would all sit together and when the customary " asking the students name" took place any teacher would beleive we were kidding her. 5 venkateshs in a row. venketesh
That is precisely what I said as, the Rangaraja Nambi character finds no mention in any of the Traditional Srivaishnavite accounts. He is very correct.
so what venkatesh???? fiction writers are given a huge allowance the reason we are all here is because of kalki and didnt he make a great use of that licence. imagine a flower boy and a boat girl on karikalans throne.it happened in ponniyin selvan.
IF govindarajar was thrown into the sea i am sure a lot of his vaishnavite followers would have followed suit. either voluntarily or by force. the dikshithar suicides 400 years later in the sameplace is an example of those cruel times.
i am sure there must have been atleast one person like kamal's charecter. and from the accounts of sri vaishnavism that i know there is no dearth of dedicated followers. kamal has not gone against the spirit of the event.
what we were discussing here was the background settings. before it became one of the most knowledgable discussions of the event. venketesh
Sorry if I have miscommunicated. Rather I am with you on this. Regarding the blog, I only said that the blogger reflected my thoughts about the authenticity of the Rangaraja Nambi character. Remember I said, this name or character is not mentioned in History. Of course, I do not share his anguish though. I am definitely with you for the fact that a historical movie or novel can never be complete or atleast interesting without the fictitious characters like Poonguzhali and Senthan Amudhan as indicated by you.
However I beg to differ with your following observation ===========================Quote============================== IF govindarajar was thrown into the sea i am sure a lot of his > vaishnavite followers would have followed suit. either voluntarily or > by force. > the dikshithar suicides 400 years later in the sameplace is an > example of those cruel times. ==========================Unquote============================ incident itself, inspite of Ottakoothar confirming it with his ThakkayAgabharani. And regarding the Vaishnavite followers following suit, you can see very well today how many vaishnavites gave their voices for the Rama sethu Issue and similar issues. They (we) are a very silent group, for whom "rAman AndAlum rAvaNan Andalum oru kavalayum illa.." [:D] The most insensitive group I would say. Like wise, those Vaishnavites also would have stood on the road sides and cried out. A Ramanuja or A Koorathazhwan or A Periya Nambi and a similar few are all but exception to this. Also from the date line of 1127 AD when this incident is supposed to have happened Ramanuja was already old at 110 years of age and Koorathazhwan had passed away. So we can only expect the Vaishnvaites to follow, but CANNOT CONCLUDE.
And for the records I am not disagreeing with the probability of a similar character like Rangaraja Nambi to have existed. Only that it finds no record in the history.
first of all since i am associated with the chidambaram temple for quite some time i know it evokes more emotions than mny others.
> incident itself, inspite of Ottakoothar confirming it with his > ThakkayAgabharani.
dont you beleive poets. they end up saying something else when they mean other things.
i have a very great beleif in the similarities between thiruvengadu and chidambaram. the previous one near the confluence of kaveri and the sea is called aadi chidambaram and is mentioned by valmiki as swetharanyam the re is also a natrajar there in a similar shrine of almost the same dimensions (but right now his importance is taken away by agora murthy.
the temple also has a kali with a broken neck as a result of a difficult move in a dance competition with shiva) what I am arrving at is at some point the structure of this temple and chidambaram must have been very alike. the temple complex also has a vishnu shrine. a small one. i guess the original shrine in thillai must have also been of the same proportions and in the outer parikrama ( where the mulattanavar is also present) there seems no opposition when achuta rayar re installed a new govindaraja within the outer parikrama in 1530 or so. the dheekshithars must have been thankful that vijaynagar built for them a rajagopuram and repaired the whole temple. it was when the kondama naicken tried to do it in the inner parikrama that they have protested. also if you observe the structure of the temples in thillai you will feel the architecture is a little unbalanced and lopsided. where natraja faces south what must have been a wide hall in front of him, only half exists. the other half taken by the govinda rajar shrine. i guess the original govindarajar must have been where the thaayar shrine is now very next to the very important nadana sabhai. also the only side with a walled up entrance is next to this . the south entrance to the main temple is walled up for some reason. it even has a nandi outside. so chidambaram temple must be holding more secrets than those that will be unraveled in our life times. i will add a sketch of the inner shrine in our pictures folder soon.
