Talk:Kamakhya Temple: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Padmanlp - "→/* The current structure has been built during the Ahom times,[4] in "Kamakhya Temple": */" |
|||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
: Not needed at all. Not all archaeological evidence has historical evidence. For example, the Ahoms built a brick temple over an older stone temple at [[Dah Parbatia]]. Do we have any historical evidence of why/how/when the stone temple broke apart? No. |
: Not needed at all. Not all archaeological evidence has historical evidence. For example, the Ahoms built a brick temple over an older stone temple at [[Dah Parbatia]]. Do we have any historical evidence of why/how/when the stone temple broke apart? No. |
||
Seriously!! Do you really mean that!??!! Then any one can claim like this feature resembles that and so both must be built by the same |
Seriously!! Do you really mean that!??!! Then any one can claim anything like this feature resembles that and so both must be built by the same |
||
one!!! |
one!!! |
||
Revision as of 07:35, 8 June 2013
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Lower Assam C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Hinduism: Shaktism B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | India: Assam B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | Religion Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Ahom builders
The report by Banerji is available on the web. Please read it before contesting the claims, as done here.
Banerji mentions constructions and structures between the 8th and the 17th century. The Koch kingdom broke up by the end of the 16th century, and Kamakhya was under the control of the Ahoms/Mughals in the 17th century. The report mentions 3 successive constructions. The first is attributed to the 8th century. The second is to the Koch, and the third to the Ahoms. He writes, "the lower part of the sanctum is in good preservation and was used by the Ahom builders".
Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
/* The current structure has been built during the Ahom times,[4] in "Kamakhya Temple" */
Dear Chaipau, In the book "The Mother Goddess Kamakhya" by the noted scholar Dr. Banikanta Kakati, in page 37 it is clearly mentioned that the present temple was re-built in 1565 A.D. by king Naranarayan of koch kingdom after the destruction of the original Temple under Moslem invasion. You can also refer to this in the following link
http://www.assamtribune.com/sep2709/sunday.html
Since Naranarayan(1540-1587) was not under the Ahoms, it makes no sense if you write "The current structure has been built during the Ahom times". As you pointed out, Benarjee might be wrong in giving historical data such as during whose reign the temple was built(I already pointed out such mistakes) or may be we are misinterpreting his writings(like I suggested one alternative explanation). Books can be wrong like you removed * Sukhabilāsa Barmā (2004). Bhāwāiyā: Ethnomusicological Study. Global Vision Publishing Ho. pp. 74–. ISBN 978-81-8220-070-8. Retrieved 30 May 2013. considering it a terrible book in the article Sankardev.
One more thing, can you please give me an account as to why and how the Ahom king had to come into construction of the temple? (eg. Naranarayan re-built it because it was destroyed, like that what reasons led Ahom king to do the re-construction as you told.)
Last but not the least, the very inscription inside the temple itself mentions that the temple was built by Chilarai during Naranayan's reign; so, does it really need a debate?!?
Hope, you will consider the matter with due care and take necessary steps. Padmanlp (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- No one is denying the fact that Naranarayan built the Kamakhya temple in 1565. But there has been additions after that. Look at the ASI report (again). Naranarayan built it atop ruins of a much larger temple. Most of the relief figures on the outside walls of the sanctum are believed to be from the original temple. His major contribution is probably the shikhar (dome). There is a massive kalash nearby, which is believed to be from the original temple, and which would be too heavy for the current one. So, Naranarayan does not get complete credit for the temple, because he rebuilt it, on the plinth of the original temple (look at the ASI report). It looks like at least one of the skikhara on the mandap of the temple is from a later period. And the western most part of the temple does not belong to the same architecture as the rest of the temple --- which must be a later addition. So the evidence is overwhelming that there were constructions after Naranarayan (1565). The point to note is that there were many builders of the temple---but all of them tried to carry as much of the earlier designs as much as possible. Naranarayan built it on the foundation of the 8th-9th century temple. The Ahoms preserved the original structure, as much as possible, from Naranarayan's time. Chaipau (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The most distinguishing Ahom feature in the current Kamakhya temple is the western most brick building. Look at the sloping roof and the crocodile (western facing) on top. Now look at the Ranghar. Chaipau (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand that Naranarayan re-built the temple- everyone is aware of that. I would like to explore some points:-
0) You mentioned things like- "Naranarayan built it atop ruins of a much larger temple. Most of the relief figures on the outside walls of the sanctum are believed to be from the original temple. His major contribution is probably the shikhar (dome). There is a massive kalash nearby, which is believed to be from the original temple, and which would be too heavy for the current one. So, Naranarayan does not get complete credit for the temple, because he rebuilt it, on the plinth of the original temple (look at the ASI report). It looks like at least one of the skikhara on the mandap of the temple is from a later period. And the western most part of the temple does not belong to the same architecture as the rest of the temple --- which must be a later addition."
Can you please give me some proper references to your claims?? Otherwise, there is no point of sticking to these things.
You also mentioned "the sloping roof being similar to that of Ranghar, must be by Ahom builders"- believing these are not assertions made by you, can you please give me suitable references?? OW, I really cant agree to your claims.
