Talk:Kamakhya Temple/Archive 1

Sources

The date of the Kakati book is wrong... This book was actually published in the 1940s, and there are a number of more recent sources. I don't have time to correct/update at the moment but wanted to make a note of it. I'd like to expand this article quite a bit when I have time, but would encourage others to do so with reliable sources. Shakta Scholar (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaktaScholar (talk • contribs) [reply]

Proposed merge with Kamakhya

I oppose the proposed merge because this is about a particular temple, whereas the article on Kamakhya is about the goddess.

Chaipau 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As per nom. Agree with Chaipau.--Victor 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge notice. Chaipau 13:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is copyvio of [1] and needs to be rewritten with more reference sources. Mattisse (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current structure has been built during the Ahom times,[4] in "Kamakhya Temple"

Chaipau, The reference book given mentions "The temple of the goddess Kali or Kamakhya on the top of the hill was built during the domination of the Ahoms." (Banerji 1925, p. 100). It also mentions "This temple was built on the ruins of another structure erected by king Sukladhvaja or Naranarayana, the first king and founder of the Koch dynasty of Cooch Bihar, whose inscription is still carefully preserved inside the mandapa. (Banerji 1925, p. 100)" That means the book treats Sukladhwaj and Naranarayan to be the same person-though they were not. Moreover it describes Naranarayan as the first king and founder of Koch dynasty of Cooch Bihar, whereas Viswa Singha was the first king and founder of Koch kingdom. Last but not the least, Maharaja Naranarayan was not under the Ahom king(in fact, during Naranarayan's reign, Ahom king paid tribute to king Nara Narayan). The very inscription in the temple itself mentions Maharaja Naranarayan and his brother Chilarai as the ones who rebuilt the temple during Maharaja Naranarayan's reign(ref no.6: Sarkar 1992 p16. It is said that Viswa Simha revived worship at Kamakhya. According to an inscription in the temple, his son Chilarai built the temple during the reign of Naranarayana, the king of Koch Bihar and the son of Viswa Simha, in the year 1565). So, please justify the statement- "The current structure has been built during the Ahom times,[4]". Books can be wrong; so, do justify, reply and take necessary steps.

      Above all,domination also means 'the state of being dominated'2 and here the words

'during the domination of the Ahoms' may mean that at the time when the temple was built, Ahoms were under domnation by Koches (in 1563 chilarai occupied capital of Ahom kingdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilarai). The sentence is "during the domination of the Ahoms" and not "during the domination by the Ahoms". eg. see the context of using'domination of' in the following pages- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chinese_domination_of_Vietnam and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chinese_domination_of_Vietnam Padmanlp (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]