07-05-2008, 01:18 AM
Ishwa,
Yes, Bhoja the parmar king whose capital was dhArA-nagarI or present day Dhar.
He also commands great heart/mind share in traditional writings. And with the story of 32-statuettes, also connected to the glory of vikramAditya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhoja
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhoja was from the Paramara dynasty of Arya , who ruled Malwa from the mid-tenth century to about 1200. His extensive writings cover philosophy, poetry, medicine, veterinary science, phonetics, yoga, and archery. Under his rule, Malwa and its capital Dhar became one of the chief intellectual centers of India. King Bhoj, together with the Solanki king Bhima of Gujarat (Anhilwara), rebuilt the temple at Somnath between 1026 and 1042 after it was sacked by Mahmud of Ghazni. Bhoj also founded the city of Bhopal, which is named after him, to secure the eastern frontier of his kingdom. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There seems to be one more connection with vikramAditya. As vikrama had driven away the sakas, which probably was registered as a major event in the psychology of hindus. So perhaps rebuilding of somnatha temple by bhoja registered strongly in hindu psyche. So, both were associated with fighting foreigners of some type. Both vikrama and bhoja were supposedly great patrons of arts and knowledge.
The idea of navaratna, a very persistent meme in Indian culture, which showed up later even during Akbar's time, and possibly may have influenced the stories of King Arthur's knights of the roundtable, was also associated with king vikramAditya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikramaditya
VikramAditya, the original, not chandragupta-II, captured Indian imagination in a very powerful manner, as shown in the literature and surviving cultural memes. Identification of Chandragupta_II with original vikramAditya never made sense anyway. Since guptas were magadha based, while the capital of vikramAditya was unambiguously mentioned as ujjayinI in all the stories.
What is puzzling is the lack of historical evidence for the original vikramAditya. He apparently didn't rule a great empire, and his kingdom didn't last long. But he must have achieved something very significant to have acquired such an iconic adulation.
Since Shalivahana captured ujjayinI within a century of vikramAditya's rein, may be official accounts of vikramAditya were erased, who knows. Shalivahana did start a new era the shaka-era, so it is clear that he wanted to uproot the original vikrama-era. I suspect there was a strong undercurrent for undermining vikrama by later rulers, which might explain lack of available physical evidence. But that couldn't erase the memory of the peoples and writers.
Vikrama's greatness perhaps has much to do with him being a harbinger of hope during a turbulent time. he perhaps showed, within a short span o time, what was yet possible to be achieved by a battered hindu civilization, which eventually culminated in the gupta empire becoming a golden age of hindu civilization.
Yes, Bhoja the parmar king whose capital was dhArA-nagarI or present day Dhar.
He also commands great heart/mind share in traditional writings. And with the story of 32-statuettes, also connected to the glory of vikramAditya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhoja
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhoja was from the Paramara dynasty of Arya , who ruled Malwa from the mid-tenth century to about 1200. His extensive writings cover philosophy, poetry, medicine, veterinary science, phonetics, yoga, and archery. Under his rule, Malwa and its capital Dhar became one of the chief intellectual centers of India. King Bhoj, together with the Solanki king Bhima of Gujarat (Anhilwara), rebuilt the temple at Somnath between 1026 and 1042 after it was sacked by Mahmud of Ghazni. Bhoj also founded the city of Bhopal, which is named after him, to secure the eastern frontier of his kingdom. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There seems to be one more connection with vikramAditya. As vikrama had driven away the sakas, which probably was registered as a major event in the psychology of hindus. So perhaps rebuilding of somnatha temple by bhoja registered strongly in hindu psyche. So, both were associated with fighting foreigners of some type. Both vikrama and bhoja were supposedly great patrons of arts and knowledge.
The idea of navaratna, a very persistent meme in Indian culture, which showed up later even during Akbar's time, and possibly may have influenced the stories of King Arthur's knights of the roundtable, was also associated with king vikramAditya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikramaditya
VikramAditya, the original, not chandragupta-II, captured Indian imagination in a very powerful manner, as shown in the literature and surviving cultural memes. Identification of Chandragupta_II with original vikramAditya never made sense anyway. Since guptas were magadha based, while the capital of vikramAditya was unambiguously mentioned as ujjayinI in all the stories.
What is puzzling is the lack of historical evidence for the original vikramAditya. He apparently didn't rule a great empire, and his kingdom didn't last long. But he must have achieved something very significant to have acquired such an iconic adulation.
Since Shalivahana captured ujjayinI within a century of vikramAditya's rein, may be official accounts of vikramAditya were erased, who knows. Shalivahana did start a new era the shaka-era, so it is clear that he wanted to uproot the original vikrama-era. I suspect there was a strong undercurrent for undermining vikrama by later rulers, which might explain lack of available physical evidence. But that couldn't erase the memory of the peoples and writers.
Vikrama's greatness perhaps has much to do with him being a harbinger of hope during a turbulent time. he perhaps showed, within a short span o time, what was yet possible to be achieved by a battered hindu civilization, which eventually culminated in the gupta empire becoming a golden age of hindu civilization.