இந்த வார நக்கீரனில், இப்படியொரு செய்தி!

மயிலை கபாலீஸ்வரர் கோயில் எங்களுடையது…

சைவ மதத்தினர் போற்றிப் புகழும் திருத்தலம் மயிலை கபாலீஸ்வரர் கோயில். ஆனால் இந்தக் கோயில் புனித தோமையர் வழி வந்த தமிழ் கிறிஸ்துவர்களுக்கே சொந்தமானது. அதனால் கபாலீஸ்வரர் கோயில் கருவறையிலிருந்து பிராமணர்கள்……………]

“இயேசு” என ஒருவர் வாழ்ந்தார் என்பதே கட்டுக்கதையா என்னும் கேள்வி உள்ள போது கருணாநிதியின் தோழர்கள் தமிழ் மய்யம் உரிமையாளர்களான மயிலாப்பூர் சாந்தோம் சர்ச் கட்டும் கதைக்கு நக்கீரன் தரும் உதவியோ.

தாமஸ் எனப்படும் தோமோ இந்தியா வந்தார் என்பதற்கு எவ்வித ஆதாரமும் கிடையாது. இதற்கு மிகப் பழைய ஆதாரம் எனப்படுவது 3ம் நூற்றாண்டிலெ செவிவழிக் கதைகள் துணை கொண்டு சிரிய மொழியில் புனையப்பட்ட புத்தகமான ” தோமோவின் நடபடிகள்” என்பது ஆகும்.

ரோமன் போப்பரசரின் பதிப்பாளர் பர்ன் ஓட்ச் பர்பொர்னெ London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd. Publishers to the Holy See.)) இவர்கள் முக்கிய பதிப்பு- தூய பட்லரின் புனிதமானவர்கள் வரலாறு எனப்படும்- பட்லர்ஸ் லைவ் ஆப் செயின்ட்ஸ் (Butlers lives of Saints)என்னும் 12 தொகுப்பு, மாதமொன்றிற்கு- அம்மாதத்தின் புனிதர்களை நினைவு படுத்தும்படியாக 12 தொகுப்பு கொண்டது.

தோமோ பற்றிக் கூறும்போது தெளிவாக கூறுவது 12 ஏசு சீடர்களில் யாரைப்பற்றியும் நம்பகத்தன்மை கொண்ட உண்மைகள் கிடையாது என்பது போலே தோமோ பற்றியும் தெரியவில்லை என ஆரம்பிக்கிறார். அவர் “தோமோ  நடபடிகளை விமர்சிக்கையில்இந்தக் கட்டுக்கதாசிரியர் கப்பல் பிரயாணிகளைக் கேட்டு சில விபரங்கள் எழுதியிருக்கிறார், ஆனல் தோமோ நடபடிகள் கதையில் சற்றும் உண்மையில்லை என்கிறார்.

What Chruch says about ACTA THOMAE?- in St. Thomas Christian Encyclopaedia, ed. George Menachery in which Article -The Acts of Thomas- by Rev.Anthony Poathoor.

- “The Acts of Thomas in its present form contains many Doctrinal Errors. Some Historians conclude that The Acts of Thomas is the work of an unknown heretic who made use of the Authority to support his own Theological Opinions. Some Other Authors have suggested that the present work is the corrupted form of an older Orthodox version. In the view of former, We can hardly call the text interpolated, because the additions increase nearly Ten-fold to the Original Text. There is no doubt that the present Acts of Thomas is unacceptable from the Doctrinal point of View”. Page- 24

Holy see’s Publisher “Burn Oates & Wash BouRne Ltd” has Published Multi Volume “Butler’s Lives of Saints” Edited by Rev.Alban Butler (with Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur from Two Archbishop for its Doctrinal Acceptance) says-

“.. the Syrian Greek who was probably the fabricator of the Storywould have been able to learn from Traders and Travelers such details as the name Gondophorus with Tropical details.”. Pages 213-218, in Volume December.

The Authors have gone through all the major works of the claims of St.Thomas Indian visit claims and one of the highly acclaimed work of ‘The Early Spread of Christianity in India’- Alfred Mingana connected this with Apostle Thomas visit claims and clearly affirms-

“It is likely enough that the Malabar Coast was Evangelized from Edessa at a Later date, and in the course of time a confused tradition connected this with Apostle Thomas himself.”

Holy See’s publisher says that Indian Christianity has mostly the Origins from Edessa, which is in present Turkey- But did Edessa was the area where Thomas Worked?- let us see, how a detailed study by a Secular Historian says-
“Edessa-the modern Urfa in North West Mesopotamia is a city with an immensely long history going back to the Babylonian & Assyrian age. About 132BC it has became a seat of local dynasty, one of whose king raised the pillar. CHRISTIANITY Was Introduced in the Jewish Colony in the 2nd Century CE, and the church developed a national spirit using the Syriac Language and becoming the First Seat of Christianity in the Syriac speaking Community.”- Page-2176, World History; Editor J.A.Hanmeston.

தாமஸ் எனப்படும் தோமோ இந்தியா வந்தார் என்பதற்கு எவ்வித ஆதாரமும் கிடையாது. இதற்கு மிகப் பழைய ஆதாரம் எனப்படுவது 3ம் நூற்றாண்டிலெ செவிவழிக் கதைகள் துணை கொண்டு சிரிய மொழியில் புனையப்பட்ட புத்தகமான ” தோமோவின் நடபடிகள்” என்பது ஆகும். இந்தியாவின் எந்தவொரு மொழியுலும் தோமோ- ஏசு என்னும் பெயர் கூட 16ம் நூற்றாண்டிற்கு முன்பானது ஏதும் இல்லை. கேரளத்தின் மலையாள மொழியில் ரம்பன் பாட்டு என்னும் பாடல்-இதன் மொழி நடை இது 19ம் நுற்றாண்டின் பிற்பகுதியுடையதுஎன்பது தெளிவாகத் தெரிவிக்கிறது. இத்தொகுப்பு இரண்டு கத்தோலிக்கப் பேராயர்களல் முத்திரை ஒப்புமை நிகில் ஒப்ஸ்டட் இம்ப்ரிமெடுர் பெற்று வெளிவந்தது.

http://ankaraikrishnan.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/kapaleeshwarkapaleeshwar/திருமயிலைத் திருத்தலம்- இலக்கிய, வரலாற்றுப் பார்வை,
பேராசிரியர். Dr.சு.ராஜசேகரன்.,1989,
Doctral Thesis done in 1986, on the Same name at Madras University, the Author was then working as Tamil Professor at Nandanam Govt. Arts College, Chennai.

The Author Analyses various Stone Inscriptions and Archeological findings from Kapalishwarar Temple and Santhome and gives his views.

இப்போதுள்ள கபாலிசுவரர் கோயில், நாயன்மார்களால் பாடப் பெற்ற பழைய கபாலிசுவரர் கோயில் என்ற பொதுவான நம்பிக்கை மக்களிடையே நிலவி வருகிறது. ஆனால், தொல்பொருள் ஆராய்ச்சியாளர்கள் சாந்தோமில் கண்டெடுத்த புதைபொருள்களிலிருந்து பழைய கோயில் வேறு இடத்தில் இருந்திருக்க வேண்டும் என்றும், பெரும்பாலும் சாந்தோம் கடற்கரையாக இருக்கலாம் என்றும் எண்ண வேண்டியிருக்கிறது.. ..பழைய கபாலிசுவரர் கோயிலலின் இடிபாடுகள் இப்போதுள்ள கோயிலுக்குச் சிறிது தொலைவில் கிழக்கு திசையில் சாந்தோம் கடற்கரையருகே கண்டு எடுக்கப்பட்டதே இதற்குக் காரணமாகும்.

