Chola Hindu Identity

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, telugu_fan said:

yento, Kamal Haasan ki vayasu perige koddi chadastam perugutundi, E logic to aithe, aa time lo language, culture ani words kuuda ledu, aite Tamizh ki asalu language culture eemi ledu anukovala - elanti chillar logic ki takkuva emi ledu.

he is trying to stay relevant with his brand of politics where Hindus ni dushiste votes padutayi ani anukuntunnadu. ide maata velli Muslims ni christinas ni anumanu -a  time lo shia sunni leru leda, protestants mormons christians kaadu ani cheppamanu , rendu champalu pagalgotti pampistaru. Jains, buddhism kante mundu inka chaala rakalauga poojalu jarigevi ee desam lo.

Jains buddhists aakasam ninchi vudi padaledu, they were also converts from some existing religion or organised structures.

Life anta Africa ninche start ayyindi antaru, mari andaru africans avvali kada. Caucasians, chinese, asian, aborigines, latin americans middle eastern andaru ela vaccharu. Koni vela samvatsralu lo differences ekkava ayyinappudu everiki vallu distinct ga avutaru.

@ raven reyes, same thing with Islam and Christianity - avi judaism kadu endukante vatillo changes valla avvi distinct ga marinavi.

Mana desamulo we have Varnas and jatis - vatini europeans vacchi ardhamu chesukune reettilo caste introduce chesaru - akkadaninchi reddy, kapu, kamma, velama, gouds ani kottuku chastunnam.

Ippudikaina maari jannalu ki panikoche panulu cheste better.

 

paidithalli laaaga unnav.

raja raja chola was not HIndu. its a historical fact.

people who lived under raja raja chola were majority jains and buddhists.. not any of the religions you consider as Hindu now.

saivism and vaishnavism ki direct links unnai with the vedic religion. but its silly to claim that they are all branches of hinduism.. or that every system that originated from the vedic religion is Hinduism today. because the jains and buddhists like to differ with that.

meeru convenient sanghi politics ki andaru Hindu antaaru.. Tamils don't want to come into your grouping.

although I don't believe that Tamils are an unique ethnic group, and they do in fact share a large amount of cross cultural exchange with the rest of India, it is not wrong to claim that Raja Raja chola was not Hindu. or that modern tamils are not Hindus in the political sense.

[Raven_Rayes]

6 minutes ago, Naaperushiva said:

I think most of the jainism temples have been built later than many hindu temples.. But yes i agree with buddist temples being older than the hindu ones we have ex:-mahabodhi temple i guess which predates the oldest temple mundeswari temple.

I'm talking about south indian temples only. there are jain temples in the region that predate medeival chola temples by 500yrs, which share similar architecture of the chola temples.

[Naaperushiva]

5 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

I'm talking about south indian temples only. there are jain temples in the region that predate medeival chola temples by 500yrs, which share similar architecture of the chola temples.

even in south indian temples khailashanatha temple i think it was built under pallava rule predates any of the jain temples...You can even see that in Khailasha temple which was predominently a Shiva temple later as been converted to Buddha and jain temples which shares the same Vimana architecture i guess.

But i get your point that all the chola temple architectures have been derived from different influences...Which i totally agree.

 

[telugu_fan]

11 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

paidithalli laaaga unnav.

raja raja chola was not HIndu. its a historical fact.

people who lived under raja raja chola were majority jains and buddhists.. not any of the religions you consider as Hindu now.

saivism and vaishnavism ki direct links unnai with the vedic religion. but its silly to claim that they are all branches of hinduism.. or that every system that originated from the vedic religion is Hinduism today. because the jains and buddhists like to differ with that.

meeru convenient sanghi politics ki andaru Hindu antaaru.. Tamils don't want to come into your grouping.

although I don't believe that Tamils are an unique ethnic group, and they do in fact share a large amount of cross cultural exchange with the rest of India, it is not wrong to claim that Raja Raja chola was not Hindu. or that modern tamils are not Hindus in the political sense.

