Ponniyin Selvan Varalaatru Peravai

--- Tajmahal was to be dismantled and taken to England. Due to some financial crisis they stopped it.

People need such monuments/stories. More than History and facts - people like fictions.

Once during our Lunch my collegues asked me about Big Temple.

When i told them that - No shadow falling - No Idli Patti and No single piece rock at top- No sarap pallam etc etc - they were all disappointed.

Let the stories live

See the link below

http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=575

regards





































காவியமா, நெஞ்சின் ஓவியமா???????????????????
















*3. Mumtaz died during her 14th delivery. (Outstanding!!!)

4. After her death, Shahjahan married Mumtaz's sister. (Amazing!!!!)

Where the hell was 'Love'??!!*

veegopalji
[courtesy : MVG]

Shah Jehan acknowledged the Hindu genius when he famously wrote
to his son Auragazeb who blocked all the water access to the Agra Fort.
He wrote to him that Hindus offer water to the dead fathers but you have blocked even water to your father !!!!
He supported the candidature of his son Dara Shikoh against Aurangazeb and had to pay heavily for this.
I need not tell about Aurangazeb, but Dara was a great philosopher and scholar.
He was instrumental in translating upanishads,yoga vasisthaand ancient Indian literary works to persian language.
His love for Mumtaz Mahal is legendary and the solitary confinement of his cell at Agra Fort from where the Taj is visible is a standing witness to this.
It is that is why Tagore wrote as
"A tear drop on the cheek of eternity" !!!!!!!!!!
Unimaginable context but possible only for a great poet..

I think you're trying to apply modern morality to a Mughal emperor, which
is unfair to both.

First, we're on the Ponniyin Selvan group, right? What would you say about
the double-handful of wives the Chola emperors had? Rajaraja himself had
something like 20, as I recall... This was just the common practice of the
day.

There are two reasons that kings of those times had multiple wives. The
first is the line of succession; even in this century, the crown princess
of Japan was pretty much driven to depression by pressure to produce a male
heir. In an era where the child mortality rate was something like 30%, not
to mention the maternal mortality rate, this was one strategy to ensure the
continuity of the line.

The second is diplomacy. It's incredible how many empires were built or
stabilized by marriages. The Mughals were no exception to this rule either.
They intermarried with their own courtiers to check their ambitions, and
with other monarchs to maintain friendly relations (ahem)...

But Shah Jahan's case is interesting - he married thrice, according to
Wikipedia; to "Akbarabadi Mahal" and "Kandahari Mahal", each of whom had
one child by him. And to Mumtaz, who had 14 children... I think that proves
chronicler, the relationship with his other wives "had nothing more than
the status of marriage. The intimacy, deep affection, attention and favour
which His Majesty had for the Cradle of Excellence (Mumtaz) exceeded by a
thousand times what he felt for any other." Remember, this isn't a later
invention - this is eyewitness testimony! And she was the one entrusted
with his imperial seal - which meant she could issue *his* commands, which
is not a privilege the other two wives had (or indeed, anyone else except
Dara and Aurangzeb during his later years).

I think it's safe to say that he loved her quite deeply and truly.

But now, I've really got to question the motivation of this line of
thought. First of all, the original "points" are all flawed! Fourth of 7
wives? I can't find more than three... Killed her husband? Um, she was
betrothed to him at age fourteen (and he was 15), they were married five
years later (apparently some astrology thing - his other marriages were in
the intervening years). Married her sister? Fact not in evidence! Only one
of that collection that's true is that she died giving birth to her 14th
child, a fact that could easily be taken as meaning that she was the only
one of the three whom Shah Jahan truly loved...

All this is something that can be ascertained in about 3 minutes on the
web; why do we make up stories like this?

I wonder at the political and ethnic motivations behind this diatribe...

Shash

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:55 PM, vancheeswaran gopal

Under what law, "your honor"?

[image: Inline image 1]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, vancheeswaran gopal

So, the charge is that his love doesn't meet your standards of love - which
is apparently defined as "something Shah Jahan didn't do..."

How can we not be talking of history when we're discussing eminently
historical figures? Unless that is, you somehow met the Mughal yesterday
and asked him or something...

I answered every single one of your points - showed them to be completely
wrong, in fact. Yet you still hold to your pre-conclusion that what they
had wasn't "real love" (or "eternal love" - is there any love, indeed any
other emotion, you'd care to call eternal sir?) and therefore...

Actually, I'm not too sure of your "therefore" either - it just seems to be
slander aimed at something you don't like.

Shash

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:53 AM, vancheeswaran gopal

Do you know that :

1. Kulothunga Chola had an "Anukki" who was close to him -He visited Kanchi with both Maharani and gave a Major Grant to Ulagalanthap Perumal.