1923இல் தொல்பொருள் ஆய்வுத் துறையினர் சாந்தோம் கதிட்ரலில் நிகழ்த்திய அகழ்வாராய்ச்சிகளால்கல்வெட்டுகளும், தூண்களும், சிலைகளும் கண்டெடுக்கப்பட்டன. கல்வெட்டுகள் சிவன் கோயிலைக் குறிக்கின்றன. கற்றூண்களிலும் கல்வெட்டுகள் காணப்பெறுகின்றன. மயிலோடு கூடிய முருகர் சிலையும் கண்டெடுக்கப்பட்டது. 1921இல் மறைத்திரு ஹோஸ்டன், சாந்தோம் கதிட்ரலில் கண்டெடுத்த வடமொழிக் கல்வெட்டு “கருவறை உட்பட எல்லாக் கட்டிடங்களும் மயிலாப்பூரிலுள்ள புகழ்பெற்ற சிவனுக்கும் பார்வதிக்கும் உரியவையாகும்” என்று குறிப்பிடுபகிறது. மற்றொரு தானக் கல்வெட்டில், “திருமயிலாப்பில் பூம்பாவை” என்று குறிப்பிடுப்படுவதாலும், பழைய கபாலிசுவரர் கோயில் கடற்கரையருகே இருந்திருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது புலனாகிறது.

அருணகிரிநாதர் திருப்புகளில் கபாலிசுவரர் கோயில் கடற்கரை அருகே இருந்தது என்று குறிப்பிடுப்படுவதால், பழைய கோயில் கடற்கரையருகே இருந்திருக்க வேண்டும் என்று கே.வி..இராமன் கருதிகிறார். பக்கம்287,288

இந்திய மக்கள் தொகைக் கணக்கெடுப்புத்துறைவெளியிட்டசென்னை மாநிலக் கோயில்கள் (Temples of Madas State) என்னும் நூலில் காணப்படும் கருத்துக்கள் :
கி.பி. 16ஆம் நூற்றாண்டின் தொடக்கத்தில் சாந்தோம் கடற்கரையிலிருந்த கோயில் போர்த்துக்கீசியர்களால் அழிக்கப் பட்டிருக்க வேண்டும் என்று கூறுகிறது. இந்நூல் கூறும் புதிய செய்தி,இப்போதுள்ள கபாலிசுவரர் கோயிலும் குளமும் முந்நூறு ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன், மயிலை நாட்டு முத்தையப்ப முதலியாராலும் அவருடைய வாரிசுகளிலாலும் கட்டப்பட்டது என்பதேயாகும். (பக்-289 – Quotes Census of India-1961; Temples of Madras State, 1 Chingleput District and Madras City, P.204)

The Present Temple very clearly shows for Schoalrs that it was constructed only in 17th Cen. CE, few Tamil Schloars maintained that the Old Temple was in same place, and the Present Temple was constructed above it. Another Set of Scholars maintained that the Older Temple was in Sea Shore(Mostly the Present Santhome Cathedral) and the Author analyses various books on Mylapur Temple and comes to the Conclusion as below, and he before concluding quotes the Historic fact-
போர்த்துக்கீசியர்கள் இந்துக் கோயில்களை அழித்த செய்தியைக் கேள்விப்பட்டு இராமராயர் கி.பி. 1558இல், சாந்தோம் மீது படை எடுத்துப் போர்த்துக்கீசியரைப் பணிய வைத்துப் பின்னர்ப் பழுதுபட்ட கோயில்களைப் பழுதுபார்க்க ஆணையில்ட்ட செய்தியாலும் பழைய கபாலிசுவரர் கோயில் போர்த்துக்கீசியர்களால் .(Quotes from S.Kalyanasundaram-A Short History of Mylapore page-8) அழிக்கப் பட்டது என்ற முடிவுக்கு வரலாம்.
ஆகவே, முடிபாக, பழைய கபாலிசுவரர் கோயில், கடற்கரையருகே இருந்ததென்பதையும், கி.பி. பதினைந்தாம் நூற்றாண்டின் இறுதியில் போர்த்துக்கீசியரால் அழிக்கப் பட்டதென்பதையும், கி.பி. பதினாறாம் நுற்றாண்டில் இப்போதுள்ள இடத்தில் புதிய கோயில், மயிலை நாட்டு நயினியப்ப முத்தையப்ப முதலியார் மகன் முதலியாரால் கட்டப் பெற்றது என்பதையும் தெற்றென உணரலாம். -பக்கம் 291 திருமயிலைத் திருத்தலம்- இலக்கிய, வரலாற்றுப் பார்வை, பேராசிரியர்.Dr.சு.ராஜசேகரன்.,1989,

தோமோ நடபடிகள் என்னும் 3ம் நூற்றாண்டு நூல் தோமோ கொண்டோபரஸ் என்னும் மன்னன் நாட்டுக்கும் பின் மச்டய் என்னும் மன்னன் நாட்டில் ராணியையும் இளவரசனையும் சூன்யம் செய்து மதமாற்றம் செய்ததால் மரணதண்டனையில் கொன்றான் என வருகிறது.
மச்டய் நாடு பற்றி தோமோ நடபடிகள் கூறுவது: மச்டய் நாடு ஒரு பாலைவன நாடு, பாலைவனப் பகுதி.
The Ninth Act: of the Wife of Charisius.
87 And when the apostle had said these things in the hearing of all the multitude, they trode and pressed upon one another: and the wife of Charisius the king’s kinsman Ieapt out of her chair and cast herself on the earth before the apostle, and caught his feet and besought and said: O disciple of the living God, Thou Art Come Into A Desert Country,For We Live In The Desert;

DETAILS OF JEWS

எபிரேயர்கள் அந்த சிறிய பாலைவன நாட்டை தங்கள் புராணக் கதையில் புனையப்பட்ட தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட நாடு, மக்கள் என்பதை அப்படியே ஏற்று அந்த சிறு பகுதியில் வாழ்ந்தனர்.

கடல் வாணிகம் செய்யவில்லை.

ஜெருசலேம் என்பது ஒரு கால்பந்து மைதான அளவு தான்.

சாலைகள் தெருக்கள் என்பதெல்லாம் ஜெருசசேமில் கிடையாது.
Bible As Literature, Oxford University Press,
written by 3 Professors John.A.Gabel, Charles B.Wheelr and Antony.D.York.
How was Hebrews living during OT times.
The small Corner of the Eastern Mediterranean, we have to keep reminding ourselves that it take up only Lower Third of that coast- particularly speaking was the Whole World to them.
Page-77
With Just a Few Exceptions, No Canaanite Or Israelite City before the Roman Period occupied more area than that of an American University Football Stadium, most Villages were hardly bigger than the Playing Field itself. King’ David’s Jerusalem is estimated to have measured about 300 x 1300 foot. Inside the City-walls houses would be crammed together according to no particular pattern, leaving room for Passages bu not for Streets. Before the Greek Period there were no Public Building of the Kind that we take for granted, provided by the Municipal Government.
Pages- 87,88
Foreign Countries appear in the OT only as Military Allies or Enemies of the Israelites or as the Habitat of Alien Gods; otherwise, not a Slightest interest is shown in them.
Page-77
The Best Opportunity for Economic Development, it might seem was One they never took; Commerce by Sea with Mediterranean always at their door, the Israelites stubbornly remained a Land Locked People. They were effectively Shut off from the Coast at first by the Philistines, but the warfare between the two, more had to do with the Philistines attempt to expand toward the east than with any desire of the Israelite to gain access to Sea. Although the Palestinian Coast has no natural Harbors south of Carmel, this need not have been a Permanent Obstacle.
The Israelites were Content to Let others – Phoenicians and Egyptians conduct their Merchant Shipping for them, almost as though they Believed the Covenant Language in its Narrowest Sense as a Promise of Land and Nothing Further.
It is clear from their writings in the OT THAT THE SEA WAS ALWAYS to them, had no significant part to Play in their Thought.
Pages 86-87.

இந்தியர்கள் உலகிற்கு நாகரிகம் தந்தவர்கள்.
தோமோ தந்தார் என்பது பேரன் பாட்டியைப் பெற்றவன் என்று கூறுவது போல ஆகும்.

For Further

http://thomasmyth.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/%e0%ae%95%e0%ae%aa%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%b2%e0%af%80%e0%ae%b8%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%b5%e0%ae%b0%e0%ae%b0%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%95%e0%af%8b%e0%ae%af%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%b2%e0%af%88-%e0%ae%87%e0%ae%9f%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%a4%e0%af%8d/

“WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE PORTION OF THE ARTICLE THAT REFERS TO THOMAS’ LATER LIFE PLACES TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE UNLIKELY SCENARIO OF HIS TRAVELING TO, AND BEING MARTYRED IN INDIA”  - ANTHONY G. CRAINE, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

The cult of St. Thomas originated in and was centered at Edessa at least up to the eighth century when the Muslims began to invade, and it is the considered opinion of many historians today that nobody in Asia was interested in this “second Jesus” – Judas Thomas was a look alike twin brother of Jesus according to some authorities – except Edessa from where his cult radiated outwards. Syrian Christian merchants carried it westward to Ethiopia, eastward to India, and northward to the bazaars of Constantinople. This view was anticipated by the “St. Thomas” Christian Dr. G. Milne Rae of the Madras Christian College at the end of the 19th century.