1) You already mentioned that the author is an archaeologist and not a historian in response to my question "The reference book given mentions that The temple of the goddess Kali or Kamakhya on the top of the hill was built during the domination of the Ahoms. (Banerji 1925, p. 100). It also mentions that This temple was built on the ruins of another structure erected by king Sukladhvaja or Naranarayana, the first king and founder of the Koch dynasty of Cooch Bihar, whose inscription is still carefully preserved inside the mandapa. (Banerji 1925, p. 100) That means the book treats Sukladhwaj and Naranarayan to be the same person-though they were not. Moreover it describes Naranarayan as the first king and founder of Koch dynasty of Cooch Bihar, whereas Viswa Singha was the first king and founder of Koch kingdom." You also told that at that time very little about Assam history was known. Then, is it not quite possible that the author may mess up during whose time the temple was built?? Moreover, the book (by Benerjee) referred to is an old one but "The Mother Goddess kamakhya" by the noted scholar Dr. Banikanta Kakati is a new one when more of Assam hisory was known as compared to earlier.
- I have replied to most of this here. Further, archaeological evidence do not bend to history, but it is the other way around.
Suppose the archaeologist is correct(though historical descriptions allowed to be wrong), Why can't the three period of construction be-
i) Original temple
ii) Foundation laid by Viswa Singha
iii) Temple erected by Chilarai and Naranarayan
???
2) You have still not given an account so as to why the Ahom kings were led to again re-construction of the temple- was the temple erected by Chilarai and Nara Narayan destroyed by someone or something else(say, Ahom builders added to the already built temple by Naranarayan); please give in details.
- Not needed at all. Not all archaeological evidence has historical evidence. For example, the Ahoms built a brick temple over an older stone temple at Dah Parbatia. Do we have any historical evidence of why/how/when the stone temple broke apart? No.
Seriously!! Do you really mean that!??!! Then any one can claim anything like this feature resembles that and so both must be built by the same one!!!
3) Supposing you are correct, you mentioned that Ahom king later added some parts to the temple noticeable of which is the sloping roof like Ranghar. Except that others were made by Naranarayan including the main sikhara. Then, if you write The current structure has been built during the Ahom times, with remnants of the earlier Koch temple carefully preserved it merely means that whole of the temple was reconstructed by Ahom builders on the top of the destroyed temple(please give an convincing account of the destruction of the temple built by Chilarai and Naranarayan if that is the case- I am really not aware of such an incident) constructed by Naranarayan and this sentence does give full credit to Ahom builders. So, if you are aware of that Naranarayan does not get the full credit, I really don't see how Ahom builders will get a full credit.
- That the natyamandapa of the Kamakhya was constructed by Rajeswar Singha has been recorded. The entrance via the antarala on the northern side has the do-cala roof that developed under Rudra Singha. So the evidence is clear that the Ahom reconstruction took place not just under one king, but many. The antarala itself has Bengal type roof, which with a Bengal type shikhara, which is different from the Koch type shikhara. Except for the shikhara and the walls containing Koch artefacts, it seems Kamakhya temple has little else to show for the period. Both the adhithana as well as the vimana portions of the temple are accepted to be from the pre-Koch period.
Please give me proper references for everything you are saying. Even if all these correct, how can you really claim that Ahom builders get full credit!!!
Do give reliable references.
4) Last but not the least, the edit I did and you did 'undo' contained whatever you told also(you can include too if i missed). I edited everything with reference from the book by the noted scholar Dr. Banikanta Kakati (which I believe reliable to the highest extent). Alternately, I will prefer you to write in details- who built which parts with reliable citation. Even in latest books like "Reknowned Goddess of Desire"(2007, OXFORD University Press) by Loriliai Biernacki, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies University of Colorado at Boulder there is mention of Naranarayana rebuilding Kamakhya temple in 1565 but no mention of any later rebuilding or destruction of the temple.
Above all, I can give you numerous reliable citations(like above) in support of what I wrote. Can you give some other sources in support of what you wrote which is reliable enough??
- Are they archaeological references?
All kind of references you can give- which are reliable enough.
Instead of doing this do-undo business, I expect you to come to an agreement. Do consider the matter and inform. Padmanlp (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not remove the archaeological evidence.
I was not removing anything, you only removed whatever I have written even after giving with proper references- including by the noted scholar Dr. Banikanta Kakati!
Moreover, I would like to bring your notice that- "the temple had three different period of construction" is an archaeological data but that "part of it was build by Ahom builders" is a historical data and you yourself told that Author might be wrong in giving historical references as he is an "Archaeologist", not a "historian"!? Above all, "Contrary to much popular opinion, archeology does not usually give us “the hard facts.” Rather, the meaning and implications of most archeological artifacts is usually ambiguous and thus open to a variety of interpretations. This ambiguity has often been ignored, or at least minimized, by both Christian apologists and liberal New Testament critics. Some on both sides have consequently tended to overstate their cases, one side arguing that archeology “proves” the New Testament to be true while the other side argues it “proves” it to be full of historical errors. The reality is that archeology proves very little – if by “proof” one means something like, “making a case that no reasonable person can deny.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmanlp (talk • contribs) 07:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please answer my questions properly and don't give "gaa era montobyo".
- C-Class Lower Assam articles
- High-importance Lower Assam articles
- B-Class Hinduism articles
- High-importance Hinduism articles
- High-importance Shaktism articles
- B-Class India articles
- Low-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Assam articles
- Low-importance Assam articles
- B-Class Assam articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Assam articles
- WikiProject India articles
- Unassessed Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles