3
Kanchi KamakShi Amman Kovil already covered in previous post.
1. Uh... maybe it's the spelling, but taking it as written: Sambapati is a male name not some Goddess.
But it surely can't be Saambapati, who is a *Hindu* God: it's a direct reference to Shiva whose personal name it is (the Lord who is with the Hindu's Divine Mother). Other variants of the same are Saamba: (one who is) With Ambaa. Saambasadaashiva. Saambamoorti - as in vishveshvaraM sAmbamUrtiM praNipatya girAm gurum, stolen from an invocation - where it refers to the moorti that is the unification of Shiva Vishveshwara and Uma (i.e. single moorti of Shiva and Uma <-> Ardhanareeshwara). Etc.
2. BTW: Worship of a Goddess by name Tara is not exclusively Buddhist, nor even in origin.
Hindus worship at least 2 Hindu Taras, one is the famous wife of the famous Navagraha. Indeed, Shaiva Hindus regularly give that Hindu Goddess name for daughters including in Karnataka.
Still, even where the Hindu Goddess Tara of the Hindu *DMV* is concerned, KamakShee is to be identified with the Shodashi (Kalyani) since it is the Lalita manifestation.
In any case, no one would confuse her with the Buddhist Tara - invented out of competition and plagiarism. (Theravada admits it does not *have* Goddesses, and it is the *older* Buddhism. Mahayana only acquired such "paganisms" out of competition and by using local Gods. Seen all over, including in China and Japan. And even in China, the Buddhists insist that a famous popular local Goddess that Buddhism inculturated on to make the Avalokiteshwara is "actually male". Moreover, the Tibetan Buddhist Tara is obviously..., but I'll be repeating what I posted in earlier posts.)]
3. As for the interjection of "researches say that ..." or whatever - then one notes that there is also research that:
- Manimekhalai is a late work and that its Buddhist portion is a lift/transfer of a Buddhist work from another Indian language, but using a framing story to set it in. Which would not be unexpected: the framing story of "Manimekhalai" reused pre-existing characters and was presented as a sequel to a popular work about popular persons.
- Manimeghala was a Tamizh Goddess before the work Buddhist work Manimekhalai. The human protagonist in that work - turned Buddhist nun in the work - is not the same as the *Goddess* of identical name who existed before. However the eponymous convert-heroine in the Buddhist Manimekhalai (i.e. the one "who attained Veeduperu" and became deified by some Buddhists for it) and consequent Buddhist association with the name Manimeghalai, seems to have totally eclipsed the pre-existing Tamizh Goddess of that name - despite a deity of this name having apparently also made a brief (and predictably Buddhist) appearance in the work.
Who's to say Buddhism didn't do its Stalking The Heathen routine again at this famous Shakti Peetham? (Not impossible, since TN is known for having historically been the victim of opportunistic Buddhist ... meddling even outright strife.) Buddhists regularly chose to set up shop at all the major popular ancient Hindu sacred sites in TN where Hindus congregated (even Potiyil), and are known for deliberatedly starting tussles to claim some Hindu temples in TN for Buddha and tried to appropriate them. It certainly wouldn't be a one-off: there are examples in other parts of Asia for Buddhism's modus operandi of uninvitedly inserting and even forcing their unwanted crosses - sorry Buddha statues and other buddhisms - into the Temples of others.* But missionary religions do just that: the whole purpose is to stalk the target population and insinuate themselves into their field of vision, space and religion.
[* In the rest of Asia, the Japanese weren't the only ones who went about removing the uninvited Buddhist elements. But as I recall, in Japan the slogan even became "Kill the Shakyamuni" at one point. <- Clearly, not everyone experienced a "peaceful egalitarian" Buddhism. Or maybe the natives just weren't grateful for the gracious interference? One-way "syncretism" - appropriation, inculturation, even plagiarism and other subversion as a means to conversion, to leave out other methods - is not always perceived by the target population as "syncretism", for some mystifying reason.
Insinuations on "lack of ahimsa" in dealings don't just leave out proof for the opening assertions ("it was all buddhist originally" and "this innocence was persecuted away and its achievements appropriated"), but even where there was actual and serious strife and at times even forcible eviction, no mention is made of details like the initiating attempted take-overs of heathen sites either. Possibly since that would prove the eviction was Deserved, and the overtures unwanted and successfully rejected.
It's amusing to see neo-Buddhists and pseudo-Buddhists and other competing Buddhists - of a religion which never originally had an interest in or kind word for *pagan* Temple worship or worship of Gods, and who frequently made vituperative remarks about "pagans" concerning the heathens of Asia - in time claim various *heathen* temples and moorties (even Goddesses) for themselves, as if it has anything to do with Buddhism. It is an attempt at missionising. Ongoing attempt.]
