Ponniyin Selvan Varalaatru Peravai

Hi All,

I am a silent member of this group.

I just like to reply this,

In case of Sri Ramanuja, he had a very bad
relationship with the cholas. When he was in
prominence as the acharya of the Sri Vaishnavas at
Srirangam, he faced the wrath of Chola King
(Kulothunga I), since the king was a saivate.

Sri Ramanuja was forced to leave Srirangam and reached
Melkote and established a temple there. He returned
back to Srirangam only after the death of Kulothunga
Chola 1.

But the later chola kings had no issues of that sort,
so that Sri Vaishnavam flourished with the base as
Srirangam.
I hope you all know Kambar did Ramayanam arangatram at
Srirangam only, cholas were not actually his patron
for that work. IMHO, the Cholas are great patrons of
arts, great in every aspect, but they were more
inclined towards the Saivism.

I have no idea about Kanchi Sankarachrayas relations
with cholas, but I believe that they were not in that
much prominence. Nambiandar Nambi, was instrumental in
finding the Saiva Thirumurais with the help of
Rajaraja Cholan.
As you all know the Periya Puranam was composed as per
the wish of the Kulothunga Chola.

The Saiva scholars following the footsteps of the
Nayanmars were the prominent persons. Chidambaram was
the prime place for Saivism. I dont think it is in any
way related to Kanchi Sankarachrayas (I may be
completely wrong). They would have been known more to
the Advaita-vedanta following temples or religious
schools.

Actually Sri Ramanuja was taught Advaita philosophy,
but since he was not convinced with it, he started
following the philosophy of Alwars. He is not the
starter of visistadvaita, but the important Archarya
among a great succession of followers of Sri
Vaishnavam.

Expecting comments,

chola kings were shaivites.A bit ironic,since they called themselves
as descendents of ragu clan of Lord Rama.Many added vaishnavite names
even though they were shaivites Eg:Aditha kothandarama cholan.

Shankaracharya's were advaithis.Advaitha is a different philosophy
from shaivism and vaishnavism.Many vaishnavites mistake advaithis to
be shaivites,but they arent.As far as I know chola kings werent
related to advaitha.Kulothunga chola prosecuted Ramanuja and plucked
the eyes of koorathalvan and periyavachan pillai.Vaishnavites still
call him 'kirumi kanda cholan' for that.

We dont know whether it was kulothunga I or II who did that.But strong
possibilities are there for that king being kulothunga I.

Another good source to look into would be Kovil Ozhugu, which
chronicles the activities of the Sriranga temple, its traditions and
conventions.

I believe the Kirumi Kanda Chozhan of Vaishnavities was Kulottunga
II, tradition holds that he threw the Govindaraja Swami of
Chidambaram temple into the see, which was restored later by the
vaishnavaities.

There is a current trend to hype about the tolerance and secularism
of Indian kings. But history as much as it reveals our ancient
glories also reveals our failings and flaws.

Kulottunga II was one such case. Saivite literature praises Nedumaran
who turned to saivisim converted by THiruJyanasambandar, but
Buddhist/Jain sources talk of Koon Pandiyan who impaled hundreds of
monks after he turned apostate.

What of Mahendra Pallava who tortured THirunavukkarasar before
converting to Saivam. We too have cases of such religious intolerance.

RamJanmaBhoomi/Babri Masjid is just history repeating itself. Lot of
temples built during Chozha times were built by destroying
buddhist/Jain monastries/temples. Of course it is also possible that
those stupas were in first place built over hindu temples.

Just goes on to prove that History repeats itself too often and only
be studying history, could we avoid repeating the mistakes.