Paidithalli or polerammano, it doesn't matter, you can make your point without ad hominem attacks. you points can stand on its own merits.

Raja Raja Chola was not a Hindu ani evaru chepparu, Cholula kattina temples, cambodia vietnam border lo leka in the rest of South east asia lo vatini evaru Shaivaite temples ani annaru, Hindu temples ane antaru. hindus or Hindusim is the continuity of what existed in the past with the name given by Brits or islamic invaders based on which history you use. current people in the country don't wear clothes or speak the same language since the old times. Languages and dress has evolved, does it mean we have no relation to the older ancestors who came before us as the dress or language are different from then.

Yes there was a Vedic religion before and people now days call it Santana Dharma as idiots like Kamal Haasan will use stupid logic like there was no word Hindu aa kaalam lo ani. I just gave another example also okaappudu, there was no shia or sunni just musalmaan, ippudu shia sunni, devbandi, berelvei, sufi salahi, wahabbi vunnaru. vallu evearu muslims kaadu ani cheppamanu kamal Haasan ni ade logic vadutu.

Vaadu batiki batta kattadu, he knows that also, andukane musukoni vuntaadu as vishayam lo.

Eppudaina stable ga religion gaani, kingdom gaani vunte akkadanunche developments kaani offshoots vastayi. India lo South relative ga stable ga vundedi from invasions in the north. Ikkada kottuku chachevallu kuda vunnaru, but the relative time for stability is more. so you have some continuity in language, culture. North lo invasions valla farsi, urdu vachayyi, stability and development takkuva.

Identity can be used any number of ways by people for their own selfish needs. There are latent demands for "Kongu Nadu" by Tamil speaking people only for a separate state carved out of the western portion of current Tamil Nadu, are we supposed to entertain every whim and fancy of greedy individuals doing politics for their own needs. Just as you keep saying Tamizh are all one and distinct identity, there are more people asking Kongu Nadu, and coastal Tamil Nadu and much more citing real and imaginery rule, kingdoms, kings and so on.

[Raven_Rayes]

19 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

Paidithalli or polerammano, it doesn't matter, you can make your point without ad hominem attacks. you points can stand on its own merits.

Raja Raja Chola was not a Hindu ani evaru chepparu, Cholula kattina temples, cambodia vietnam border lo leka in the rest of South east asia lo vatini evaru Shaivaite temples ani annaru, Hindu temples ane antaru. hindus or Hindusim is the continuity of what existed in the past with the name given by Brits or islamic invaders based on which history you use. current people in the country don't wear clothes or speak the same language since the old times. Languages and dress has evolved, does it mean we have no relation to the older ancestors who came before us as the dress or language are different from then.

Yes there was a Vedic religion before and people now days call it Santana Dharma as idiots like Kamal Haasan will use stupid logic like there was no word Hindu aa kaalam lo ani. I just gave another example also okaappudu, there was no shia or sunni just musalmaan, ippudu shia sunni, devbandi, berelvei, sufi salahi, wahabbi vunnaru. vallu evearu muslims kaadu ani cheppamanu kamal Haasan ni ade logic vadutu.

Vaadu batiki batta kattadu, he knows that also, andukane musukoni vuntaadu as vishayam lo.

Eppudaina stable ga religion gaani, kingdom gaani vunte akkadanunche developments kaani offshoots vastayi. India lo South relative ga stable ga vundedi from invasions in the north. Ikkada kottuku chachevallu kuda vunnaru, but the relative time for stability is more. so you have some continuity in language, culture. North lo invasions valla farsi, urdu vachayyi, stability and development takkuva.