=================Quote=================== dont you beleive poets. they end up saying something else when they > mean other things. ================Unquote==================
Agreed. But in the context of the present discussion, what could be the "other things" that the poet possibly meant to convey with those words, which rather gives direct account of the incident.
Also remember, this finds place in the Guruparampara prabhavam as well. The reason for taking Ottakoothar for help is to only convey that the King's own poet and contemporary had confirmed this act, even if the Vaishnavite Guruparampara Prabhavam is to be discarded on the reasons of being a sectarian work.
And lastly, the poets are not always liars, especially when they are praising the deeds of their kings. They, at best, only exaggerate. Logically even assuming that Ottakoothar had lied here, why would he need to do this and whom to please. If to please the king, then it is very much obvious that the King shares the views of intolerance expressed by the poet. Otherwise, the King would have condemned such a verse, which would bring a certain disrepute to him. Logical isn't it??
Whatever topic we bring in we turn out discussing history. This thread started as a discussion on the movie Dasavatharam and....my god what a wealth of information.
Good discussions and lot to learn. Thanks to everyone who contributed (contributing).
ana mudiva ethavathu sollunga...like all other topics please dont leave this thread hanging..
Hope SPS will summarize before we close this thread :)
That is what we should do for each and every thread if the information is spread across messages. We should form a focus team, which will take care of it by going through the messages, extract the info and create a single message as summary. Otherwise it will be become tedious task to visit it after sometime and by that time we might have lost the context. Probably we should do this every weekend.
Any volunteers?
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM, SatishKumar Arunachalam
Venkat2, my humble stance is that 'sthala puranam' and history can be totally unrelated. The basic problem in our times is that there is only ONE way of understanding everything - that is if it historically/literally happened, the opposite of any literal truth is a lie, in fact it is a sad problem of modern times that even the word 'myth' itself often means a lie. Myth is not a lie, myth is an allegorical truth, or a story written to communicate truths that do not go well if we say in plain literal forms.
Spiritual gurus/masters often used myths or allegorical truths to communicate great wisdom. Whether Narasimha was pacified by Shiva or Prahlada himself is hardly the point, the point is that the story has something to say about ourselves regarding anger and pacification.
It offends orthodox religious believers and unorthodox people who enjoy fighting these things that it need not be a literal truth. But as long as we stick to saying it is literal (because we think all non literals are lies) we will be left with such dilemmas that is all.
I agree with you here on the Karmic inclinations. But how does that lead to a pessimistic view. I only said that no one opposes anything and keep silent. I never said that it is right or wrong, though I used the word insensitive. It is but true that the internal karmic dependance, exhibits externally as insensitiveness. Hope I am clarifying my point.
In fact, philosophically I would say that these insensitive acts of the Vaishnavites and in particular the Thenkalai Vaishnavites are very true to their scriptures as they live the "bhAvam" of "pORRuvAr pORRalum, thURRuvAr thURRalum pOgaTTum kaNNanukkE..". Yes as per the Thenkalai Sampradhayam, there is nothing that a Jeevatma does to earn anything and it is all what He does. Though at the outset is may look like, everyone follows this and not only the Thenkalai Vaishnavites. But the hairline difference is that others do associate "some effort" on the part of jeevAthma, while according to the Thenkalai philosophy even this "some effort" on the part of jeevAthma is refuted. Remember the song from the film Marupadium
Now regarding the correctness of the above philosophy, though I can debate on it, I am sure it will not be in the interest of the group. So let us leave it at that, I mean, that it is the scriptures that the Thenkalais follow.
So, in my humble opinion, calling a spade a spade (contextually here the "insensitivity") cannot be termed as pessimism.
Precisely, that is why I started my reply saying "this is easily contested from a Vaishnavite perspective" and did not start with "Sorry you are wrong and the truth is....."
