I was reading the article by Dr.Nalini in varalaaru.com titled,"Devadevi kalvetukal". I was spell bound to read it. Was wondering, whether any other king or kalvettu talks so extensively about their lineage?
Rajasimha has clearly stated who are his ancestors and what lineage the Pallava clan come from. That really excited me. Has any other king talked about their ancestors so extensively? Just like to know.
Also, I was wondering, why people perceived Pallavas to be not of Indian origin and the clan came from some island far away? If I remember right, even Kalki writes about this in Parthiban kanavu. Probably, since they came from North India (reference to the Rishis, Dhrona, ashwaththama) such a perception should have existed. Thats my humble opinion.
I also remember a thread in this group long back. Was it Sampath who said cholas are devars, Pallavas are brahmins etc. He also tried determining the caste of even the cricketrs, on a lighter side. Someone opposed it and said Pallavas are not Brahmins. This kalvettu proves that they are indeed.
I like to know of any such kalvettu's available, which talks about chola or pandya lineage.
I think you got my point wrong. I was just telling that we have inscriptional evidence for something which we didnt accept in the past. Nothing to glorify a caste or something like that. We have been discussing about kalvettus giving facts and i think this is also a fact. Just not discussing this will not cover up the fact either.
I am very well aware of our motto. I was just wondering if kings give their lineage in detail like this. We often discuss whether the later cholas are of the same lineage of the early ones or not and so on and so forth. If we have inscriptional evidences like this, we could get more information on the same. Thats the point I was trying to arrive. If it gave a wrong signal, I am sorry. I didnt mean it.
i remember very well in the history of the rudra dynasty of warrangal.
to start with they were lowly foot soldiers ( very much down in the social caste set up) under the chalukya(??) dynasty once they rebelled for some petty reason and the emeperor took it upon himself to stanp down the rebellion by a quirk of fate the men aptured the emperor himself. and in a clever move negotiated an independent nation for themselves. and then there came a change in their inscriptions and records they started climbing up the caste ladded and finally ended up as kshatriayas. in their last records ( before malik kafur put an end to their rule) claimed they were descendants of the sun god himself.
> In the past few days there is a strong debate going on that Kalvettu > are the ultimate source of facts. We all are debating on > the inscriptional evidences of various things.
> > If we take a stand that inscriptions are FACTS, then what I posted > is just a FACT.
dear sathish just because its inscribed on stone does it become a fact???
if the presence of an inscription proves a point does the abscence of an inscription negate the point
for example the absence of a kalvettu under rrcs painting in the upper floors of big temple made experts say its not him. where as all logic points to him
the same way the absence of a kalvettu about karuvur thevar has made the experts say that he did not live along with rrc. infact those who read his thiruvisaipa and its description of thanjai in its hey days will understad its an eye witness account. it is being brushed under the carpet because no kalvettu mentions him
is it not a costly mistake if we are wrong?????
perhaps the only eye witness account is made to lose its credibility because of over dependence on kalvettus.
but i for one would rather beleive a venerable saint than a sculptor working as a stenographer.