Poetry In Stone|கல்லிலே கலைவண்ணம் கண்டோம் has posted a new item, 'Where it all began in South India - Stone Circles| கல்தோன்றி மண்தோன்றா காலத்தே … கல் வட்டம்'
[lang_en]
The cradle of civilisation - many cultures want to lay claims to this tag. When these claims are not backed by strong evidence, they step back to folklore, mythical storms, lost lands and sea incursions that magically wipe out all traces of civilisation, yet leave intact the memories. While we wait for more technological advances [...]
What a coinncidence. Today morning when i was thinking on the time of vedas, I thoughtaboutwhat was happening here , when the Pyramids were built.
Whyour peoplewere so simple?
In3rd BC our own Ashoka had started building big stoopas
Even when in the nearby srilanka, big bhudhist caves started appearing ,our people have not thought about it? Even we did not build big temples after big stupas appeared as close as Amaravati and Bhudhist statues in Nagrjuna konda?
Why we started building temples in stone very late?
re Buddhist/Jain Stupas, but no temples for centuries: Earliest stone work: excav. caves for Ajivikas in Barabar Caves, Bihar. under Ashoka's rule. I'd read that technology to work stone hadn't worked its way throughout So. Asia, yet. Plenty of trees for building material in the meantime. ... a heretical thought? kathie
It is my conviction that sculpting on granite was tried in Mahabalipuram; before that no work was attempted on granite..only sandstone, marble, brick, wood. I disagree with Dr Nagaswami that the art of sculpting on granite came from north. This is also one of my arrguments that if you want to understand Mahabalipuram you should visit Kailasanatha temple. That was the model on which sculpting on granite was experimented with in Mahabalipuram
You can defenetly make this post. I was also thinking on the same line.
This need to be answred. My view is instead of "We did not know",,Let us explore why we did not do?
Intrestingly, this question makes Vedas and the Indus sites as the only oldest surviving cultural things of India.
I am reading on various articles on time of Vedas.Many suggested to read the latest articles of authors who vehemently propoagated aryan invasiontheory and how they are SLOWLY turing away from that.
Another intresting thing many mentioned is, the Dwaraka underwater study, if properly done will throw more light on the subject,
If you look at Egypt, it's basically desert, broken by the Nile. In other words, probably the only arid climate in the ancient world that people could live in. Other places where ancient civilizations of that time existed - Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, China, and so on, are not as dry.
I've seen buildings, not more than a few decades old, literally crumble to dust in our climate, due to termites, for example. In our wet climate, nothing but rock really lasts. The only thing that can really last, without any human intervention, would be the granite of our temples. Even the sudai structures have to be maintained regularly (hence kumbabhishekams every decade or so) or they will just disappear.
My theory is that the cultures of the late neolithic and early bronze ages didn't have the technology to build and maintain these types of structures in the wet climates of India and the rest of the world where they lived. And thus, we have not much of their remains in the form of massive monuments. Those probably existed, and have long since become part of the soil.
Egypt on the other hand, is a place about as perfect as possible for both sides of the equation - lots of building material in the form of easily-worked limestone, and the kind of climate that preserves things, rather than decomposing them.
In essence, what I'm arguing is that our ancestors - of the Indus valley, to be precise, didn't have any _less_ technology than the Egyptians. The very fact that they built so many cities - where each household had flush toilets and indoor plumbing - demonstrates this to us. The south was probably less developed at that time, but there's no question that our ancestors were technologically advanced. It's just that Egypt was in the right place to build big.
By around the time of Ashoka, other techniques were discovered and spread around the world, enabling our ancestors to build big also.
Besides, many of our earlier cities still exist, unlike Memphis and Thebes. After Damascus, I believe Varanasi is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Patna, Mathura, and others should also be included in this list. In these places, any archeological remains would be buried under several (hundreds) of layers of city built on top of city, which makes archaeology quite difficult...
I don't claim that this is really what happened / is happening, but it's my theory on the answer to VJ's question...
As Swami Vivekananda says, Indians (Hindus) found ways to live with the bare minimum things. No where in the world we can see this. In the west, people of wealth of revered, but in India, Even the great kings will prostrate before a 'mutrum thurandha munivar'. the more the person relinquishes the more he is revered.
As Sankar and shaswat commented, we were looking inwards. When we feel bad that when giant structures were built around the world, we dont have any...we also should think that, we had the worlds first literature. (having such a great volume of scriptures, i dont buy the arguement that we never knew writing till 3000 years back. only this is we lost it )...we had great literature, we found writing, we invented zero and all the basics of science was invented in India. but we did fail to carry it on to the next level for the simple reason that we were not materialistic.
when the egyptians thought that the soul will come back to the body and built huge pyramids to protect it, we already knew what the soul is and body is of no concern.
So i think we should feel proud of what we achieved than feeling bad what we didnt... And in tamilhindu.com, I read a comment by our member Jayashree Saranathan...that only in Kaliyuga temples were built...till then the prayers were within or at the individuals house level....i think its a very valid point...
Why do we prostrate before another? This takes us to the origin of behaviour. Recognise the existence of a supernatural power. Good and Evil exisit side by side. Man must make his own choice. You are a co-worker of God; indeed every one is. Nota slave of god When you prostrate before another person, you recognise the existence of God's presence. Athithi devo bhavaa
to take this further - if you notice the early cave temples - presume they were modeled on the earlier extent of wood , brick and mortar structures - but their relative sizes and specs - were they just miniaturised to leverege the unforgiving medium of stone - but why then do they lack few key elements for a more ` public' styling. can elaborate if you are interested
You had stated this before as well - that Kanchi Kailasantha predates mallai - would request to please support with why you think its like that. Epigraphical, evolutionary, stylistic references please !!
If I can stop one heart from breaking,I shall not live in vain; If I can ease one life the aching,Or cool one pain, Or help one fainting robin, Into his nest again, I shall not live in vain. Emily Dickinson