"Once I myself saw some other stone statues of Buddha in good condition in this temple. Later I found the same images broken into pieces.. Now I could not trace the same"
Nothing more than "eyewitness testimony" is given for "Evidence of Buddhist stuff! But suddenly broken! Then suddenly missing!" Very convenient.
- There are certainly Buddhist temples that are reasonably thought to have been turned into Hindu temples.* (But they're visibly Buddhist in origin and no one ever pretended that they were Hindu in origin). But KamakShee Kovil is not one of them, nor the famous major other ancient Hindu Kovils suddenly or frequently claimed by modern Buddhist/etc "authors".
- Also, in this context: it's known that many Buddhist temples were inherited by Hindus from the reconverts (who had historically gone from Hindu to Buddhist back to Hindu). Also, some of these Buddhist temples were originally built by Hindus for Buddhists and their religion, so Buddhists feigning persecution is particularly lame.
* Herein one specifically can't count Hindu temples and sites that are well-known to have been taken over by Buddhism and which were finally retaken by Hindus. Such cases remain *Hindu* sites.
The insertion/recollection of exact dates notwithstanding, the evidence for the actual claims is still not there. But, again, allowing for it: since when does the "They had [therefore] constructed Vinayaka temple by demolishing Buddha temple" follow from the preceding sentences?
If that's allowed, then it can equally conform to a reading like - say -
- "Buddhists had built a temple near a Hindu site, Buddhism having left them alone now, Hindus abandoned the Buddha statue on the bank."
- "Or this was a site of another Hindu-Buddhist struggle, Hindus won and restored/rebuilt their temple and got rid of the Buddhist intrusions."
Where's the data in those statements to gainsay my interpretation of the same?
Quote:Manimehalai, Sambapathi, Tharadevi were the deivams worshipped by Buddhists in Tamil Nadu. Later these goddess were taken over by Hindus and renamed as Kali. Pidari and Throubathai. Researches say that the Annapoorani amman in Kamatchi Amman temple is actually Manimehalai, who attained Veeduperu at Kancheepuram and the Kamatchi Amman temple is actually Tharadeviamman temple belonging to Buddhists
Kanchi KamakShi Amman Kovil already covered in previous post.
1. Uh... maybe it's the spelling, but taking it as written: Sambapati is a male name not some Goddess.
But it surely can't be Saambapati, who is a *Hindu* God: it's a direct reference to Shiva whose personal name it is (the Lord who is with the Hindu's Divine Mother). Other variants of the same are Saamba: (one who is) With Ambaa. Saambasadaashiva. Saambamoorti - as in vishveshvaraM sAmbamUrtiM praNipatya girAm gurum, stolen from an invocation - where it refers to the moorti that is the unification of Shiva Vishveshwara and Uma (i.e. single moorti of Shiva and Uma <-> Ardhanareeshwara). Etc.
2. BTW: Worship of a Goddess by name Tara is not exclusively Buddhist, nor even in origin.
Hindus worship at least 2 Hindu Taras, one is the famous wife of the famous Navagraha. Indeed, Shaiva Hindus regularly give that Hindu Goddess name for daughters including in Karnataka.
Still, even where the Hindu Goddess Tara of the Hindu *DMV* is concerned, KamakShee is to be identified with the Shodashi (Kalyani) since it is the Lalita manifestation.
In any case, no one would confuse her with the Buddhist Tara - invented out of competition and plagiarism. (Theravada admits it does not *have* Goddesses, and it is the *older* Buddhism. Mahayana only acquired such "paganisms" out of competition and by using local Gods. Seen all over, including in China and Japan. And even in China, the Buddhists insist that a famous popular local Goddess that Buddhism inculturated on to make the Avalokiteshwara is "actually male". Moreover, the Tibetan Buddhist Tara is obviously..., but I'll be repeating what I posted in earlier posts.)]
3. As for the interjection of "researches say that ..." or whatever - then one notes that there is also research that:
- Manimekhalai is a late work and that its Buddhist portion is a lift/transfer of a Buddhist work from another Indian language, but using a framing story to set it in. Which would not be unexpected: the framing story of "Manimekhalai" reused pre-existing characters and was presented as a sequel to a popular work about popular persons.
- Manimeghala was a Tamizh Goddess before the work Buddhist work Manimekhalai. The human protagonist in that work - turned Buddhist nun in the work - is not the same as the *Goddess* of identical name who existed before. However the eponymous convert-heroine in the Buddhist Manimekhalai (i.e. the one "who attained Veeduperu" and became deified by some Buddhists for it) and consequent Buddhist association with the name Manimeghalai, seems to have totally eclipsed the pre-existing Tamizh Goddess of that name - despite a deity of this name having apparently also made a brief (and predictably Buddhist) appearance in the work.