For me, I would not believe the Sarabeswarar Story or the Pratyangira story and the vice versa, will be true for some one else.
===================Quote=================== the point is that the > story has something to say about ourselves regarding > anger and pacification. =================Unquote================
The above is very ideal, if everyone in the world understands the actual reasons, while considering the other characters as metaphors. But, as most people believe everything right from the characters to the intended objectives, one need to be careful in conveying only the correct, logical and rational things, rather than say something without a basis just for competition.
One small question in this regard! Cholas were inherently ardent Saivites and either Thillai Natarajan or Thiruvaru Thyagarajan had been their first "kula deivam". It is also noted from the Ennayiram descriptions that Narasimha was indeed the "kula deivam" of Kulothunga I and many other Chola Kings. If the Sarabeswarar legend is true, then why would they want to have the Narasimha form of Vishnu as their kula deivam, as naturally their original kula deivam Siva had ostracised Narasimha form of Vishnu. The Logic here is begging. This is why I used the word "competition" above. If the motive was to exhibit the tolerance limits, they could have as well had other forms like Ranganatha or Venkateswara who had no records of Siva's interference.
I leave it here. I had just indicated how I would carry on the discussion to turn down the Sarabeswarar legend, logically. I do not want to continue on this for the fear of hurting others and also it is not in the purview of this group which is basically to discuss on history.
> One small question in this regard! Cholas were inherently ardent > Saivites and either Thillai Natarajan or Thiruvaru Thyagarajan had > been their first "kula deivam". It is also noted from the Ennayiram > descriptions that Narasimha was indeed the "kula deivam" of > Kulothunga I and many other Chola Kings.
hi venkatesh
have you heard of the two chalukyas - find out what their kula deivams where...maybe you will get your answer there..
Indeed it is Narasimha. But it is only Kulothunga I, who is the cross-over from Chalukyas to Cholas. Apparently, his successors would definitely have been caught up with the Chola culture and hence it is no wonder that Kulothunga II could very well have transformed into a staunch Saivite with lesser tolerance levels. Afterall history has recorded so many conversions starting from Mahendravarman to Nedunchadayan to Hoysala Vishnuvardhanan et al, at some point of time.
However, you taken a para out of a discussion on Sarabeswarar legend to quote here. How does this relate to the authenticity of the Sarabeswarar legend, either historically or logically?
> > However, you taken a para out of a discussion on Sarabeswarar legend > to quote here. How does this relate to the authenticity of the > Sarabeswarar legend, either historically or logically? > > Regards, > Venkatesh >
can you dig further and find out whose kula deviam was sarabeshwarar
HINDU MUNNANI today announced that they would make agitation if the controversial scenes belitting any sect of Hinduism are not removed from the release of the film
Venkat2, it is impossible for mythical stories to be 'rational and logical', be it Sarabeswarar or something else. If we want it that way we might as well throw everything out starting with great epics.
I agree with you some stories may have been created for competitive reasons. Most stories are created to convey deeper spiritual truths. If we want to run this political contest in the name of Siva versus Vishnu - I will only take what 'rationally' makes sense and if it supports 'Vishnu' - it is not going to be unlike a political battle between rival political parties. Whether mature devotees, be it of Siva/Vishnu or any deity engage in that is a question for us all.
As far as I have heard, Sarabeswarar never killed Narasimha, but just controlled him from his anger. No one was able to pacify Narasimha and hence prayed to Siva and siva took the form of Sarabeswarar and held Narasimha tight so that Narasimha could not move and then slowly calmed down. This sounds more logical than the story of Sarabeswarar killing Narasimha...
the very concept of killing of a entity that is beyond the compromise of birth is not correct. When one is never born - there is no death. Sarabeswarar - did something like a 'DATA TRANSFER' of all the rudric amsam of Lord Narasmha.
The Lord was in no mood to get pacified - sarabeshwar was the form of all the kodura rudra aamsam of the Lord narasimha himself.