Dr. Milne Rae wrote a famous book in 1892, The Syrian Church in India, which provoked severe criticism from the Syrian Christian community. In it he denies the Indian apostolate of St. Thomas, and in another research paper asks, “In what literature is the name of St. Thomas first associated with India? It will appear I think the home of that literature, the original hotbed in which it was reared, was no other than the Church of Edessa. For there is no place within the area occupied, by the language in which those books were written, that had any such interest in the fortunes and destiny of the Apostle. The story of Thomas preaching and his martyrdom in India is first found in the apocryphal Acts of Thomasand it is curious to note that throughout the work the Apostle is generally called Judas Thomas, a name which he also received in that group of documents which Eusebius found among the archives at Edessa. It is palpably a Gnostic work and students of Gnosticism, judging from the stages of development at which they find the heresy in the Acts, assign it to the end of the second century. It may have been written by Bardesanes. But whoever the real author was, I think the details of this work are not only consistent with the belief that they were put together by a member of the Edessene Church, but also defy explanation on any other hypothesis.”

Donald At****er, in The Penguin Dictionary of Saints,with reference to L.W. Brown inThe Indian Christians of St. Thomas, writes, “There is endless discussion about St. Thomas’s subsequent life. In particular, did he take the gospel to India, where for many centuries the Christians of Kerala have called themselves ‘St. Thomas Christians’? That he did so, and was martyred there, is the theme of a long document of the third or fourth century, called the Acts of Thomas. This is one of the most readable and intrinsically interesting of early Christian apocryphal writings; but it is no more than a popular romance, written in the interest of false Gnostic teachings (e.g. the virtual necessity of celibacy for Christians). It is not impossible that St. Thomas should have reached southern India, but the historical reality of his mission there cannot be considered proved. It is also said that he evangelized Parthia, and in the fourth century his relics were claimed to be at Edessa in Mesopotamia.”

Bishop Stephen Neill studied the St. Thomas legend carefully during his years in India, and lamented its spread among Indian Christians. He regarded the story as spurious history, and in History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to 1707 A.D., writes, “A number of scholars, among whom are to be mentioned with respect Bishop A.E. Medleycott, J.N. Farquhar and the Jesuit J. Dahlman, have built on slender foundations what can only be called Thomas romances, such as reflect the vividness of their imaginations rather than the prudence of rigid historical critics.”

Bishop Neill is being charitable to Bishop Medleycott when he calls hisIndia and the Apostle Thomasan imaginative romance built on slender foundations. Henry Love, in Vestiges of Old Madras, is even more forgiving when he writes, “Bishop Medleycott, who has sifted every shred of evidence on the subject, concludes that St. Thomas the Apostle preached and suffered on the Mount, but his arguments do not appear to be altogether convincing.”

Bishop Medleycott is the godfather of Thomas-in-India scholarship in India, and even in his day he was accused of working under religious, racial, regional, political, and linguistic influences. He was the Vicar Apostolic of Trichur from 1887 to 1896, the diocese in which the alleged landing place of St. Thomas, Kodungallur, is located, and was the first European missionary bishop to be appointed by Rome to rule over the local Syrian Christian community. This community existed in a forgotten Kerala backwater that was overshadowed by San Thome at Mylapore, and Bishop Medleycott had a mandate – or believed he had a mandate – to raise Kodungallur’s status and prepare the ideological ground for the apostle’s “return”.

Medleycott soon discovered that this was not very hard to do. The old tradition of St. Thomas was still alive in Malabar, in medieval Syrian wedding songs and “evidence” left behind by those pious forgers and pirates, the Portuguese, and he had local Syrian priests to advise him. There was also the Acts of Thomas, which nobody knew in the original and which no Christian priest would dare to teach to his congregation. All that was needed was inventive Catholic scholarship to turn a local Kerala Christian tradition into world history.

Bishop Medleycott won the day with his work, though he didn’t live to see it. St. Thomas was “returned” to Kodungallur in 1953, in the form of a piece of bone from the elbow of his right arm. The relic was a gift from the clergy of Ortona, Italy, where the apostle’s Church-authenticated remains had lain since 1258. They had been brought to Ortona from Edessa by way of Chios in Greece, and, according to one tradition that is repeated today as factual if unverified, had arrived in Edessa from “India” between 222 and 235 CE. In the Acts of Thomas the bones were transferred to Mesopotamia from “India” – the “desert country” of King Mazdai – in the lifetime of the Persian king.

Eugene Cardinal Tisserant, the other imaginative writer of oriental church history, led the “second coming” to Kodungallur, and he later proceeded to Mylapore with another bit of Ortona bone for the cathedral there. For the first time in history both sites in India associated with St. Thomas in legend and story could truly say that they possessed the apostle’s relics.

This event and the alleged first century coming of the apostle were commemorated by the Government of India with postage stamps that were issued in 1964 and 1973. The first stamp depicts the silver bust of St. Thomas that is in the cathedral at Ortona, which contains his complete skull, and the second shows the eighth century Persian “St. Thomas” cross on St. Thomas Mount near Madras. That neither these artifacts nor the relics, or, for that matter, the legendary event that they celebrate, are Indian, is one of the ironies that is part of the history of the story of St. Thomas in India.

But Bishop Medleycott’s victory went further. He got himself named as the St. Thomas authority in the prestigiousEncyclopaedia Britannica,Fifteenth Edition, 1984, along with Chevalier F.A. D’Cruz, editor of the old Mylapore Catholic Register and author of St. Thomas the Apostle in India.

The unsigned main entry for St. Thomas in the Encyclopaedia is muddled and dissembling and simply wrong in some places. After giving the New Testament references, it says,“Thomas’ subsequent history is uncertain. According to the 4th century EcclesiasticalHistory of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he evangelized Parthia (modern Khorasan). Later Christian tradition says Thomas extended his apostolate into India, where he is recognized as the founder of the church of the Syrian Malabar Christians, or Christians of St. Thomas. In the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, originally composed in Syriac, his martyrdom is cited under the king of Mylapore at Madras ….”

The Acts does not “cite” this at all of course; it does not even remotely suggest it. There is no known record that Mylapore had a king in the first century and if it did, he was not a Zoroastrian with the name of Mazdai. The story in the Acts and the Mylapore legend have nothing in common, though the latter can be said to exist only because of the former. Further on the article says, “He allegedly visited the court of the Indo-Parthian king Gondophernes … though some of the Acts of Thomas is probable, evidence remains inconclusive.”

Now even if some of the Acts is accepted as probable, the composer of this entry still hasn’t got the story right. He uses the word “allegedly” for the visit of St. Thomas to the court of Gondophernes – assuming that Gondophernes is the same as Gundaphorus – when he could correctly cite the Acts for the reference.

These errors are deliberate and motivated, given their context and arrangement, and this St. Thomas entry in the Encyclopaedia has been written by a Catholic scholar who not only subscribes to the apostle’s alleged South Indian adventure, but wishes to place the Mylapore tale over that of the Malabar tradition. He does this by mixing the North Indian legend, represented by the Acts, with the South Indian fable that the Portuguese left in Mylapore, to promote his particular South Indian masala view. He gets away with the deception because nobody has read the Acts of Thomas and studied its references to the kings Gundaphorus and Misdaeus-Mazdai, and the execution of Judas Thomas on a mountain that contained an ancient royal tomb.

