My points were just an observation of what Mr. sampath had mailed quoting a book written by somebody.. but i wud stil putforth certain points.
1. RajaRajaChozhan Yes was one of the greatest kings that tamizhagam ever produced.. but whether He is the King of Kings is a point which needs to be deserved..... as u said earlier a concise work on the factual happennings are not yet recorded and a lot needs to be discovered..Rajendra think is better than rajaraja in expanding the kingdom
2. No iam not saying that a point which has not been discovered is not true.. what i mean is that it is a question of debate...
3. My feeling is that there has been an aura of invincibility created around Rajaraja by people like Kalki and other writers which we are following..
4. Request you to kindly recollect the controversies surrounding who the real mamalla is.. People thought it was Narasimhavarma Pallavan I and now people talk of Rajasimhan as mamalla... iam not disputing the claim that bigtemple has been built by RRC. what is mean is that Kalki's hand is behind a lot of things behind RRc. RRC owes a lot to Kalki
5. Whether he built the temple for the massess is a question next. had he really been intersted in people worshipping , i think as a prudent ruler RRC wud have built lot of temples in his entire land and not in tanjai alone.. as u said earlier he is a clear egoist...
6. Iam not an expert and i cannot deny that he allowed his people to use his name .. but was that real??? u might recall the RRC movie by sivaji ganesan wherein he was holding a spitton for a sthapathi... was itt rue??
Pls let me know whether the things as allowing somebody to use the name and is proved beyond doubt when people still question the administration capability of Cholas???
as rightly pointed out by Mr. Venkatesh, Pandyas as a race have been there for long.. cholas were so obsessed with madurai and lot of pattapeyars had madurantakan ... during wars the inscriptions of pandyas the great deeds of pandyas might have been ruined .... and RRC since a recent king ( around 1000 years back) might be standing... just because one does not find a glorifying inscription of Pandya or say any other king for that matter , doesnt denigrade the other Kings
as u said earlier, lot of works are not comprehensive and before things are proved beyond a point i think the question " whether or not he deserves to be a egoist" till date has no answer.
But one thing is absolutely clear .. He was at his best in Brandbuilding or Public Relations.. his PR agent in recent times being Kalki.
The Great Raja Raja, was the King, who did expand the Tamil Dhesam beyond boudaries and made is stand stable, for atleast next two hundred years.
There might be man kings, who crossed north. Few are Pandian Nediyon, Pandian palyaaga saalai Mudhukudumi peruvazhuthi, Karikaalan Perumthirumaavalavan, Imayavaramban neduncheralathan, Cheran Chenkoottuvan, Aariya padai kadantha paandian nedunchezian.
But Raja Raja, performed this act and gave stability, whihc may be because of his administration tactics, which may have been followed by his successors. As a gesture of respect there had been Three Raja Raja in Chola lineage after him (there are Kulothunga and Rajendhra's too).
He sponsered litrture and arts. 'Kottaattu Paattu', kottu aattu paattu, percusion dance and singing (Music), was developed by him very much, as Late Paramachaariar swamigal mentioned in his 'Dheivathin Kural', when he speaks about Thiruotriyur.
Mohiniyaatam is belived to be developed by Raja Raja and have taken refuge in Cheranaadu.
Not to mention about his interts in arts. after reading about group mails in Tanjai painting.
Even if he is a egoist, there are innumerous attributes, that he posses to feel so.
The question here is did he really possess those attributes or just extra fittings???
to my knowledge RRc had done only two wars in his lifetime.... It was rajendra who was the real emperor of a large kingdom .. it is rajendracholan's desire ( orey perumaiyaarukkume ungalukku) to build a big and vast kadal kadandha empire....
adhukooda to my knowledge Rajendra cholan cannot be called "Gangai Konda cholan" and his capital "Gangai Konda Cholapuram"..
it wud be very apt to call him as "HOOGLY KONDA CHOLAN" and his capital "HOOGLY KONDA CHOLAPURAM"
coz he touched ganges at his mouth .. may be he had a huge desire for capturing delta's.... Tanjai the capital delta and "sunderbans" the tailend delta of his kingdom...
--- In [email protected], "SatishKumar Arunachalam" > > GOOD thread. > > Dear Sampath, > > RR call Ravidasan and co as 'Drohigal' in udayarkudi kalvettu. > Ravidasan and co are brahmins. After knowing that his brother was > killed by brahmins how can he trust them? How can he think that > Brahmins wont conspire against him after witnessing a conspiracy? > Any further thoughts ? ( as usual enakku kekkathan theriyum)
------------->Satish,This is my pure guesswork.
ravidasan&co were pandya bhramins.maybe rajaraja got impressed by their devotion to their king.Many years after their kings death they were still loyal to him.Maybe this played in mind of Rajaraja.
Of course there can be hypothesis in social sciences, but mostly (another wrong word to use in Logic..ha ha..) the results will not be correct...especially in the case of history. It is evident from what we perceived as our history not before that long.
Do you think there can be hypothesis in History?
