Dear Venkatesh and Satish,
Thanks for your mails. We requested to notify our mistakes in the
past. You did it. This helps us to correct ourselves.
Dear VK and Shankaran,
That is the right attitude towards finding truth. Keep it up.
Dear All,
Since, there were some discussions and finger pointing based on an
article published in our varlaaru.com, we feel it is our
responsibility to explain. So, I take this opportunity to clarify
certain things happening for past 1 year on behalf of varalaaru team.
1. Regarding Buddha and Rajaraja photos
When we made trip to thanjavur and pazhaiyaarai last year by this
time, some of us accepted that the person in thanjavur painting was
Rajaraja and the person in panchavan madhevi pallippadai was
Rajendra based on the location and ‘who else it could be’ basis. But
for some of us, it was not convincing proof. So, i just wanted to
let them understand what all they have to accept if they start
accepting without considering other negative evidences. So, I posted
a picture of Buddha statue with chakra mark in it. As Rajaraja also
had sangu chakra rekhai in his palms according to Thiruvalangadu
copper plates, i told it has to be considered as Rajaraja. People
started disproving the statement and gave valid points why it cannot
be Rajaraja. I was happy and hoped that people would apply the same
rules for the issues raised during the trip too. So, I ended the
drama with explanation of my actual intention.
Swetha oru dheerkka dharisi. Her words
“Kamal, neenga Japan ponalum intha pavam ungalai uruthu vanthu
oottum!”
has become true now. I have changed the description of the pictures.
So, new members won’t get misguided.
*****************************************
2. Rajaraja and Karuvoor thevar painting
It was told that the young man and old man in thanjavur painting
were Rajaraja and his spiritual guru Karuvoor thevar. But from
inscriptions of Rajarajeswaram, we knew that Rajaraja’s guru
was ‘Eesana siva pandithar’ and not Karuvoor thevar. Karuvoor thevar
was not mentioned in any of Rajaraja period inscriptions. It clearly
proves that there was no relationship between Rajaraja and
Karuvooraar even if a person by name Karuvoor thevar lived during
that period. Thiruvisaippaa was quoted for proof. When i went
through that, i misunderstood Thirubhuvanam with Thiru poovanam.
When Venkatesh notified that, I couldn’t reply immediately as i
became busy at work and some personal commitments. After that, new
threads were started and i forgot to reply to that. Anyway, I accept
that it was my mistake.
*****************************************
3. Dr.Kalaikkovan magudaagamam-nu onnu illave illangararu.
Satish wrote this in his reply to Venkateswaran Kasirajan last week.
At first, SPS introduced Dr.Kudavoil Balu to varalaaru.com team
during mid 2004. Then, varalaaru team met Dr.Balu during December
2004 and early January 2005 while bringing special issue for
Rajarajeswaram. In all these three meetings, Dr.Balu mentioned that
Periya koyil was built based on Magudagamam concept. We requested
him to show the book. At that time, he said it is in Sanskrit. As of
now, in tamilnadu, only his guru Dr.Nagasamy can read and understand
that and even he himself cannot read it. When we met Dr.Kalaikkovan
on 26th January in Trichy as part of our 5 days mega trip, we asked
if he knows anything about Magudagamam. He said he also heard it
from Dr.Balu only during Big temple Kudamuzhukku around 10 years
ago. At that time itself he asked but couldn’t see the book till
date. Whenever we discussed with Dr.Kalaikkovan about magudagamam
concept, he never told that it doesn’t exist. He always told that he
hasn’t seen it yet. Satish joined us in one or two trips during the
thiruvalanjuzhi research. At that time, we are not sure if
Dr.Kalaikkovan told satish like this. Satish only knows. In his
article also, he didn’t mention that it does not exist. He just
wanted to see it.
*****************************************
4. Varalaaru article claims that rrc’s life was very well documented
Venkatesh raised this point in his reply to Satish’s mail and he
tried to disprove saying “then why are we groping in the dark about
most of the details of his life and death?”. I don’t think anywhere
in the article it is mentioned that all the events in his life were
very well documented. It says only his significant achievements were
documented. Though unusually Rajaraja documented extensively, we
cannot expect him to mention when did he catch cold, how many times
he sneezed and all. I request to read the articles properly before
making such sweeping statements.
*****************************************
5. Who else it could be? Rajaraja and Rajasimma
In his second mail to VK, Satish quoted that when Dr.Kalaikkovan
said that the statue of a king in Dharmaraja radham is Rajasimma
on ‘who else it could be’ basis, we accepted. In the same way, when
he said that painting in periya koyil is RRC on the same basis, we
didn’t accept. With this, he came to a conclusion that
Dr.Kalaikkovan accepts assumptions indirectly.
Dear Satish,
Do you really think both ‘Who else it could be’ are same? I am not
sure if you have read the book ‘Adhyandha kaamam’ completely.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t have raised this point. I give the summary
of points considered before concluding it is Rajasimma. If you are
not convinced still, it is my inability to explain as I don’t have
the book with me right now and please go through the book.
Labeled Royal Portraits are usually met with only on prominent parts
of the temple such as the walls or the niches. You may refer to
Mahavaraaha temple at Mamallapuram and several other temples in the
cholamandalam (Thiruvaavaduthurai, Thiruvisaloor, Konerirajapuram,
etc). Dr. Kudavoil Balu himself has mentioned a few such labeled
portraits carved on the walls of the temple towers at Chidambaram in
his book entitled ‘Goburakkalai marabu’.
Though labeled portrait sculptures are detected so far in the greeva
naasikaas or koodu in the kapodha, male figures worshipping linga
are depicted in many temples. Thiruvalanjuzhi is a good example
where one can identify many such figures. Don’t you think that one
should take much care before identifying a figure as a particular
royal person? Is this not his duty to provide enough evidences to
substantiate such identity before it is questioned?
In the case of adhyandha kaamam, the creator of the temple was
identified after