Identity can be used any number of ways by people for their own selfish needs. There are latent demands for "Kongu Nadu" by Tamil speaking people only for a separate state carved out of the western portion of current Tamil Nadu, are we supposed to entertain every whim and fancy of greedy individuals doing politics for their own needs. Just as you keep saying Tamizh are all one and distinct identity, there are more people asking Kongu Nadu, and coastal Tamil Nadu and much more citing real and imaginery rule, kingdoms, kings and so on.

what was the ad hominem attack tht I made? Also I specifically said that I don't consider Tamils as an ethnic identity distinct from other Indians.

the rest of your post is mostly irrelevant to what I said.

there's no such thing as the 'vedic religion' in this time. there was an attempt to form a synthesis of diverse philosophies from the puranas (from where saivism, vaishnavism originated), upanishads and the nyaya, samkhya, yoga schools.

before this period, there was no systemic religious thought that unified these distinct traditions and project them as a single religion in opposition to the Jains and buddhists.

so to claim raja raja chola as Hindu is to insult him, since he clearly never thought of himself as Hindu. Its impossible for him to consider himself as Hindu or sanatani, because such thought didn't exist during that time.

[telugu_fan]

7 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

what was the ad hominem attack tht I made? Also I specifically said that I don't consider Tamils as an ethnic identity distinct from other Indians.

the rest of your post is mostly irrelevant to what I said.

there's no such thing as the 'vedic religion' in this time. there was an attempt to form a synthesis of diverse philosophies from the puranas (from where saivism, vaishnavism originated), upanishads and the nyaya, samkhya, yoga schools.

before this period, there was no systemic religious thought that unified these distinct traditions and project them as a single religion in opposition to the Jains and buddhists.

so to claim raja raja chola as Hindu is to insult him, since he clearly never thought of himself as Hindu. Its impossible for him to consider himself as Hindu or sanatani, because such thought didn't exist during that time.

If there was no adhominem in calling me a Paidithalli then please accept my apologies for the same. I must have mistook your words.

Your words about distinct traditions of vedic religion and Jains and Buddhistes "kind of prove" what I am trying to say. Vedic Religion/ Sanathan Dharma or what ever existed since the ancient times will never be like islam and christianity that are quite rigid in their methods practices and followers (christianity seems to have loosened a bit). Jainism and buddhism also were codified religious beliefs that eventually gave way to different sects as it grew- swetambara and dighambara for jains and Hinayana and mahayana sects in buddhism.

Any religion and organisation growing will have different offshoots thta will change/experiment from the original and you have that freedom in vedic culture as long as the basic is adhered.

Raja Raja Chola not beinga  Hindu is a semantic wordplay. As i said Shia, Sunni, berelvi, deobandi, suif salahi, wahabi, disn't exist when Islam was founded, neither did catholics, protestants, mormons or the more recent Jesus christ of latter day Saints. If someone came and said that since these terms didn't exist then so they are not part of the original islam or christanity, the consequences will be severe.

Hindu is just the modern name on what has since been followed since early times of vedic culture/ sanathana dharma. People of different regions prayed, some parts of Andhra prayed to "Laxmi Narasimha Swami" . Doesn't make them religiously different from a Vaishnavaite or Hindu in general. You have different was to reach God whether you pray to Shiva or Vishnu and based on the king and his patronage temples and prayers would have flourished or gone extinct.

Kamal Haasan playing on a semantic wordplay for his narrow political agendas and people supporting him for other reasons are missing the original point.

[Raven_Rayes]

3 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

Kamal Haasan playing on a semantic wordplay for his narrow political agendas and people supporting him for other reasons are missing the original point.

actually you are the one indulging in semantic wordplay not kamala haasan.

saivism is not an offshoot of 'Hinduism' in the way that salafi was an offshoot of Islam.

it was saivism plus vaishnavism plus shaktism plus other bhakti gods that were united to form Hinduism. so saivism came first, not Hinduism.

you want to refer to 'vedic religion' as Hinduism.. its clearly not the case.. since vedic religion produced distinct religions buddhism, jainism who will never identify themselves as Hindu.

what you are indulging is the semantic wordplay. for everyone else the chronology is clear.

[Raven_Rayes]

7 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

Hindu is just the modern name on what has since been followed since early times of vedic culture/ sanathana dharma.

where does that leave the buddhists, jains? are they hindu too according to you? they obviously beg to differ.

