Please note the word "siRu deivam" referring to Govindarajar. The same Govindarajar was glorified by the Azhwar as DevAdhi Devan. So the fact that Ottakoothar has reflected the thoughts of Kulothunga II that he considered the Vishnu as "siRu dheivam" speaks of his lesser reverence for anyone other than Siva.
So your claim that "> Possible that Kulothunga II reverently put the NIRMALYAM of Shree > Vishnu Idol - kept in the Front yard - in the Sea .."
could not be possible as is clearly evident from the above quotes of Ottakoothar.
And also from the earlier quotes about the 777th song of ThakkayAga bharaNi "munRil kiDantha......pinnaith thillai manRiRkku iDam kaNda....". Please note the words "manRiRkku iDam kaNDa", which clearly indicates that Govindarajar was removed from His place only to find more place for Nataraja. Also, assuming that Kulothunga II treated the idol of Govindraja with reverence, how could one term the action of placing idol in sea as with reverence. Lastly the issue of "Nirmalyam" at best can be only a guess as there are no records. Also if Nirmalyam was the case, then he would have re-erected a new one, like in the case of Kanchipuram, where a new Idol was consecrated when the old Idol made of "Atthi" tree became disqualified for poojas. But he did not do this, right??
Correlating the words "siRu dheivam" and "manRiRkku iDam kaNDa", and discounting the possibility of a Nirmalyam as it has no basis from the Historical records, I am pretty sure, there could not have been any reverence in the act on the part of Kulothunga II and his intolerance levels are blatantly evident.
If your intention is to conclude that ThirumAl is indeed a Siru Deivam, I can only say that, at best this is a Perspective. For one can show similar references where Siva is considered a Siru Dheivam. Have you been to Thiruvananthapuram? Did you notice the very small, rather smaller than that of Vishnu in Patteeswaram, Sivalingam, near the right hand of Ananthapadmanabhaswamy which is in a "protecting" posture? So, on your same argument lines, will you accept that Siva is also a "Siru Dheivam"?
And since when, the sculptures were used to conclude the "siRumai" or "perumai" of a God?
So, unless you intended this statement for fun, there is no logic in trying to prove that Thirumal is a "siru dheivam" based on the Patteswaram sculpture as the vice versa is true from Thiruvananthapuram "moolasthAnam" itself.
So, the fact that Ottakoothar represented the thoughts of Kulothunga II by calling Thirumal as "SiRu dheivam" is itself an undisputable testimony to the intolerance of Kulothunga II
But I see that, since an opinion is already formed about the generosity of the Chola Kings, it is hard to digest that one or two Chola Kings did exhibit some levels of intolerance. One need to have a paradigm shift to do an unbiased study to conclude.
Afterall "yAnaikkum aDi sarukkum". I am not branding all Chola kings as Vaishnava haters, nor could I do it in the wake of available inscriptions which talk about there true reverence to all Religion and not only Vaishnvaism. At the same time, let our pre-judice not make us blind in accepting the facts as it is, when clearly evident.
No offence meant - but by seru i didnt mean the lord. we are talking of the Gods of man's creation - to me true divinity is very much different to this. God is not a supercop - umachi kannai kutthum concept. but it is he who is the spark of life - the difference that being someone influenced more by the art form rather than the human implications - i tried to offer the explanation of the usage siru...thats it. please dont read anything more to it.
> If your intention is to conclude that ThirumAl is indeed a Siru > Deivam,
Yes, in this sculptural composition, from the artist's perspective of the event being depicted - the central actor is shiva in his dance pose...the others are all - if i were to use the correct tamil word ( again pl dont take offence) parivara dieties. so now would you brand this beautiful piece of art an offencive sculpture ( considering that this is part of a one piece stone pillar - and the craftmen has had the greatness to sculpt it to such perfection - even in that minute detail as to the sangu chakaram and the other attributes...) and compare this artist to ottakutan.
i would also take this as a positive depiction of the event - the idea was not to belittle either brahma, vishnu or paravathi - but it shows that the presence of them as an audience to the dance - even one step further joyfully participating in it.
Have you been to Thiruvananthapuram? Did you notice the very small, > rather smaller than that of Vishnu in Patteeswaram, Sivalingam, near > the right hand of Ananthapadmanabhaswamy which is in a "protecting" > posture? So, on your same argument lines, will you accept that Siva > is also a "Siru Dheivam"?
Of course, in the same line of thinking as above....the main idea of the sculpture is sayana kolam of perumal. all the others are side actors...but just for argument sake - can you compare this with the jala sayana perumal of mallai shore temple and search for the lingam there...