Quote:There were many Buddha images in this temple. One of the images of Buddha 6 feet standing statue is now in the Chennai Museum. The statues of Buddha found in the temple tank could not be found now. Once I myself saw some other stone statues of Buddha in good condition in this temple. Later I found the same images broken into pieces.. Now I could not trace the sameââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦Allowing the statement for now, despite not having confirmed (nor having been given any link allowing confirmation) of any 6 foot Buddha statue in the Chennai Museum that is specifically to have emanated from the KamakShee temple premises, and not being given the verifiable date either of when such a Buddha statue was made (specifically in comparison with the date of the oldest elements of the Kamakshee kovil and the moolamoorty etc and dates of the earliest construction at the site), not having heard of this amazing story before:
Who's to say Buddhism didn't do its Stalking The Heathen routine again at this famous Shakti Peetham? (Not impossible, since TN is known for having historically been the victim of opportunistic Buddhist ... meddling even outright strife.) Buddhists regularly chose to set up shop at all the major popular ancient Hindu sacred sites in TN where Hindus congregated (even Potiyil), and are known for deliberatedly starting tussles to claim some Hindu temples in TN for Buddha and tried to appropriate them. It certainly wouldn't be a one-off: there are examples in other parts of Asia for Buddhism's modus operandi of uninvitedly inserting and even forcing their unwanted crosses - sorry Buddha statues and other buddhisms - into the Temples of others.* But missionary religions do just that: the whole purpose is to stalk the target population and insinuate themselves into their field of vision, space and religion.
[* In the rest of Asia, the Japanese weren't the only ones who went about removing the uninvited Buddhist elements. But as I recall, in Japan the slogan even became "Kill the Shakyamuni" at one point. <- Clearly, not everyone experienced a "peaceful egalitarian" Buddhism. Or maybe the natives just weren't grateful for the gracious interference? One-way "syncretism" - appropriation, inculturation, even plagiarism and other subversion as a means to conversion, to leave out other methods - is not always perceived by the target population as "syncretism", for some mystifying reason.
Insinuations on "lack of ahimsa" in dealings don't just leave out proof for the opening assertions ("it was all buddhist originally" and "this innocence was persecuted away and its achievements appropriated"), but even where there was actual and serious strife and at times even forcible eviction, no mention is made of details like the initiating attempted take-overs of heathen sites either. Possibly since that would prove the eviction was Deserved, and the overtures unwanted and successfully rejected.
It's amusing to see neo-Buddhists and pseudo-Buddhists and other competing Buddhists - of a religion which never originally had an interest in or kind word for *pagan* Temple worship or worship of Gods, and who frequently made vituperative remarks about "pagans" concerning the heathens of Asia - in time claim various *heathen* temples and moorties (even Goddesses) for themselves, as if it has anything to do with Buddhism. It is an attempt at missionising. Ongoing attempt.]
"Once I myself saw some other stone statues of Buddha in good condition in this temple. Later I found the same images broken into pieces.. Now I could not trace the same"
Nothing more than "eyewitness testimony" is given for "Evidence of Buddhist stuff! But suddenly broken! Then suddenly missing!" Very convenient.
- There are certainly Buddhist temples that are reasonably thought to have been turned into Hindu temples.* (But they're visibly Buddhist in origin and no one ever pretended that they were Hindu in origin). But KamakShee Kovil is not one of them, nor the famous major other ancient Hindu Kovils suddenly or frequently claimed by modern Buddhist/etc "authors".
- Also, in this context: it's known that many Buddhist temples were inherited by Hindus from the reconverts (who had historically gone from Hindu to Buddhist back to Hindu). Also, some of these Buddhist temples were originally built by Hindus for Buddhists and their religion, so Buddhists feigning persecution is particularly lame.
* Herein one specifically can't count Hindu temples and sites that are well-known to have been taken over by Buddhism and which were finally retaken by Hindus. Such cases remain *Hindu* sites.
Quote:I visited Pallavapuram near kanchi on 15.7.1946. Nearby in Kinikiluppai, a Buddha Statue was found on the bank of a lake In the same village, I could find the base of the Buddha statue very near the Vinayaka temple. There was also a standing stone with Dharma Chakra. They had constructed Vinayaka temple by demolishing Buddha temple.
The insertion/recollection of exact dates notwithstanding, the evidence for the actual claims is still not there. But, again, allowing for it: since when does the "They had [therefore] constructed Vinayaka temple by demolishing Buddha temple" follow from the preceding sentences?
If that's allowed, then it can equally conform to a reading like - say -
- "Buddhists had built a temple near a Hindu site, Buddhism having left them alone now, Hindus abandoned the Buddha statue on the bank."
- "Or this was a site of another Hindu-Buddhist struggle, Hindus won and restored/rebuilt their temple and got rid of the Buddhist intrusions."
Where's the data in those statements to gainsay my interpretation of the same?