Talk:Kamakhya Temple
{{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- everybody knows that. You already mentioned that the author is an archaeologist and not a historian in response to my question The reference book given mentions "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 "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 mix up during whose time the temple was built?? Moreover, the book referred is an old one but "The Mother kamakhya" by the noted scholar Dr. Banikanta Kakati is a new one when more of Assam hisory was known as compared to earlier.
Secondly, 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; please give in details.
Again, 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 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.
Last but not the least, the edit I did and you did 'undo' contained whatever you told also. 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.
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)
- 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