We decided to call the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s bluff and on 19 September 1996 sent a letter pointing out the errors in the St. Thomas entry, and a copy of this book (second revised edition) to the Encyclopaedia’s editor-in-chief in Chicago. The editorial division representative Anthony G. Craine replied to us on 18 October 1996. He wrote, “We have received your book, and we have subsequently reviewed our coverage of Saint Thomas. While the Saint Thomas article that appears in the current printing of the Encyclopaedia Britannica differs slightly from the 1984 article to which you refer in your book, the current article does convey the same basic information. We have concluded that the portion of the article that refers to Thomas’ later life places too much emphasis on the unlikely scenario of his traveling to, and being martyred in India [emphasis added]. We have referred this information to the appropriate editor so that the article can be revised in future printings of Britannica. We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.”

We did not pay any more attention to the matter until February 2010 when we began updating The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Templeand had a look at the St. Thomas entry on theEncyclopaedia Britannica website. It says very little about St. Thomas and there is no article, only a link to a reference, but it begins like this, “… born, probably Galilee, died AD 53, Madras, India …” The entry for Kottayam, the centre of Syrian Christianity in India, says in part, “The town is a centre of the Syrian Christian community, which traces its origin to the apostle St. Thomas, who is believed to have visited Kerala in 53 CE and to have established seven churches on the Malabar Coast.” The entry for Christians of Saint Thomas reads, “The origins of the Christians of St. Thomas are uncertain, though they seem to have been in existence before the 6th century and probably derive from the missionary activity of the East Syrian (Nestorian) Church—which held that, in effect, the two natures of Christ were two persons, somehow joined in a moral union—centred at Ctesiphon.”

None of these entries are correct but the reference to Kottayam and Madras, giving the specific date of 53 CE for St. Thomas, is just a reworking of the Encyclopaedia’s 1984 entry. The various dates for St. Thomas’s arrival in India and death in Madras are inventions that were added to the legend in the nineteenth century. The editor has not kept his promise and has maintained the same information about St. Thomas and India in different wording. The charge that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a Catholic encyclopedia intent on promoting a traditional Christian point of view remains. It has always been that way with the Encyclopaedia: Joseph McCabe the great linguist and historian of early Christianity, could not get it to correct and change its wrong entries for early Christian history either.

Bishop Medleycott with his papal mandate and imperial urges, totally discedited as a historian of Christianity in India, remains the last word on St. Thomas in India in all Catholic encyclopedias and, believe it or not, the Internet’s modern, up-to-date Wikipedia as well.

Sometime in May 2008 we looked at theThomas the Apostle page on Wikipedia. It did not have very much to say about St. Thomas in India except for the usual fabricated dates of arrival in Kerala and death by assassin’s hand in Madras. On the talk page we noted a demand by the rabid Hindu-hating Chennai-based missionary and co-conspirator of  Catholic “free thinker” Deivanayagam, Alexander Harris of The  Last Days Harvest Ministries and Appius Forum, that our website The Ishwar Sharan Archive link http://.hamsa.org be removed from reference. But the main article page included Pope Benedict’s categorical statement made at the Vatican on 26 September 2006, that St. Thomas did not come to South India,[1]and this encouraged us to try our hand at Wikipedia editing. We felt assured that Wikipedia was interested in facts that could be verified not just Indian Christian traditions – Indian Christians are not able to distinguish between their beliefs and historical evidence; they think beliefs and facts are the same thing – and decided to contribute to the Thomas the Apostle article. We adopted the user name Vena Varcas and introduced our self on the Thomas the Apostle talk page with the following statement:

Historicity of St. Thomas Controversial and Disputed

The editors of this article will have to consider the fact that all references to Thomas in Indian Christian tradition and folklore have been rejected as unhistorical by responsible Christian scholars and ecclesiastics (barring a few like Medleycott and Arulappa) for the past two centuries. The elaborate and confusing mythology of Thomas is not factual or verifiable and cannot ethically be represented as true history in an encyclopedia. These pious legends may have a role to play in religion but they do not have a place in Indian history writing unless they are identified and qualified for the general reader.

The reputed Christian historian A. Mingana has written in The Early Spread of Christianity in India that “What India gives us about Christianity in its midst is indeed nothing but pure fables”. This is true about the Thomas tradition in India and in the numerous other places it exists in Asia except perhaps Edessa where it originated. Any serious article about Thomas in India, or the various controversial and disputed places of pilgrimage associated with him, should be unambiguously declared as faith-based and historically unverified. To do otherwise in an encyclopedia article is intellectually dishonest and misleading and amounts to little more than religious propaganda created in the interests of a certain theological point of view.

The Trichur bishop Medleycott wrote his Thomas history with ulterior motive and is the favourite scholar of Thomas protagonists who quote him at length (including the EB which is a known RC-biased encyclopedia). He has been discredited by the renowned Christian historian Bishop Stephen Neill. Neill spent many years in India researching Indian Christian Thomas traditions and the Thomas legend and wrote in 1985, in History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to 1707 A.D., that “A number of scholars, among whom are to be mentioned with respect Bishop A.E. Medleycott, J.N. Farquhar and the Jesuit J. Dahlman, have built on slender foundations what can only be called Thomas romances, such as reflect the vividness of their imaginations rather than the prudence of rigid historical critics.”

Bishop Neill goes on to say, “Millions of Christians in India are certain that the founder of their church is none other than the apostle Thomas himself. The historian cannot prove to them that they are mistaken in their belief. He may feel it right to warn them that historical research cannot pronounce on the matter with a confidence equal to that which they entertain by faith.”

The point is that this article Thomas the Apostle is a matter of Indian Christian faith, not Indian history, and it should not be presented in an encyclopedia as Indian history. Some parts of the article are neutral and other parts are just fiction propped up with facts and figures, names and dates, or some doubtful reference. In some cases the article assumes too much, and in others it shows extreme bias. In fact, the whole project shows bias in its declared intention, when it treats as proven a legend that most respected world historians declare is fiction and unprovable. What the article needs is review and revision by a neutral historical critic who has no Indian Christian axe to grind. Is this possible in the Wikipedia scenario? Would the article’s administrator and watchdog with his declared special interests ever permit it? -Vena Varcas (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

We then set to work on the WikipediaThomas the Apostle article adding verifiable references and short sections with citations. Every statement we made was supported with an authoritative reference from a recognized historian of Christianity. We were very careful not to delete any material already posted on the page or refer to the demolition of the Kapaleeswara Temple in Mylapore by the Portuguese. However, as our contribution progressed, Mylapore did come into the picture and we introduced it with a reference to Swami Tapasyananda of the Ramakrishna Math in Mylapore and the article he had written in Vedanta Kesaricalled “The Legend of a Slain Saint to Stain Hinduism.”

This single attributed reference to a Hindu scholar was too much for the Kerala Christian Wikipedia page administrator Tinucherian (Cherian Tinu Abraham). Within an hour of the post, he deleted our reference to Swami Tapsyananda and rolled back the other postings we had made that day. It was a real surprise to us. Where we had made an effort not to interfere with earlier postings, we discovered that the same courtesy was not extended to us and that we would not be informed when we had “offended” Tinucherian’s Christian enterprise. We abandoned Wikipedia as a waste of time and effort and our contributions were soon perverted or deleted altogether.

The concocted absurdities found in theWikipedia Thomas the Apostle article today, which lacks citations and references that stand up to scrutiny, can be exposed with a single example: the statement in the Thomas and India subsection of the article says that the king who executed Judas Thomas for sorcery and crimes against women, Mazdai (Misdaeus in Greek), was “the local king at Mylapore”. This is a preposterous statement. The name Mazdai (or Masdai) is Persian and specifically identifies a person who is Zoroastrian by religion. Mazdaism identifies a worshiper of Ahura Mazda and is a synonym for Zoroastrianism. Associating the Acts of Thomas and its Persian king Mazdai with Mylapore is motivated Christian scholarship – something Dr. M. Deivanayagam of the Madras-Mylapore Archdiocesewould produce – and the fact that the Wikipediaadministrator Tinucherian allows such unsupported statements to stand unchallenged shows that he is deeply involved in the crime of writing a deliberately false and perverted history of Christianity in Mylapore.

