• Hi,

    Can anyone throw more on this Mahudamagam ?

    If the existance of this book is real, we can help
    publish it.
  • VK sir,

    ungallukku kusumbu romba jasthi....Dr. kudavoil balu Magudagamam
    irukkungararu...Dr.Kkvn appadi onnu illave illangararu. mudhalla avanga
    rendu perum senthu oru mudivukku varattum. appuram nama enna
    seyyarathungaratha pathi yosikkalam..
  • nallaa sonniinga sathish

    atlast the clash of the egos has come to the forefront.
    the behind the scene and proxy squabbling really upset a lot of people
    including me.
    so many times we have all discussed how kudavoil was hassled during
    his talk to us in tanjore by the adherents of the other school of
    lets se what happens now?
  • I thik Kudavoil wouldnt have said that without having
    a hold on this Magudagamam. He may be waiting for
    certain other findings or events...

    But we should not leave that knowledge to be lost into

    May be we can make a visit to Tanjore, talk to
    Kudavoil and influence him to publish that work or
    atleast see some proof of its existance...
  • One thing which we should accept is, all the points raised by Dr.Kkvn are
    very much true. Dr.Balu is bound to provide explanations as demanded by
    dr.kkvn in his article in this months varalaaru issue. He has put down the
    points so well.

    But we should also consider that some facts are basically assumptions. I was
    bowled by Gokuls mail earlier that Dr.Kkvn says the statue in Dharma Raja
    ratha is Rajasimhan, which is based on the only assumption that "Who else it
    could be?". But at the same time when we say that the painting in periya
    koil is RRC, based on the same assumption that, "Who else it could be?" why
    we are ridiculed?
    So he indirectly accepts that assumptions do play a role in providing
    hisotorical facts.
  • Hi sathish

    questions have to be answered .
    and one must be aware many questions cannot be answered either.
    perhaps not in our times.

    one of our members has posted a picture which he calims to be is a statue of buddha no doubt.
    and it still remains in the photos folders. and the moderators have
    done precious little to correct it.
    just imagine the plight of a new member. either he is fooled or thinks
    of us as fools.
    there are some cardinal rules in archeology.
    one is you must be patient in history
    the second is you cant just fly off the handle.
    and third is never try to be sensationalist. not every body gets a
    chance to discover a tutankhamen tomb in archeology. so whatever you
    find, however trivial, it is dont try to blow it out of proportion.

    I think sriraman would agree with me on these three points.

    as you say assumptions are important tools any archeologist uses. but
    its when the other archeologist assumes that they mock at him.

    many assumptions can be checked or counter checked with other sources.
    like we had a thread in this group on the existence of karuvuuraar
    during rrc's time. because it says he existed in history books people
    wanted to sensationalise it and said its wrong.
    the theory put forward was that since he had sung about thirubuvanam(
    built 200 years later) he could not have co existed with rrc.
    but if they had taken pains to consult the thirumurai and karuvur
    thevar songs the song is about thiru poovanam( forest of flowers) near
    one thing claimed in the article in varalaaru was that rrc's life was
    very well documented.and if he had the temple gilted he would have
    mentioned it or atleast his son would have.
    then why are we groping in the dark about most of the details of his
    life and death?
  • Good discussion, I 2 agree on doubts on Sri vimanam, Cos , as described by Dr.kalaikovan, particlularly all grants clearly listed from RR to the last citizen of Chola desam( naam Kodutham), if so how this was not referred or recorded , that only inscription available in Rajarajeswarm is also not clear or not given full account for this.

    Regarding Mahudamagam, yes this is also an interesting point, we no need to get in to the difference of scholars , let us try to reach and request them to provide more details and we can have a better idea.

    But 1 thing is clear , by this discussions we are getting more and more inputs.Many old stories and getting broken, So far we all r thought the the Aayudayaar is single stone and thats also become a question.

    As well said by our Periyaa Anna , its a Kallukai.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Top Posters