Mookambika temple-size matters in temples too!
  • thanks sir,

    in 1994 i went to this temple. when i reached there , i asked one of the shops selling flowers "where is the temple?". there were no resturants or hotels. only a priest was accepting pilgrims from distant places in his house as guest(it was advertised in small wooden plank).

    the temple was so small and there were very few visitors. it was at the best in an area of our small amman temples in our tanjore district villages. i was upset by its small size. same was true with udupi krishnan temple. i remember only the shringeri saradha peedam temple was grandiose enough like tanjore.

    im glad now the mookambika temple has good extra constructions and prakarams. even the pilgrims number seem to have increased now( mostly keralits and coimbatore peoples).

    tanjore people's addiction with grandiose constructions is phenomenal and even that persists among tanjore people settled in australia and america. once i asked a pious tamilian from america about his temple worshiping practice. he said he worship only srirangam because he likes the "sheer size of the temple".
  • Dear Mr. Gandhi,

    It is not only in Thajavur but it is a practice of the Tamizh
    Culture to always Thinking Big and there are lots of examples as below:
    1. Sri Ekambaranathar Temple In Kanchipuram
    2. Sri Kailasanathar Temple inKanchipuram
    3. Srirangam Temple
    4. Thiruvanikal
    5. Madurai Meenakshi Amman Temple
    6. Rameswaram Ramanathaswamy Temple
    7. Srivilliputtur Sri Andal Temple
    8. Srivilliputtur Sri Vaidhyanatha Swamy Temple
    9. Sri Nellaiappar Temple - Tirunelveli
    10. Sri Tiruchendur Muruga temple
    11. Suchindram Temple
    Generallyall the Great Kingdoms which ruled Tamilnadu , Pallava, Chera ,
    Chozha ,Pandiya'sand later part Madurai Nayakkarsalways think big and built
    big temples.

    Theremay be lots of big temples in the Kongu region also , still all the
    temples which are built on those days are really great.
  • Dear Mr. Gandhi

    You make important observations. Large temples appear to be present only in Tamil Nadu. Temples in the adjoining states tend to be smaller, most of them any way. Is this because of the Chola/Pallava tradition ? Or, it is something else. Would appreciate comments from scholars who have studied temples in depth. Thanks.

    Raj Mutharasan
  • May I just say that Khajuraho's Kandariya Mahadeo, Bhubaneshwar's
    Lingaraj, and Puri's Jagannatha
    are all very large. These to me [minus Puri] make up the great
    triumvirate of India's greatest ancient temples --
    all dedicated to Lord Shiva, interestingly. If Konark were intact, it
    would make the 4th.
  • Most of the temple you referred - The temples became very big under - Hoysdala/ Vijayanagar/ and their sub states

    including missed ones like mannargudi, chidambaram. thiruvidaimarudur, Avudayarkoil.

    Srirangam alone had much of the present structure before Hoysala.
  • Hi,
    Yes, it is true that we find big temples usually in Tamilnadu however many of
    these temple were extended conrinuously in later times. Best examples are
    erecting gopurams and compound walls by succeeding dynasties. Lingraj and Konark
    temples in Odhisa are pretty large in proportions. Konark, Lakshmana and
    Kandariya Mahadeva also big, though not as big as Brihadeshvara.
  • correction: Konark = 4th gigantic ancient temple, but not to Lord
    Shiva, to Surya.
  • Thanks for the broader comparisons.

    My original query was comparison to adjacent regions. My logic being
    that culturally, linguistically and religiously the adjacent regions -
    Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra - are fairly close. Yet large temple
    building tradition has not been wide spread. Granted that what we see
    now is a multi-dynastic contribution. Why did not a similar
    building/addition effort take place in the adjacent regions. Orissa
    lies a bit farther; correct me if this is not the case. Some food for

    Regards, Raj Mutharasan
  • You have temples surviving in the following area -

    1. South and coastal AP
    2. South karnataka
    3. TN

    The three were part of Vijayanagar.

    and kalinga which was not occupied.

    Once vijayanagar fell - North Karnataka and central AP - activities stopped.

    where as some Govt survived in Old Mysore, Tanjore, madurai and Sengi.

    Arcot state was a later one - but had to fight for survival. But still kanchipuram was vacated.

    Till madurai and Tanjore Nayaks - activities were continuing.
  • Hi Sankar - You appear to be saying that AP and Karnataka were
    dysfunctional dynasties due to external threat stress much earlier than
    TN. Thanks. Raj Mutharasan
  • What i said is -

    TN had a continuous dynasties inclined to Temple building except for 60 year before Vijayanagar and after 18th.

    But still - Tanjore Marathas in 19th and Nagarathars in late 19th and early-mid 20th maintained, renovated temples.

    AP and Karnataka have many temples, which are equal in size to many of the padal petra sthalams -like Mahanandi, Simhachalam, Draksharamam , Nanjankood, somnathpur etc.

    the grandness of TV malai, Kanchi, Chidmabaram, Madurai, Srirangam is due to continuous patronage.
  • well said, i agree with this
  • Thanks for your insightful comment. Raj Mutharasan

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Top Posters