Wikipedia by its free-for-all constitution and arbitrary, secretive contribution and editorial oversight system lacks all credibility. Every fact checked with this Internet reference has to be checked someplace else if it is to be accepted as authoritative. Many of its articles on Christianity in India are propaganda projects set up to project a particular Christian world view. This is to be expected: the wiki editing system invites India’s cultural enemies, Christian missionaries and other western neo-colonialists, to propound their hostile, anti-Indian theories. Its administrators are not authorities on the subjects they oversee (Tinucherian is a Bangalore software engineer who knows nothing about St. Thomas and the history of Christianity in India except for what his pious mother may have taught him) and their personal prejudices soon become evident and interfere with factual and cited contributions. Wikipedia is the perfect platform for Christian propaganda in India and is being used for that purpose with great effect in its Christianity in India project. This Wikipedia series even employs the symbol of a cross superimposed on a light blue map of India, a symbol that is highly offensive to the majority Hindu population who identify India as their mother and civilizational homeland.

The fabulous and false “facts” about St. Thomas and India found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and its Internet sister Wikipedia make the ancient Greek historian and geographer Strabo into a prophet (he was a contemporary of Jesus and Thomas). He said, “Generally speaking the men who have written on India were a set of liars.” And so it is with the contributors to the mainstream encyclopedias and dictionaries that reference Indian history today.

And closer to home, Sri Aurobindo, in The Foundations of Indian Culture, referred to “the intemperate … vomit of false witness, hatred, [and] uncharitableness … that are the mark of a certain type of Christian literature …”

Falsely accusing the native Hindus population of an ancient India that gave 4th century Syrian Christian refugees from Persia funds and land to build churches, with the murder of their patron saint Mar Thoma, certainly falls into the category of “intemperate vomit of false witness, hatred, and uncharitableness”. Christians are perceived to be an educated and modern secular community, but we see from their fabricated encyclopedic writings on St. Thomas (many of which have appeared after the publication of our 1991 essay) that they are the most superstitious of Indian communities with an obsessive allegiance to an authoritarian and very corrupt medieval Indian church.

But it is not only international English-language reference works that repeat the falsehood that St. Thomas came to South India and was murdered in Madras by hostile Hindus. Indian reference books repeat the St. Thomas tale because they are too lazy to do any original research of their own and simply copy existing sources which are usually Christian or western sources. For example, the Christian  Internet reference Indianetzone in its long self-persuading entry for St. Thomas treats him as Kerala’s first Christian missionary. They wax eloquent about the old St. Thomas traditions in Kerala and how everybody believes them so they must be true. Fine for the Christian faithful, but this is story telling not India history writing. A lie does not become truth with old age and much repetition by Christian priests! We have twice contacted the editors and given them the known historical data on St. Thomas, but to no effect. They block our comments, delete our registration from their site, and refuse to acknowledge our mail. Like theEncyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia,Indianetzone is deeply attached to its fictitious and fabulous St. Thomas entry and will not let it go for a more prosaic and truthful account of Christianity’s origins in India.

If St. Thomas lived at all – and we have no positive evidence for this either – it was in Palestine and Syria, and it was in Syria and Persia, or Parthia, that he proselytised the inhabitants and established churches.[2] This is what the most ancient Alexandrian tradition maintains and what the seventh and eighth century Metropolitans of Fars, Mar Isho Yahb and Mar Thiomothy, testify to when they refuse to submit to the Patriarch of the East at Seleucia-Ctesiphon because their Persian church had been established by Thomas while his had not.[3] The later Edessene tradition is a case of Edessa glorifying an apostle they considered their own – Thomas had visited their city and they possessed his bones – at the expense of India – if of course the “India” of the Acts doesn’t simply mean Parthia or Persia.

Notes:

1. G. Ananthakrishnan in the Times of India, Mumbai, 26 Dec. 2006, reports: “Pope Benedict XVI made the statement [about St. Thomas] at the Vatican on September 27, [2006]. Addressing the faithful during the Wednesday catechises, he recalled that St. Thomas first evangelised Syria and Persia, and went on to western India from where Christianity reached Southern India. The import of the statement was that St. Thomas never travelled to south India, but rather evangelised the western front, mostly comprising today’s Pakistan.” Though the Pope is a declared enemy of Hindu India, he is a scholar and had reported the known facts about St. Thomas and his missionary journey to Syria and Parthia. He had said, ” … Thomas first evangelised Syria and Persia and then penetrated as far as western India, from where Christianity reached also South India” (It is another matter that his editors on the Vatican website changed this sentence the next day to read that Thomas himself had reached South India).

2. The churches that are traditionally said to have been established by apostles were known by the names of the cities or countries that they were established in. The famous four were the Churches of Alexandria by Mark, Jerusalem by James, Antioch by Peter and Paul, and Rome by Peter. The Church of Edessa was said to have been established by Addai the disciple of Thomas and the Church of Fars by Thomas himself. But there was no Church of Muziris (as Kodungallur was known to the Greeks and Romans) or Shingly (as it was known to the Jews) or Malabar or India in the first centuries CE.

3. The Church of Seleucia was said to have been established by Aggaeus the disciple of Addai of Edessa in the second century CE.

Deccan Chronicle Holdings chairman T. Venkattaram Reddy. The Deccan Chronicle is South India's leading Christian newspaper.

The Deccan Chronicle is south India’s largest Christian newspaper and a willing mouthpiece for the Catholic Bishops Conference in India. It is the newest proponent of the St. Thomas fable as secular Indian history in Chennai (following The Hindu and The New Indian Express). It often but not always hides its pro-St. Thomas agenda behind a correspondent’s byline or the provocative statement of the Santhome Cathedral priest: “The existence of the Santhome Church is a proof by itself that Christianity in India is more than 2000 years old” (DC, Chennai, 8 April 2007).

The Deccan Chronicle editor in Chennai is cricket commentator R. Mohan.

For sucking up to the Roman Catholic clergy in India and in Rome, the Deccan Chronicle is the leader among Indian newspapers. Its current resident editor in Chennai, R. Mohan, being another self-righteous secularist of the Nehruvian school, assiduously follows the Christian practice of treating Hindu history as mythology and Christian mythology as history. In true Indian secularist fashion, he does not tolerate dissent, and letters to the editor concerning lies and distortions in DCarticles are neither acknowledged or published. Every effort is made by Mohan and his in-house minions to provoke and insult Hindu readers and letter writers. This is called “freedom of the press” in our secular socialist adharmic India that is Bharat.

For Chairman Reddy and his house boy Mohan, criticism of themselves or their “eminent” contributors is a manifestation of Hindu communalism and ignorance. Indeed, dissent can attract a very spiteful response from editor Mohan. Yet both men, whose decisions influence the opinions of half a million readers and more every day, will ignore facts and figures as extraneous irritants, except where the facts and figures can be employed in subtle Hindu-bashing exercises(2), or otherwise to whitewash the bigoted and violent history of Islam and Christianity in India and promote their pro-Catholic agenda in Hyderabad, Chennai, and Bangalore.

1. Anti-Brahminism and anti-Semitism are the same ethno-religious prejudice directed at an accomplished minority group who are perceived, wrongly, to be the cause of a nation’s social and economic ills, or, otherwise, to be controlling a nation’s cultural, political, or economic destiny from behind the scenes in their own interest. Koenraad Elst, in Indigenous Indians: Agastya to Ambedkar, writes, “In fact, apart from anti-Judaism, the anti-Brahmin campaign started by [Christian] missionaries is the biggest vilification campaign in world history.”
2. An example of an anti-Hindu exercise is the use of the term “idol” for Hindu images. Technically correct, the word is loaded with negative connotations and is part of the abusive rhetoric of Christian missionaries in India. The same newspaper on another page uses the neutral term “statues” for Christian images. Clearly, there is editorial bias at work here. In the forty years that I have lived in India, I have never met a Hindu who worships idols. Hindus worship God, and even a simple village woman knows that God is spirit not matter.

Deccan Chronicle Holdings chairman T. Venkattaram Reddy. The Deccan Chronicle is South India's leading Christian newspaper.

The Deccan Chronicle is south India’s largest Christian newspaper and a willing mouthpiece for the Catholic Bishops Conference in India. It is the newest proponent of the St. Thomas fable as secular Indian history in Chennai (following The Hindu and The New Indian Express). It often but not always hides its pro-St. Thomas agenda behind a correspondent’s byline or the provocative statement of the Santhome Cathedral priest: “The existence of the Santhome Church is a proof by itself that Christianity in India is more than 2000 years old” (DC, Chennai, 8 April 2007).

The Deccan Chronicle editor in Chennai is cricket commentator R. Mohan.

