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 thought. lets se what happens now?
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.
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 rajaraja.it 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 madurai. 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.