> And since when, the sculptures were used to conclude the "siRumai" > or "perumai" of a God?
I thought that was the subject of this entire discussion - to me the above two are not instigative...whereas a sarabeshwara ( believe me you have to see the one on madurai gopuram) is something that we can dispute /argue. in that same mature argument - the lingothbava legend finds mention and sculptural representations even during the times when ( as per the information currently available to us) there were no serious divisions between the two followers.
> So, unless you intended this statement for fun, there is no logic in > trying to prove that Thirumal is a "siru dheivam" based on the > Patteswaram sculpture as the vice versa is true from > Thiruvananthapuram "moolasthAnam" itself. > it was defn not for fun - i was doing a literal translation.
> So, the fact that Ottakoothar represented the thoughts of Kulothunga > II by calling Thirumal as "SiRu dheivam" is itself an undisputable > testimony to the intolerance of Kulothunga II
every shiva temple has the lingothbavar depiction defined in its canons of construction - so you mean that depicting in stone doesnt tantamoung to intolerance while a court poet's verse does!!
> > But I see that, since an opinion is already formed about the > generosity of the Chola Kings, it is hard to digest that one or two > Chola Kings did exhibit some levels of intolerance. One need to have > a paradigm shift to do an unbiased study to conclude.
unbiased study - my kula deivam is yedukuntala vada - but that doesnt stop me from entering other temples not resctricted to hinduism alone, after all my friend we are at best 3rd in terms of world coverage.
> Afterall "yAnaikkum aDi sarukkum". I am not branding all Chola kings > as Vaishnava haters, nor could I do it in the wake of available > inscriptions which talk about there true reverence to all Religion > and not only Vaishnvaism. At the same time, let our pre-judice not > make us blind in accepting the facts as it is, when clearly evident.
history abunds with such U turns of rulers - especially with regard to faith - but there is always a cause effect - for eg, why did rajendra launch his naval assault on a kingdom that was so close to his dad. we are not here to justify the act - but first of all to see if the act actually happened and if so why ??? > > PS: The "jingu chakka" is called as "thALam"
As I said earlier, I never took it as an offense. However I accept that I miread your intentions and apologise for the same while thanking you for the clarifications.
> > I am afraid, I am not able to understand when you say that the > entire discussion is based on that. I thought we were discussing > about the authencity of the incident of Govindarajar being thrown > into sea. >
Hi, questions are simple if we see them as such - if indeed we were to take ottakuthan in literal terms - siru deviam - was he talking of the massive reclining vishnu stone statue or a smaller standing vishnu sculpture..
. Remember, in your own words, > Lingothbavar was the central theme and others are participating > artists.
sorry mu friend - urdhva thandavam and lingothbava central theme itself is different. there is an inherent depiction of who is superior here. here too early versions only showed the varaha and swan - but later versions added a praying vishnu and brahma for effect!!!
show me one verse composed by a poet, > singing about a King's tolearance level, by terming Siva as a Siru > Dheivam. Atleast I am not aware of one. Please do not take the > references the verses by Azhwars or Nayanmars as you know what to > expect out of them.
you have already read the inscrptions on the kanchi kailasantha temple being closed, lands handed over to another temple...need help in deciphering temple of anaiyapadangavudaiyanayanar. we are not aware of why though?
> Also the same King who built such a Siva temple would have built a > Vishnu temple in which Siva would have a demi-god status. But is > there any account which claims that Kulothunga II, threw away a > Sivalingam or a Nataraja into sea or fire to find more place for a > Vishnu Sannidhi. I am afraid not. So my statement regarding the > Prejudiced opinion about the Chola kings, making it difficult to > accept the intolerance towards Vaishnavites (of course I am > referring only to Kulothunga II here) still stands valid, logically. > > > > history abunds with such U turns of rulers - especially with > regard > > to faith - but there is always a cause effect - for eg, why did > > rajendra launch his naval assault on a kingdom that was so close > to > > his dad. we are not here to justify the act - but first of all to > > see if the act actually happened and if so why ??? > > I donot understand what you are trying to convey here,especially > with respect to my statement in quotes.
i have no doubts in my mind as to the very act - there was a skirmish and the king did something - an idol was dropped into the sea...but i wouldnt call it intolerance - there had to be some provocation. if we can step back and analyse what would have prompted the king to do this act...we might get some answers
Hi i guess we have started going around in circles. all information that can be had on the above event have been shared and different views expressed. i think this has been one of the most satisfying discussions ever had in the group or for the matter on the net on this subject. if sps could sum up the points we could consider it a grand finale to the discussion on the govindaraja- kulothunga 2 event. of course we have kamal to thank for stirring up the hornet's nest!!