The article in hindu made us fume with anger esp. after reading the lines "This monument awaits a scholar like Shobitha Punja who unravelled the mysteries of the Khajuraho temple.". The presence of the Buddhas and the proper explanations to that panel was given atleast 15 years back. The panels represent the story of "Tripuranthaka". When the devas requested Lord Shiva to destroy the asuras of Thirupuram, he was hesitant as they were all Shaivaites. Hence, Naradha and Lord Vishnu came down as "samana" and "buddhist" monk and converted them. Three of the asuras refuse to get converted and as a result became the two dwara balakas and a 'drummer' in shiva's court. The rest of the lot was killed by Lord Shiva. Our Big temple has several scholars like "Dr.Kalaikkovan", "Dr. Kudavoil Balu", "Dr. Nagasamy" etc and it is not like it is longing for the likes of Shobitha Punja. If only Mr.Theodre Bhaskaran can concentrate on his fortes like films and nature he would do well instead of writing half-baked articles like there.
Dr. Kalaikkovan did write a response to "the hindu", that however, did not see the light of the day.
Dear Ram it was right to retort, I agree but isnt it time to have some retrospection too? what are we feeing angry for? because somebody said another expert was needed or because our experts were not mentioned.
the big temple has a host of mysteries and it holds them close to its chest. and people have spent half their lifetime trying to unravel it.
but how successful have they been. there are so many schools of thoughts prevailing in the big temple and i was aware of it when i visited it along with our ps group. the schools of thought headed by the respective historians are not willing to agree with each other on the smallest of issues. as i have said earlier on this group, the only thing the two historians will ever agree on is that rrc built big temple.nothing else. its obvious the mutual criticsm thro their proteges have crossed the limit of constructive.I and many members were witnesses to make one of the two who addressed us the laughing stock.
I personally feel that ego is the energy that drives the human engine.without that we are scrap. but then when ego becomes larger its an explosive. its time the two groups buried the hatchet, make peace and work together. or it is the preogarative of any journalist to suggest somebody else ought to do the good work pending. its a democracy after all- isnt it?
your mail is a very nice sum up of the conflicting theories.
As u said, iam one among the members who were witnessess to the happenning during our recent PS trip to Periya Koil when one of the historians was made a laughing stock and where i even felt a little embarassed for what was happenning .
If conflicting theories lead us to the ultimate truth (not talking anything spiritual) we would be the most welcoming. But if it transgressess the limits, and goes beyond criticism of one's theory then it loses its sheen.
Anyway, i dont belong to the team of intellects in the group in commenting on the historians knowledge. still i thought it wud be better to voice my opinion too.
Might be that people are too close minded that they are not willing to look beyond what is apparent or beyond what they have been taught.
I think my mail is quoted out of context. The mail has nothing to do with constructive criticism. The article made me angry not because it did not mention the historians I know. The article is published in a popular newspaper and the author claims that the mystery has not yet been unraveled. But, the truth of the matter is the panel has been studied by several scholars and papers have been published on the panel at least 15 years back. As far as I know, there isn't any controversy over those panels. I have personally discussed with both Dr.Balu and Dr.kalaikkovan on these panels and their explanations on the panels match one on one.
The author has every right to feel on whom should work on what. It is absolutely democratic, but, In my humble opinion and within my limited knowledge of the English language I felt it offending as he did not care to look out for the people who have already cracked the mystery, instead he longs for someone else to crack. His tone, I thought, was demeaning the work of the current lot of "Local Historians". He mentions only Sivaramamurthy's book and Dr. Suresh Pillai's book as the ONLY sources that talk abt. the panel. It is needless for me to say that it is not true.
All the gloominess could have been avoided if the nation's one of the leading newspapers cared to publish the VALID responses to the articles
I cant agree more with you guys on the need to debate on conflicting theories and that is exactly I debated vehemently during our trips. I would only feel too happy to be contradicted and proved wrong. After all, we have nothing personal for or against each other and our quest is to only to the real truth.
I'm not sure what gave the impression that a historian was made a laughing stock. That certainly was not intended. However, if such an impression was created during the trip, it certainly could have been avoided. The past is irrevocable and one can only try not to repeat it in the future. I'm sure that would be taken care.
But, I still feel, the need to bury the hatchet between two groups and my retort to Theodore Bhaskaran's article are two different things. Though, I agree with you on the former, I beg to differ on the latter.
Dear Ram Venkat and Diwakar Now that we have a site planned we should have a link of all the media messages as links and either agree or refute those what do you think
Theres just 4 more days for the launch of Bigtemple site by the way