2. Jadavarman Sundra Pandian had a Thalichcherip Pendu as his queen.

mumtaz was not married before she married shah jahan and it was jahangir who indirectly killed noorjahans first husband by sending him to fight in the afghan front inorder to marry her. it was not the custom of husbands to erect monuments in remembrance of their wives( humayuns wife built humayuns tomb but it has never happened viceversa)so tajmahal tells us there was much more than ordinary relationship between both of them again i agree this relationship was more romanticised by the british

 
shyamsundar

Nandini, Vira Pandiyan, Aditya Karikalan -?

Asoka and his cousin?

He was not Bhudhist when he killed his cousin.

In a slightly reversed way, Prithviraj and Jaichand was pretty much that...
Not killing his rival, but getting his daughter's suitor killed because he
didn't approve of him.

I'm sure there are outright examples; quite a few wouldn't get publicized
except by their enemies...

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:48 AM, vancheeswaran gopal

All the kings were barbarians, cutting across regions but the question is whether any
of these - likePeriya Pazhuvettarayar or Aadithya Karikaalan or Veerapaandiyan build
any memorial for a kidnappedwife ?

veegopalji

All the kings were barbarians is a sweeping generalisation that
can never be accepted.
Kings like Shivaji, Rana Pratap,Rana Sanga,Krishnadevaraya,Martanda Varma,Prithviraj Chauhan,Maharaja Ranjit Singhare Heroes who can never fit intothe meaning of the word barbarian.
Kings like Kochenganan,Cheraman Perumal, Kulasekara are Nayanmars and Alwars.
Shri Ramachandra has been hailed by all the great poets of India
as the Ideal Ruler.
Few Barbarians , anti social elements, thugs, criminals who get power due to destiny like Babar,Akbar,Khilji and others have been in existence right from the time when Parasurama took up the axe till today.

Kidnapped wifes , adultery has been happening even before the times of Ahalya and Indra (who continues to be devaraja !)
and the trait is common to all human communities including those in India.Good and Bad exist in all human communities.
The pride of India is that it recognises this fact and does not accept any racial, relgious superirity.
The pride of India is that Dharma is supreme irrespective of the Man, creed or the race.
That is why Sai Baba who is a Muslim Fakir has his dargah in a Hindu Temple to be worshipped by Millions who accept his words
Sabka Malik ek hai !

What are you saying sir ?
Are our param veer chakra holders barbarians ?
You must be placed along with Kasab in Taj Hotel Mumbai to make
you understand the difference between Ajmal Kasab and
Sandeep Unnikrishnan.
Utterly poor understanding of Dharma ,history.

Dear Friends,

Dharma, is a relative term. and is defined based on time and society.
There is no absolute set of rules. A simple approach is to have "Do onto others what you want others do onto you" as a basis and everything else is loosely derived out of it.

Even in our tradition dharma is not some set of Do's and Don'ts. Though we do have documents such as Manu Dharma etc.. they are also confined to a temporal context.

What appears 'barbarious' now, might have been perfectly normal at a certain point in time. Times change and so also the ways of the society and culture change.

Battles, war, killing, and invasion was the norm. and there was a 'dharma' within that! one might wonder what is so dharmic about killing. It is a very fascinating and intriguing piece of life. Aggression, expansion and territorial obsessions were part of society. Today we see it increasingly in the business domain. Expansions, take overs, mergers, Monopolies and the likes involve lots of strategies and tactics much akin to a battle or war. and "heads" do roll. don't they?

The conflict appears when we somehow think the dharma of today is the "right" dharma. Though we do strive for a peaceful and happy and inclusive society, we can never say this is the "right" dharma. We can say this is "today's' dharma. and it appears right today. There will always be room for evolution. and you cannot rule out the case that a future generation will look upon us as "barbaric" in some sense.

Killing is violence. But even a mental abuse is also equally violence. "Theeyinaar suttapun Ullarum, Aaradhe Navinaal sutta vadu". Today we do see verbal and mental abuse. Do we take it as "Ok" because it is not killing? So, as you see these are very relative.

When we try to apply/compare across eras, there will be conflict.
So, we need to get an awareness of the dharma of the particular times and society to appreciate the merits and demerits of individuals within that context.

Just Thought I will add my little understanding of dharma. I am sure very knowledgeable people here will have some wonderful insights that I am eager to look at.

shashwath sir - thanks for your clarification...
dear sirs,

As Itried to find what it exactly meant....

