freinds, trincomalee was mentioned by sambandar. the sanskrit name of this town is "gokarna". the saivite temple had pallavan, pandyan and cholan inscriptions. sinhalese and later portugese destroyed the temple which had a 1000 pillaired hall. the remains of the temple artifacts are still found lisbon museum(ref:wikipedia)
nagai-jaffna-tricomalee and matta kalappu had a contagious history which was a tamil history and probably as old as sangam period!
The discussion re: Krishna and the Mahabharata in Maiyyam doesn't hold water. I think Sri Krishna and the Mahabharata belong to Dhwabara Yugam - i.e. prior to Kali Yugam to which we all belong including the South Indian rulers like Chera, Chola and Pandyas! How come these people find a place in the previous Yugam? Can you clarify?
You have made a comment as ".....The discussion re: Krishna and the Mahabharata in Maiyyam doesn't hold water...."
In this connection I wish to draw your attention to the first para of the Maiyyam article, which is as follows:
"......I have selected the version of "Mahabharatha" translated into English Prose by "Mr Kisari Mohan Ganguli" from the original Sanskrit Text of Sage Viysa, and published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers (Pvt) Ltd, New Delhi, India, from which the following have been extracted......"
So in other words what "you are saying" is that - all what is said "in the original Sanskrit Mahabharatha of Viyasa" - doesnot hold water, because this is what has been highlighted by me in this Maiyyam article.
Please "read the articles or threads of others fully, understand it's contents throughly, and then make comments".
Any how I am interested in answering one point raised by you - that is
".....I think > Sri Krishna and the Mahabharata belong to Dhwabara Yugam - i.e. prior to Kali Yugam > to which we all belong including the South Indian rulers like Chera, Chola and Pandyas! > How come these people find a place in the previous Yugam? Can you clarify?.....'
This is an important point - I too had been pondering over for a long time. In a nutshell what I have got to say is that the Mahabharatha Epic cannot belong to the period of Dhwabara Yugam or to a period about 3500 years ago as held upto now.
My simple argument is - how is that the royal dynasties of India such as Cheras, Cholas, Pandiyas, Keralas, Karnatakas, Andhras, Sinhalas (of Sri Lanka),Maghadas, Kalingas, Hunas, Parasikas, Sakas,Yavanas Chinas, etc "all of the historical period after B.C.500" are mentioned in the original Sanskrit Mahabharatha of Sage Viyasa.
There are references in Mahabharatha - that Cholas Pandiyas and Sinhalas were present at the Yaagam conducted by Prince Tharuma of the Pandavas, and all the Tamil kings of that period - the Cheras (Keralas), Cholas and Pandiyas have participated in the Mahabharatha War.
Sinhala history starts only from a period around B.C.550. Yavanas originally referred only to Greeks, and we are aware king Alexander invaded India only around B.C.550. Then there is a reference to the Maghada king Jayatsena as follows from the Maiyyam article.
[23] "...........and the king of Magadha Jayatsena of great strength brought with him for Yudhishthira an Akshauhini of troops. And similarly Pandya who dwelt on the coast-land near the sea, came accompanied by troops of various kinds to Yudhishthira the king of kings....."
MAHABHARATHA - UDYOGA PARVA, PAGE 31
Now king Jayatsena was the Magahada king who ruled around second century B.C. He is said to have participated in the Mahabharatha war.
All these points makes me think that Mahabharatha belonged to a period after the king Jayatsena of Maghada which was after king Asoka, possibly first century B.C. - which is further confimed by the fact that Udhiyan Cheralaathan the father of Imayavaramban Neduncheralathan of this period who is said to have provided food for the warriors in the Mahabharatha war.
Based on all these points a "further through study on same have to be made" on the actual Date of 'Mahabharatha war' - which couldnot have been in the Dhwabara Yugam, but happened in the late Kaliyugam about 2200 years ago from date.
> All these points makes me think that Mahabharatha belonged to a period > after the king Jayatsena of Maghada which was after king Asoka, > possibly first century B.C. - which is further confimed by the fact > that Udhiyan Cheralaathan the father of Imayavaramban Neduncheralathan > of this period who is said to have provided food for the warriors in > the Mahabharatha war.
My my this is what i call a real hot potato
mahabarata after ashoka. if you can prove that than a lot of historical books would go right tinto the dustbin
"...My my > this is what i call a "real hot potato" > > mahabarata after ashoka. if you can prove that than a lot of > historical books would go right tinto the dustbin....."
In this connection could you very kindly give your "explanation" as to how the Sage Viyasa in his original Sanskrit "Mahabharatha", came to mention all these what I have pointed out in my comments therein.
These are all informations what are actually found in Viyasa's (Sanskrit)Mahabharatha.
Are you trying to say Viyasa's "should not be relied on as it contains these fictitious references" to the Historical dynasties.
Also I very kindly request you to refer to all historical documents available on Indian and Sri Lankan History, and let all of us know through this Forum to which period the respective royal dynasties mentioned in the Mahabharatha belong to.
I also request you to refer to all the Historical sources on Maghada dynasty and let all of us know to which period the king Jayatsena of Maghada belongs to.
Are they all royal dynasties of Dwaraba Yuga ???????
Awaiting to know "all these details from you - with references and sources", so that "I could educate myself" in this connection.
Bit of googling I came across this "The Complete Text of the Popular Northern Version in Antiquated English: The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Translated into English Prose from the Original Sanskrit Text, by K. M. Ganguli, translator and P. C. Roy, sponsor and publisher, 11 vols. (Calcutta: Bharata Press, 1884-1896). An informed, serious, and scholarly translation (though far from perfect and completely reliable) of an eclectic mix of the Popular Version of Neelakantha and the Calcutta version of the text. Ganguli's original edition (unlike many, though not all, of its reprints) contained indications of the individual verses translated and also thoughtful footnotes that pointed out Ganguli's differences with the commentator Neelakantha and with the authors of the Bengali translation. "
Mahabharat has a three phased narration. The 'original' as envisioned by Vyasa and written by Ganesha was supposedly 8800 shlokas. The second as narrated by Vaishampayana, Vyasa's grandson was 24,000 shlokas, the third narrated by Ugrava Sutti , a sage grew to 90,000 shlokas.
Several scholars have attempted to translate but 90,000 shlokas of complex sanskrit cannot be translated in a lifetime. Ganguli in 1896 was the ONLY scholar who managed it and he admits his difficulties very honestly in the translation. Ganguli's text is the most widely used/referenced by all.
The Mahabharat is not history, it has origins in history of some form or kind that is all. Again we are all going down this dead end road of mixing legends with history and thinking in the dual manner that the opposite of history is lies. It is hardly so and unless we open our minds and hearts to that there will be no meaningful discussion possible.
> It looks like no one actually knows what was originally written by > Vyasa and what was interpolated in all these 1000's of years. >
interpolation is an indispensable part of indian history. "idaisorugal". the copper plates of the cholas trace their anscestory to rama and from him to the sun god.
but surely if such a great event like mahabarata happened after ashoka history and not mythology would have recorded it.
I would look at wiki for details on a movie or a book. i usually find it very useful for getting more links on the subjects. definitely i wouldnt look at it for a life saving drug. but what i love about it is travel info. when i visited pune last year i had a full day off and had told y hosts i wanted to see historical stuff. while long term residents there were unaware of either places or temples wiki travel led me to a maratta fort,a 7th century rastrakuta subterranean temple, the bhandarkar indological centre and the kelkar museum. finally it boiled down to stop sight seeing or missing the flight.