For sucking up to the Roman Catholic clergy in India and in Rome, the Deccan Chronicle is the leader among Indian newspapers. Its current resident editor in Chennai, R. Mohan, being another self-righteous secularist of the Nehruvian school, assiduously follows the Christian practice of treating Hindu history as mythology and Christian mythology as history. In true Indian secularist fashion, he does not tolerate dissent, and letters to the editor concerning lies and distortions in DCarticles are neither acknowledged or published. Every effort is made by Mohan and his in-house minions to provoke and insult Hindu readers and letter writers. This is called “freedom of the press” in our secular socialist adharmic India that is Bharat.

For Chairman Reddy and his house boy Mohan, criticism of themselves or their “eminent” contributors is a manifestation of Hindu communalism and ignorance. Indeed, dissent can attract a very spiteful response from editor Mohan. Yet both men, whose decisions influence the opinions of half a million readers and more every day, will ignore facts and figures as extraneous irritants, except where the facts and figures can be employed in subtle Hindu-bashing exercises(2), or otherwise to whitewash the bigoted and violent history of Islam and Christianity in India and promote their pro-Catholic agenda in Hyderabad, Chennai, and Bangalore.

1. Anti-Brahminism and anti-Semitism are the same ethno-religious prejudice directed at an accomplished minority group who are perceived, wrongly, to be the cause of a nation’s social and economic ills, or, otherwise, to be controlling a nation’s cultural, political, or economic destiny from behind the scenes in their own interest. Koenraad Elst, in Indigenous Indians: Agastya to Ambedkar, writes, “In fact, apart from anti-Judaism, the anti-Brahmin campaign started by [Christian] missionaries is the biggest vilification campaign in world history.”
2. An example of an anti-Hindu exercise is the use of the term “idol” for Hindu images. Technically correct, the word is loaded with negative connotations and is part of the abusive rhetoric of Christian missionaries in India. The same newspaper on another page uses the neutral term “statues” for Christian images. Clearly, there is editorial bias at work here. In the forty years that I have lived in India, I have never met a Hindu who worships idols. Hindus worship God, and even a simple village woman knows that God is spirit not matter.

See Indian Media’s War on Hinduism  http://hamsa.org/akbar.htm#1

___________________________________

Deccan Chronicle feature, Chennai, 1 September 2008

Town of Thomas

At the south end of Marina is San Thome, today a part of Mylapore. With its inspiring Basilica on a site where for 19 continuous centuries has stood some church or other. Just before the Basilica on this road is the former palace of the Maharaja of Mysore, now hidden behind formidable gates. Here live the representatives of Russia

Telling lies for Jesus: Catholic Writers Guild Seal of Approval for the Deccan Chronicle in Chennai.

THE REAL HISTORY

The article above is a continuation of theDeccan Chronicle’s policy of prostituting Indian history to further its pro-Catholic agenda. Telling lies for Jesus — or in this case for his brother Thomas — has never been a problem of ethics for newspaper chairmen or editors who are born with Hindu names but who willingly sell their Hindu mothers down the river for a few dinars. The Deccan Chronicle and Asian Age are said to be owned by a Saudi Arabian company. There is no contradiction here between an Arab-owned Indian newspaper and its pro-Catholic agenda, as both Muslims and Christians and their secular Indian front men are willing to work together for the total annihilation of Hindu religion and culture.

Eighteenth century shrine of St. Thomas in Meliapore. The first church was built by Christian Augustinian friars in 1523 after demolishing the Kapaleeswara Temple.

Historically, the first Christian church to appear on the Mylapore beach was built in 1523 by Augustinian friars beside the new tomb of “St. Thomas” that had been dug and seeded with bones and other material brought from Goa by Albuquerque’s attendant Diogo Fernandez.

Earlier, in 1521–22, the Portuguese had opened two tombs in the Shiva temple’s northern precincts. One tomb contained a “black” skeleton, which, according to its inscription, belonged to a Chola king. The Portuguese nevertheless “identified” him as being a disciple of St. Thomas (as today Catholic historians “identify” Tiruvalluvar as a disciple of St. Thomas). The second tomb revealed a “white” skeleton, which, naturally, “belonged” to the white Jew Thomas. This second skeleton was sent to Goa for verification—where it languishes till today, unsung and unrecognised.

Ortona Cathedral: This Italian church houses the bones of St. Thomas the Apostle, which arrived in Ortona on September 6, 1258, booty taken by Captain Leone degli Acciaioli when the island of Chios, Greece, was sacked. The Church-certified complete skeleton of St. Thomas was in Ortona when the Portuguese were "discovering" it in Mylapore in 1523.

As these diggings did not produce the required result, Diogo Fernandez was asked, in 1523, to excavate a third tomb which lay partly under the foundation of a dilapidated temple building that had been occupied by the Portuguese. He refused at first but was persuaded by the attending priest, Fr. Antonio Gil, who heard his confession and that of the two men, Braz Fernandez and Diogo Lourenco, who would assist him in the pious enterprise. They then began the excavation of a deep and elaborate, and very much empty, tomb. It was Saturday afternoon, and they continued the work into the late evening, when, on the suggestion of Diogo Fernandez, they abandoned their unproductive labours and retired for the night. The excavation was left open and unattended until the next morning, a Sunday, when the men began digging again. It was not long now before the grave disgorged bones that were “much worn out”, portions of skull and spine, and a clay pot of earth “bedewed with blood”, with a thigh bone in it, and hidden in the red earth an iron Malabar spearhead shaped like an olive leaf, which, after fifteen Christian centuries, still had a piece of wooden shaft miraculously preserved in its socket.

San Thome Cathedral: The empty tomb of St. Thomas. This is the tomb the Portuguese created in 1522 and seeded with bone brought from Goa.

This church, originally built in 1523 and called San Thome or San Thome de Meliapore, was subsequently enlarged and extended, and the encroachment on the Kapaleeswara Temple began in earnest. The Christians had done this before, building a church against a temple and then taking over the temple, and that the Shiva temple survived as long as it did, up to 1566 according to some authorities, is grand testimony to the patient and courageous resistance the Hindus of Mylapore had put up against this ruthless Catholic power.

Pope Pius XII : He raised the status of San Thome to that of a minor basilica. A basilica was a Roman public building until the architecture was christianized in the 4th century. There are over 1400 Catholic basilicas in the world, and the Cathedral Basilica of Bom Jesus in Goa has precedence over San Thome in Mylapore.

In 1606 the Pope, at the request of the King of Portugal, made San Thome de Meliapore into a diocese independent of Goa. The church was extended again and became the seat of a bishop, but, in 1893, this building was demolished by the bishop and the present Gothic cathedral put up in its place. It was completed and consecrated in 1896. In 1952 the archdiocese of Madras and Mylapore was constituted, and in 1956, after much lobbying by the Indian hierarchy, Pope Pius XII raised the status of San Thome to that of a minor basilica. This church dignity is of no consequence but it affords the archbishop some minor liturgical privileges.

Diogo Fernandez’s “St. Thomas” relics still remain in the church today. The iron spearhead and piece of skull are kept in a monstrance, along with the relics of St. Francis Xavier, St. Isabella, St. Vincentio and the Martyrs of Morocco. The first “St. Thomas” tomb, which contained the “white” skeleton that was sent to Goa, is empty and ignored, but the second “St. Thomas” tomb is pointed out to pilgrims and tourists. It contains the remainder of Diogo Fernandezs “findings”, the pieces of spine and thigh bone, and, presumably, the pot of “blood-bedewed” earth.

Repository of a St. Thomas arm bone in Kodungallur, Kerala. The right-arm bone was a gift to Indian Christians from the Cathedral of Ortona, Italy. San Thome only got a small piece of this relic.

Yet this is not the end of the bones at San Thome. The cathedral also has in its possession a piece of Church-certified Ortona bone, which it obtained from Cardinal Tisserant in 1953, after he had deposited the apostle’s right arm at Kodungallur. The pastor of San Thome can now say with some pride that he is the keeper of a real St. Thomas bone—keeping in mind that the acceptance of the Ortona gift is also an admission that the Portuguese relics in his care are not those of St. Thomas.

