LurkerBaba
Super Mod
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 8,125
Added. Along with civ's fourth optionquestion is---would rajaraja have been able to defeat ghazni and defend india ??
options---1) yes 2) no 3) difficult to say .
Added. Along with civ's fourth optionquestion is---would rajaraja have been able to defeat ghazni and defend india ??
options---1) yes 2) no 3) difficult to say .
---------------------------------------
Ashdoc, u dont understand Tamils. We dont go around picking fights in the name of religion.
We are a peaceful people, minding our own business.
"vantha sandayai vida maattan, valiya sandaikku sela maattaan" (we will not let go a fight brought to us, but we do not go around picki ng fights)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raja Rajan's son Rajendra Cholan i conquered parts of Benagal, Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia.
When the Cholas invaded Sri Lanka, they did loot and destroy Buddhist monasteries and built Shiva temples over their ruins (some of these Shiva temples built by Cholas still survive today). Remind of you anything?Even comparing Raja Raja with Ghazni is an insult. The Cholas did attack and plunder neighbouring Hindu Kingdoms but so did the Marathas, Guptas, Mauryas and others. But that in no way compares them with Ghazni and other invaders from outside, because the local Kings never destroyed Temples and idols with a vengeance.
@HeinzGud can probably offer his perspective in this matterWhen the Cholas invaded Sri Lanka, they did loot and destroy Buddhist monasteries and built Shiva temples over their ruins (some of these Shiva temples built by Cholas still survive today). Remind of you anything?
It is true that Indian dynasties generally refrained from wanton looting and destruction of religious structures and conducted warfare in a "humane" manner, but the Cholas were an exception to that rule. Even Ghazni never destroyed any mosques.
But if the yardstick for Mahmud is "not destroying mosques", shouldn't it then be "not destroying temples" for the Cholas.Cholas invaded Sri Lanka, they did loot and destroy Buddhist monasteries and built Shiva temples over their ruins
...
Even Ghazni never destroyed any mosques.
In one of the earlier post you were contesting that Cholas were the defenders of Hinduism, now you are saying they forcefully converted Buddhist monasteries into Hindu temples. Looks like something defenders of Hinduism would do, isn't it?When the Cholas invaded Sri Lanka, they did loot and destroy Buddhist monasteries and built Shiva temples over their ruins (some of these Shiva temples built by Cholas still survive today). Remind of you anything?
It is true that Indian dynasties generally refrained from wanton looting and destruction of religious structures and conducted warfare in a "humane" manner, but the Cholas were an exception to that rule. Even Ghazni never destroyed any mosques.
My contention is that the Cholas and the Ghaznavids were similar in their savagery and warmongering. So yes, if you want you can use the yardstick of "not destroying temples" for the Cholas and compare them in that regard to the Ghaznavids, who refrained from destroying mosques. However, you can also compare the Cholas' destruction of Buddhist monasteries with the Ghaznavid destruction of Hindu temples. The Cholas' sectarian intolerance was truly unique in this regard, as most Indian dynasties were liberal and open-minded in matters of religion and patronized multiple sects. The Guptas and Satavahanas are good examples; they were essentially "Hindu" dynasties who were also great patrons of Buddhism and Jainism. And of course the Mauryas.But if the yardstick for Mahmud is "not destroying mosques", shouldn't it then be "not destroying temples" for the Cholas.
Why are we looking at Buddhist monasteries for Cholas, but Mosques for Mahmud?
Are you an author on Tamil Tribune ?I did not know that there is this much hatred against Tamils among some non-Tamils of south Asia. This explains a lot.
Raja Raja Cholan and Thanjai Big Temple
Just a member of the Friend Of Tamil Tribune (FOTT) groupOT
Are you an author on Tamil Tribune ?
Well I do agree with this. Cholas never destroyed Buddhist shrines and built Hindu temples over them. Rather they looted the wealth out from Buddhist monasteries, (According to the Sri Lankan tradition, rulers donated huge sums of gold, jems and other valuable items etc. to the Buddhist shrines and monasteries.) and took them to India. Some of the loot was transferred to the newly built Hindu temples.@HeinzGud can probably offer his perspective in this matter