• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Temples: History, Architecture & Distribution - 2
#95
Thank you very much for the links quoted by Mudy, to which i will look, and for the graphic and the link to a very important documentation! I now have a better idea about the names, relative positions of Nayachandra=Anayachandra, Meghasuta and Ayushyachandra and their time.



The scheme in my previous post has to be adjusted and further fine-tuned as below:



New temple 12th century

- the Gahadavala period new (Vishnu Hari) temple through Meghasuta, the Lord of Saketamandala under Govindachandra Gahadavala, with its splendid golden dome as described in the Vishnu Hari inscription which was found from the wall of the demolished structure in 1992.

Ayushyachandra was responsible for more lofty structures and many small and large wells.



New temple damaged and repaired 12th to 16th century

- This 12th century temple too was one or more times desecrated and damaged between the 12th and 16th century by possibly Delhi and Sharqi Sultans.

The first to have been responsible for a desecration and damage must have been Qutbuddin and Shihabuddin Gori in 1194 after defeating Jayachandra Gahadavala, the last overlord of Ayodhya.

The Delhi Sultanate period from 1194 to 1398 when Timur destroyed their power, must have been a very difficult one for Ayodhya. Most probably Ayodhya rulers bought off their independance from Muslims. The structure, later desecrated by Mir Baqi and/or Babar, was repaired in this period. Probably the three-domed superstructure was of this age, instead of the single golden domed one of Meghasuta. This points at the destruction of the superstructure by Qutbuddin and Shihabuddin Ghori.



After 1398 many tribute paying kingdoms became detached from Delhi harrassments, so also Ayodhya. They may have come under influence sphere of the Jaunpur Sharqis. The Sharqis didn't give an impression that they had harrassed Ayodhya.



- But it did still function as Hindu temple after the last reparations, that it had to get damaged by Mir Baqi and/or Babar later on. Thus, from 1398 to 1451 till the last weak (Sayyid) Sultan of Delhi, Ayodhya was fairly free from Delhi harrassments. The Lodis destroyed the Sharqis in 1479, but they hadn't attacked the temple structure of Ayodhya, because 50 years later Babur had to desecrate and damage it.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vishnu Hari inscription Family trees



'Mame'.................................................Chandradeva Gahadavala



Sallakshana----------Anayachandra................Madanapala Gahadavala



Alhana---------------Meghasuta................Govindachandra Gahadavala



Ayushyachandra...........................................Vijayachandra Gahadavala





The underlined names are mentioned in the Vishnu Hari inscription. I have added the names of the other Gahadavalas.

Meghasuta was the next Lord of Saketamandala after Anayachandra, who in my opinion was his father. After Meghasuta his cousin Alhana (son of Sallakshana and grandson of 'Mame') was the next lord of Saketamandala, followed by his youngest (son?) called Ayushyachandra.

Meghasuta and Alhana served their overlord Govindachandra Gahadavala. The inscription dates from the time of Ayushyachandra, who crushed a thread from the west (Delhi Sultan). His overlord then was most probably Vijayachandra Gahadavala.



Babar's role

That Babar may have had a hand in the desecration of the repaired Vishnu Hari Rama Mandira, as indirectly pointed out by the witness of the inscription of Mir Baqi mentioning his name, is most probably. That his biography doesn't mention this because of missing pages is no proof to the contrary. The atrocities committed by him during his previous 4 failed attempts to conquer India were all disastrous to Hindus, as witnessed by the Guru Grantha Sahib. All the pages containing his atrocities against Hindus are missing, except the ones against his three major political ones: skulls of towers were built with the slain heads.

Ayodhya was politically not interesting for the Ba®bari biography. But that he had a hand in the temple desecration, is indirectly indicated by the inscription of Mir Baqi, his official governor.
  Reply


Messages In This Thread
Temples: History, Architecture & Distribution - 2 - by Guest - 10-01-2010, 05:25 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)