At least theory explains something. But hypothesis concludes everything. Studying history is to find out what has happened... not to invent anything new from what has happened. If 'what has happened' is a guess work/hypothesis, then what we discover from such a hypothesis would also be another hypothesis and would be wrong.
Okay, okay, I buy your theory hypothesis is important for research in that it will keep us going, to work on something rather than searching for air.
Null hypothesis significance testing-nu google-la thedi paaththane. first 10 links "alternatives to nhst", "flaws" "problems with nhst"nudhaan varudhu. Sari, so it keep us going by helping in inference... you think it is presumption-I think it is assumption.
Sure a video camera is needed to have a record of an (historical) act, but what if we search for an (historical) action?
Rather than focusing ourselves on from which plane did the artist draw the paintings in Big Temple's backyard, we surely would want to know who are all have been painted by correlating literature and inscription.
We believe meykeerthis are real for it was on the inscriptions. We dont believe inscriptions just because it was "written" but because where it is written and the similarity. Still, why could not a kind have lied? Why not, he could have inscribed poi keerthi? We found out it is not so because we have some more facts and so on. So there we build upon foundations of correlation, not assumptions.
You said "History without guesswork is dead" meaning we cant proceed without anything to go around? If so, okay. Otherwise, what you said would define history as a research that is done to prove something what we have already concluded viz. political science. :-) And "studying/researching in the field of history" would then be just be a journey in search of proof, not facts.
NHST is a process to test hypothesis.What you saw was correct.It is a flawed process.:)
Romba shock agatheenga.I will tell you a secret.This flawed process is what drives 99% of the research in every field including medicine :)
I will give a small example.A medical company comes up witha drug.To test whether the drug is effective or not it will test it on a control group and treatment group.It will get the results and compare mean of two groups using NHST.If the p value falls below 0.05,the medicine comes to the market.Otherwise it doesnt.Crores and crores of dollars spent on research is lost.
NHST eppadi flawed process,what is the alternative apapdinu eluthina adikka vanduruveenga.Romba technicala pogum.But unfortunately we dont have any alternative to NHST in statistics till date.Yaaravathu kandupudicha neraya award kathirukku.
ennoru secretum solren.Political science appadinu solrathellam buruda.Actually social 'science' appadingarathe oru emathu velai.'political theory' appadinu vena sollalam.
Dictionary.com la poye theory definition ennanu paarunga.Science definition ennanu parunga.Athisayam kathukitirukku.
Theory and science both are one and same.No difference is there.
Detaila eluthalam ethai pathi.Thomas kuhn philosophy of science appadinu supera oru article eluthinaru.Athellam elutha chonna elutharen,konjam technicala irukkum.
Romba nala 'Is marketing science" appadinu oru debate nadandittu irundhuchu.natural scientists were not willing to accept social scientists as 'scientists'.Marketing alunga Romba kaduppaye journal of marketingla "Is science marketing?" appadinu eluthi, entire field of science is a branch of marketing appadinu eluthittanga.
Annailairundhu natural science karanga vai thorakarathu illai.
Neenga pesaama naraya nagaichuvai katturaigal ezhudhalaam, especially after reading your last paragraph about Marketing is a branch of science. Good one.
Yes, got the google definition of "scientific theory". :-))
Please do write about Thomas Kuhn's philisophy of science. I am eager to know about this article.
Aside from that, from what you have said NHST is to find out what is wrong and what is right, right? I take it NHST concludes hypothesis in history would turn the path of a researcher to find proof for his theory whereas it would be more apt to conclude issues based on facts and correlation.
"Is science marketing" article was published by paul peter and jerry olson in journal of marketing in 1983.This is the crux of their argument.
1.The major products of science is ideas.
2.Just like marketers create products scientists create ideas.Actually every product is an idea.
3.Just like how products must be marketed,ideas created by scientists also should be marketted.
4.Just like how products have life cycle(product life cycle) scientific theories also have life cycles.
5.Like how products get numerous modifications in their life time,scientific theories also get numerous modifications.
.....olson goes on and on comparing scientific process with marketing process.In the end he establishes that everything done by scientists is actually a marketing process and hence concludes that "Science is actually marketing".
Ithu onnum nagaichuvai katturai illai.It was published in the most prolific journal in the field of marketing.Journal of marketing is ranked higher than harvard business review.
But Raja Thandaram, also includes, to assign one to the job, who may be fit enough to finish it off. Rajendhra made 'Arrayan Rajarajan' to be the Commander in chief for Gangai war. So, does that mean the credits go to Arayan Rajarajan? Similarly does the credits go to Karunakara Thondaiman for Kalinga War and not Kulothunga? Partly yes, but not completly.
Mouth or Tail Ganges is Ganges. When you hit the person on mouth. You have actually hit the person, this is first. On mouth is next level of importance. While cpturing Kalinga, even Karunakara Thondaiman, could have crossed many cities, towns villages etc. So, Kulothunga has won against each of this, but the prime importance is for Kalinga.