[Raven_Rayes]

9 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

As i said Shia, Sunni, berelvi, deobandi, suif salahi, wahabi, disn't exist when Islam was founded, neither did catholics, protestants, mormons or the more recent Jesus christ of latter day Saints.

in this case its the other way around. Hinduism didn't exist when Raja Raja was a saivite.

[telugu_fan]

34 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

actually you are the one indulging in semantic wordplay not kamala haasan.

saivism is not an offshoot of 'Hinduism' in the way that salafi was an offshoot of Islam.

it was saivism plus vaishnavism plus shaktism plus other bhakti gods that were united to form Hinduism. so saivism came first, not Hinduism.

you want to refer to 'vedic religion' as Hinduism.. its clearly not the case.. since vedic religion produced distinct religions buddhism, jainism who will never identify themselves as Hindu.

what you are indulging is the semantic wordplay. for everyone else the chronology is clear.

Saivism is an offshoot of the vedic culture/Sanatana dharma that existed in these lands prior. It was vedic culture ----> saivism... other offshoots --------> ultimately named hinduism by the later colonial masters. the fundamental part of devotion or bhakthi to the supreme god hasn't changed in vedic culture to shaivism or to the present day hinduism. Maybe some proactices are lost or finetuned, but when you ask somebod about Sihvaites or Hindus doing pooja to lord Shiva, it hasn't fundamentally changed. you can call it any name but it has remained the same. Maybe a thousand years from now it called with another name from hinduism, that doesn't change the fact that what was Shaivism during chola times owed it continuance from Vedic culture and is being continued in the present day Hinduism.

Hence I called it word play where the essence is the same but is claimed as different by Kamal Haasan. for example ,It is akin to someone saying raven_reyes is not Tamilian as raven_reyes is not tamizh name. that is semantics in the grand scheme of things as name doesn't matter when what you do and think matters.

Kamal Haasan isn't just saying that Chola were not Hindus he intends to say that Shivates were not Hindus in the present sense, maybe i got that part wrong. if it is so then maybe you can provide more info on what Kamal Haasan actually meant as most news channels will only show what is needed to drive up ratings and controversies.

[Raven_Rayes]

48 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

Any religion and organisation growing will have different offshoots thta will change/experiment from the original and you have that freedom in vedic culture as long as the basic is adhered.

just say a saivaite can only be a hindu, and not any other religion. I won't disagree with that. don't keep on bringing up vedic religion or culture that has spawned other religions that will never come under hinduism.

at this point it just becomes a political identity clash. and both parties are right to the extent they claim a religious identity for raja raja chola depending on where they want to stand politically.

there's nothing wrong with tamils claiming that raja rajan was not a hindu. just like there's not much wrong with the sanghis claiming him to be hindu. except that raja rajan himself wouldn't have considered himself hindu.. but that's fine.

[telugu_fan]

43 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

where does that leave the buddhists, jains? are they hindu too according to you? they obviously beg to differ.

I don't think Buddhists and Jains are Hindus, but they belong to a sister religion that has many a commonalities but a also a few differences in their appeal and nature.

 

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, telugu_fan said:

Kamal Haasan isn't just saying that Chola were not Hindus he intends to say that Shivates were not Hindus in the present sense, maybe i got that part wrong. if it is so then maybe you can provide more info on what Kamal Haasan actually meant as most news channels will only show what is needed to drive up ratings and controversies.

KH was only responding to reports of vetrimaaran who remarked in another function that sanghis are trying to appropriate tamil cultural symbols and history by painting everything as Hindu in origin. Including of raja rajan's identity, who he claimed was not Hindu.

KH just pointed out that there was no such thing as 'hindu' at that time, which was just a pithy statement and doesn't need to discussed at length. He obviously cannot castigate vetrimaaran for calling raja rajan as not Hindu. because technically it is def true.

 

[Raven_Rayes]

7 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

Saivism is an offshoot of the vedic culture/Sanatana dharma that existed in these lands prior.

it was not an organized religion then. just a bunch of brahmins flexing their muscles and trying to influence kings with their own versions of 'dharma'.

it was not 'hinduism'.

[ARYA]