_______________________________

DECCAN CHRONICLE FEATURE, CHENNAI, 24 NOVEMBER 2008

Serene Mount beckons

BY GEORGE ADIMATHRA

Big Mount or St. Thomas Mount. Originally the seat of Rishi Brungi (Bhrigu), it was occupied by the Portuguese after 1523 and the Hindu temple on it demolished to make way for the Church of Our Lady of Expectation. - IS

Chennai and its suburbs are replete with heritage sites such as the Tiruneermalai Vishnu temple (6th century), Tiruvottriyur Adipureeswarar temple (8th century), Kovalam Thameemun Ansari Dargha (7th century) and the St. Thomas Mount near the Chennai airport.

It is believed that St. Thomas, one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ, died on the mount in AD 72 (first century), which makes it one of the oldest heritage sites in Chennai and also one of the oldest Christian sites in the world.

Believed to be one of the first Christians to reach India and preach Christianity in a country dominated by Hindus, St. Thomas was assassinated and the site where he was martyred came to be known as St. Thomas Mount.

People of various religions visit the holy shrine, negotiating the 160 steps built by Armenian merchant Choja Bedros Woskan leading to the top with 14 “stations of the cross” erected along the way. At the summit stands the church built by the Portuguese with its altar located at the very spot where St. Thomas breathed his last.

George Adimathra: Amateur photographer and Deccan Chronicle fiction writer.

There are relics too, among which is the “Bleeding Cross” chiseled by the Apostle himself. The cross, which is said to “bleed” periodically, is believed to have been in the hands of the Apostle while he lay dying.

The oil painting of the Madonna, believed to be one of the seven painted by St. Luke, the evangelist, and brought to India by St. Thomas is placed above the altar.

This is considered to be the oldest Christian painting in India.

The place is also ideal for picnics [and romantic encounters if the warning notices placed by the resident nuns are to be believed - IS].

The metropolis, spread all around the hillock, seems a distant dream land.

However the calm is shattered by the scream of the aircraft taking off or landing at the airport nearby.

Tamil saint and cultural icon Thiruvalluvar. He lived at an unknown date BC/AD in Mylapore and his samadhi shrine was destroyed by the Portuguese along with the Kapaleeswara Shiva Temple.

THE REAL HISTORY

The Deccan Chronicle in this article continues its St. Thomas deceits, this time with a byline to absolve the editor of the crime of knowingly misleading the reading public with communal propaganda. Some bits and pieces of Hindu archaeology are thrown in with the express purpose of making the alleged Christian site–St. Thomas Mount–the older-oldest place of pilgrimage. This is in accord with the current Catholic “inculturational” programme of making the great Tamil Shaivite saint Tiruvalluvar a disciple of St. Thomas. According to the Mylapore archbishop and his spin doctor Deivanayakam, Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta and the Tamil bhakti movement are a byproduct of the Christianity that St. Thomas brought to India and taught to Tiruvalluvar–Christianity being the “original” religion of the Tamils. It is all humbug of course, a wicked plan set in motion by wicked priests with the express purpose of undermining the cultural and religious integrity of Hindu society. If the Indian bishops succeed in destroying the Tamil Hindu identity and then appropriating the Tamil ethnic identity for Christianity, they will be well on the way of conquering India for Christ and of gaining recognition in Rome. Recognition by the Pope and Roman Curia is what the Indian bishops crave even more than the power and pelf they already enjoy in India with government support. The late Mylapore archbishop Arulappa admitted as much when his little scam to forge historical documents relating to St. Thomas in India was uncovered.[1] Forging religious artifacts and historical documents is a very old Christian pastime, and it is therefore not surprising to find Indian bishops and their “secular” minions at the Deccan Chronicle continuing the “pious” practice in 2008, by attempting to rewrite the religious history of the Tamil people.

Dr. R. Arulappa was the late Roman Catholic archbishop of Madras-Mylapore. He is the godfather of St. Thomas-Thiruvalluvar history fabrications and the paymaster of the infamous forger Ganesh Iyer.

The late archbishop of Mylapore, Dr. R. Arulappa, in Punitha Thomayar, asserts that Big Mount (St. Thomas Mount) was originally called Bhrigu Malai and was the seat of the Hindu sage Bhrigu Rishi until St. Thomas came and chased him away. This story, like the one above, is another piece of fiction that has at its core a little truth. The hill was not sacred to Bhrigu Rishi but to Perumal, as the Tamils call Lord Vishnu, and it is the Portuguese who chased the “rishi” away, not St. Thomas. The temple was destroyed around 1545, when they gained effective control of the hill, which was the highest in the area and the southern limit of their territory. Portuguese historians describe it as being crowded with ruins then, and broken temple stones can still be found on its slopes, on the south and west side.

Portuguese pirates were very pious and faithful to their jealous god and he rewarded them with the booty taken during the pillage of Goa and Mylapore.

The Portuguese had begun to settle around Big Mount as early as 1523—the same year they “discovered” the tomb of “St. Thomas”—and one of the first to take up residence there was Diogo Fernandez. He would succeed in erecting a small chapel on the hill before 1545, but the construction of the church, called Our Lady of Expectation, did not commence until 1547. It was built on the east–west alignment of the temple foundation—the ancient granite base of the flag pole is on the eastern side of the church—but the Portuguese reversed this order in keeping with established Christian practice when building on a Pagan site, and the church entrance is on the western side. In 1707, the building was extended by an Armenian merchant and the royal arms of Portugal were added to the facade of the main porch.

Eighth century Persian cross attributed to St. Thomas. The inscription around it is in Pahlavi (Persian) script and the artisan who carved the cross from a Hindu temple stone, has signed it as Afras.

It was when clearing the rubble for the church, in 1547, that the Portuguese “discovered” the famous Persian “St. Thomas” cross in the temple foundation. Diogo Fernandez is not implicated in this fraud, but the Vicar of San Thome, Fr. Gaspar Coelho, and the Captain of the Coromandel, Gabriel de Athaide, are, as the construction was under their direct supervision. What is known for certain is that St. Thomas did not carve this cross—it is dated to the eighth century, like its counterparts in Kerala—and as a cross it did not originate on Big Mount (see pages 47 and 48). It was kept inside the church behind the altar, and used to “bleed” at irregular intervals up to 1704. This phenomenon stopped as soon as the sensible and schismatic British began to move into the area and build a cantonment.[2]

Portuguese icon of Virgin Mary & Child attributed to the apostle St. Luke. There are seven of these icons in various parts of the world attributed to St. Luke. This one is probably of Portuguese manufacture. It is not dated as the Madras Archdiocese has not allowed any scientific investigation into the alleged St. Thomas artifacts.

The other “St. Thomas” relic in the church is a brightly coloured icon of Mary and the child Jesus. It is said to have been painted by St. Luke and brought to India by St. Thomas, who wore it on his breast as a scapular or badge of mission. In fact, it does not appear in Portuguese records until 1559, and the diverse stories that go with it were invented after this date.[3]

The church also has paintings of St. Thomas and his Hindu assassin. One of them, on the reredos of the altar, depicts an Iyengar Brahmin with namam, about to stab the praying apostle from behind. It defeats its purpose inasmuch as Vaishnavas did not wear namam, the U-shaped forehead mark, until after Ramanuja introduced it in the eleventh century. The other painting, very large and part of a series of the apostles and their various modes of death, shows St. Thomas with a book, a lance, and his sturdy Hindu assassin, who, this time, does not wear sectarian marks or orthodox dress.

[Excerpted from The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple, Chapter 18]

NOTES:

1. See “Archbishop Arulappa MakesHistory”

2. Rev. C.E. Abraham, in an article in The Cultural Heritage of India, writes, “The Persian crosses–or so-called Thomas crosses—with inscriptions in Pahlavi, one found in St. Thomas Mount, Madras, and two in a church in Kottayam in Travancore, are evidence of the connection of the Malabar Church with the Church of Persia.”

The Pahlavi (Persian) inscription on the three stone crosses, two in Kerala and one on St. Thomas Mount, read (according to C.P.T. Winckworth whose translation is generally accepted): “My Lord Christ, have mercy upon Afras, son of Chaharbukht the Syrian, who cut this.”

These crosses are evidence of the connection of the Christian church in India with Persia, but they may also be evidence of temple destruction and the planting of Christian relics in temple foundations – at least the one on St. Thomas Mount may be so considered.