I found some different words from various sources....

the Wordweb Dictionary gives:

Barbarians :
1. A member of an uncivilized people
2. A crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or
refinement

I
feel that,While
deal with, the some centuries earlier people of India, the term Barbarian is
enitirely different from the above concepts…

 A
Wikipedia page elaborates more about these barbarian people,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian,
some details given in the above
page according to Hindu Culture,
The Hindus anciently referred to foreignpeople as Mlechchaor Mlechchha " dirty
ones; barbarians."[25][26]The Aryans used mleccha much
like the ancient Greeks used barbaros, " originally to indicate the
uncouth and incomprehensible speech of foreigners and then extended to their
unfamiliar behavior."[27]In the ancient texts, Mlechchasare people who are dirty and who
have given up the Vedicbeliefs. Today this term implies
those with bad hygiene.[28][29]Among the tribes termed Mlechcha
were Sakas, Hunas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Bahlikasand Rishikas.[28]
( Ithink,this term originated from the Greek's Barbaros.... )

The term Barbarians, comparing
with the scholars words with ref. to Google Books….
 Almost all the scholarssays "the
Barbarians are the Mlecchas and Mlecchas
are not following the vedic rituals….

1. Researches
into the history and civilization of the Kirātas - Page 80
books.google.com.sg G. P. Singh- 2008 - 572 pages - Preview
A considerable section of the non-Aryan Kirata tribes were also of mlecchaorigin or mleccharace. The image of the Kiratas as barbariansor mlecchasemerged mainly in the post-Gupta period, ...
2. Mlecchasin early India: a study in attitudes
towards outsiders ...
books.google.com.sg Aloka Parasher-Sen- 1991 - 350 pages - Snippet view
Vincent Smith,68 in his Oxford History of India, has noted: 'everybody else who disregards Hindu dharma is an "outer barbarian" (mleccha) no matter how exalted his worldly rank or how vast his wealth may be.' This statement implies that ...
3. Ancient
Indian Social History: Some Interpretations - Page 138
books.google.com.sg Romila Thapar- 1978 - 396 pages - Preview
The word most frequency used in Sanskrit to describe the barbarianis mleccha. Attempts nave been made to derive the etymology of the word from the root vac speech, hence one who is not familiar with the ...
4. The
First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra - Page 34
books.google.com.sg Roger Boesche- 2003 - 127 pages - Preview
It is possible that Kautilya and the Mauryan kings did not regard those outside of these "natural" borders of India worth conquering, because they were "barbarians," or mlecchas, who did not speak a proper language and were hopelessly ...
5. Kiratas
in ancient India
books.google.com.sg G. P. Singh, G. P. Singh- 1990 - 506 pages - Snippet view
mleccharace. The image of the Kiratas as barbariansor mlecchasemerged mainly in the post-Gupta period, though we have some vague references to this effect in the literary texts composed anterior to this period also.
6. Nirvana
and Other Buddhist Felicities: Utopias of the Pali Imaginaire - Page 48
books.google.com.sg Steven Collins- 1998 - 684 pages - Preview
Early Pali texts distinguish languages and persons as driya (as in “Indo-Aryan”) or aviriridtara-milakkha, “incomprehensible” or “uncomprehending barbarians.” Skt mleccha, like Greek barbaros (and Skt barbara /varvara) , “barbarian,” is ...
More editions
7. Personal
and Geographical Names in the Gupta - Page 151
books.google.com.sg- Preview
Mleccha occurs in the Satapatha Brahmana in the sense of a barbarianin speech.
8. Studies
in the KÄÅikÄvá1tti. the Section on PratyÄhÄras: Critical ... - Page 228
books.google.com.sg Pascale Haag, Vincenzo Vergiani - 2011 - 274 pages - Preview
It would be absurd to suppose that ancient orthodox authors did not pay their homage to a deity when even barbarianpeople (mlecchas) do it] namaskarad eva vighnopasamah, karmarambhe sadbhir niyamena tasyopadanat. na ca ...
9. Indian
Political Thought
books.google.com.sg Dr. U.S. Pandey- Preview
In short, India did not include the land of “ barbarians ” or mlecchas, those outside of Indian culture. Cakra means wheel; it is possible that the Indian concept of the world conqueror involved someone who ruled as far as his chariots ...
10.  When
jesus lived in india
books.google.com.sg Alan Jacobs- Preview
Salivahana then established the boundaries dividing the separate countries of the Mlecchas(Barbariansor Non-Hindus) and the Aryans. In this way Sindusthan came to be known as the greatest country. He established the Kingdom of the ...

Perhaps you have not seen what a real war will look like ! I have 
seen much worse things than what you talk of Taj Hotel Mumbai !

veegopalji

My dear friend, you should understand that defence is also a form of
offence,the other way around ! We are talking on general terms on
killing humans, whoever it be !