The motif on this black granite slab is cut in relief, and on each side of the cross, which is surmounted by a descending dove, are pillars crowned with supernatural composite animals, or yalis, from whose mouths issue an arch that joins together above the dove.

These yalis are Hindu symbols, not Christian, and Veda Prakash, Director of the Institute for the Study of Western Religions, Madras, asserts that the cross on St. Thomas Mount is an over-cut temple stone. He claims support for this view from the most unexpected quarter. Dr. R. Arulappa, the former Roman Catholic archbishop of Madras, in Punitha Thomaiyar, says that yantra stones in temple foundations were dug up by the Portuguese on three of the four sites in Madras that they associated with St. Thomas and where they built churches—Mylapore, Little Mount at Saidapet, and Big Mount at St. Thomas Mount.

The dove-and-cross motif of this stone has been described by one writer as Manichaean and by another as Nestorian. Fr. Herman D’Souza, in In the Steps of St. Thomas, quoting Francis Gouvea on the sixteenth century Portuguese “excavation” at St. Thomas Mount, identifies the motif with that used by the Knights of Aviz in Portugal.

The solution to this problem of the origin and identification of the Persian crosses and all other relics associated with St. Thomas is to have them examined by independent forensic experts. If the Bishop of Turin could surrender the famous Shroud of Turin, alleged burial cloth of Jesus, to scientists and accept their verdict that it is a mediaeval fake, then the Archbishop of Madras should be willing to do the same with the various St. Thomas relics in his possession.

3. There are seven of these icons by “St. Luke” scattered around the world. The most famous one hangs in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, which was built by Pope Sixtus III in 432 C.E. after he had demolished the Temple of Cybele on the Esquiline Hill.

Orpheus before Jesus: Orphic crucifixion scene dated 3rd century BC.

The cross as a symbol of Christianity did not come into popular use until the 3rd century. There are two reasons for this: first, early Christians were practicing Jews and the cross was an abhorant symbol of torture and death, and second, the cross was already used as a religious symbol by adherants of the Greek cult of Orpheus. It is from the Orphics that the Christians borrowed the cross in the 3-4th centuries. But in fact it did not gain popularity as a Christian symbol till some centuries later.

The original symbol for Christianity was a fish with or without the word “Jesus” drawn in Greek in its body. Nor was the Virgin Mary venerated until some centuries later. Historically, neither the cross nor the painting(s) of the Virgin Mary can be associated with the 1st century apostles Thomas and Luke. The association was made by pious Christian authors and artists long after Christianity was imposed on the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine. The Indian Christian today naively believes that the Christianity of 1st century Jerusalem was a fully developed religious system, the same religion presented to Indians in the 16th century by the Portuguese.

For the first three centuries, Christians used the fish with or without the name of Jesus in Greek written in its body, as their identifying mark and symbol. They did not use the Orphic cross-crucifix as a symbol until much later. Even if Judas Thomas had come to Mylapore, he would not have made cross symbols as he was a practicing Jew and the Roman-Orphic cross was abhorrent to him. The cross was introduced into India by Christian immigrants from Persia after the 7th=8th century.

• The Pagan origin of the Christian fish symbol

Saint Thomas, also called Didymus, one of the twelve apostles. Both names, the Hebrew Thomas (Th’om) and the Greek Didymus, denote a twin. Thomas is rarely mentioned in the New Testament, and little is known of him. The principal traits of his character are given in the Gospel of John. When Jesus after his crucifixionappeared to his disciples, Thomas was not present, and refused to believe until he himself saw and touched Jesus. As to the scene of his apostolical labors, the statements of the ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries do not agree; according to some it was Parthia, according to others Egypt and Ethiopia, and according to others India, where the Portuguese in the 16th century asserted that they had found his body. An ancient sect who early in the middle ages were numerous in Persia and still survive in India, claim St. Thomas as their founder; but many theologians consider the account of the labors of St. Thomas in India as having been invented by theManichaeans, and as early as the 5th century the Thomas of India was regarded by Theodoret as a disciple of Manes.To the apostle Thomas an Evangelium Infantioe Christi (also called Evangelium secundum Thomam) is ascribed, which pretends to fill up the gaps left by the canonical Gospels in the time from the infancy of Jesus until his public appearance; but it has always been regarded as apocryphal. (See Thilo, Acta Thomas Apostoli, Leipsic, 1823.) St. Thomas is commemorated in the Roman Catholic Church on Dec. 21; in theGreek Church on the first Sunday of her Church year, beginning with Easter (hence called Thomas Sunday.

• From the American Cyclopaedia entry for Saint Thomas

Director Seeman, KANIMOZHI, Jagat Casper Demolish Santhome church and build Mylapore Kapaleeshwarar Temple at its original Place.

KANIMOZHI You are Using Tamil Mayyam – Santhome church firm for your Political Raise. Get us back Temple at its original PLACE.

Demolish This and build

Yesterday M.Deivanayagam with his Paid assistants made aComedy Fasting show near Kapaleeshwarar temple and Seeman addressed that comedy show- Photo below

Dr. Deivanayagam’ Tamil research claims over Tirukural have been said meaningless by other Christian Scholars.

Deivanayagam is firm that The Present Santhome Bascilca was the Original Place of Mylapore Kapaleeshwarar Temple. Throw out Church and build Temple.

http://devapriyaji.wordpress.com/saint-thomas/

Seeman – you say you are a Pure Tamilan – prove it by demolishing Santhome Basilca.

செபாஸ்டியன் சீமானுக்கும் கபாலீஸ்வரர் கோயிலுக்கும் என்ன சம்பந்தம்?-vedaprakash எழுதியது

செபாஸ்டியன் சீமான் ஒரு கிருத்துவன். “பிரபாகரன்” பெயரை வைத்துக் கொண்டு “தமிழர்கள்” உணர்வை தூண்டிக்கொண்டு, தமிழ் கலாச்சாரம், நாகரிகம், பண்பாடு…………..முதலியவற்றிற்கு எதிராக செயப்படும் கூட்டங்களுடன் தொடர்பு கொண்டவன்.

எம்.  தெய்வநாயகம் என்ற ஆளோ, முந்தைய மோசடி பிஷப் சின்னப்பாவுடன் சேர்ந்து கொண்டு, தமிழைக் கேவலப் படுத்திய கும்பலை சேர்ந்த இன்னொரு மோசடி பேர்வழி. [ஆங்கிலத்தில் இவர்களைப் பற்றி நிறையவே எழுதியுள்ளேன். www.indiainteracts.com தளத்தைப் பார்க்கவும்]

Seeman-Kapeleswarar-temple

 

இப்பொழுது, இந்த இரண்டு இந்து விரோத பேர்வழிகளுக்குண்டானக் கூட்டு என்ன என்பதை, உண்மையான தமிழர்கள் ஆராய வேண்டும். தமிழ் இந்துக்கள் தெரிந்து கொள்ளவேண்டும்.

சுயமரியாதை தமிழர் கூட்டமைப்பு என்ற பேரவை என்ற போலிப் பெயரில், கிருத்துவர்கள் மிகவும் கேவலமாக, வெட்கமில்லாமல், இப்படி வேஷம் போடுவது என்னவென்று சொல்வது என்று தெரியவில்லை. எவ்வலவு அசிங்கப் பட்டாலும், இவர்கள் இவ்வாறு நடந்து கொள்வது, அரசு எந்திரங்கள் அவர்களுக்கு சாதகமாக இர்க்கின்ரன என்பதும் தெரிகின்றது.

We all would be with you

Archbishop of Madras-MylaporeSanthome Cathedral Basilica -STOP 45 YEARS CONTINUING SCANDAL.

To : The Archbishop,

Archbisop’s House
41, San Thome High Road

Chennai – 600 004



SANTHOME CHURCH HAS BEEN BEHIND ONE Mr.M.DEIVANAYAGAM, WHO First Pulished the book “TIRUVALLUVAR CHIRSITHUVARAA? “ With foreword from Archbishop Arulappa.

Deivanayagam went on to write many books misinterpreting Thirukural in Christian way, and later in the 100% church  funded Christian Tamil Studies of Madras University got his P.Hd.(ARCHDIOCESAN CHRISTIAN STUDIES). And Many more Such P.hd. were issued by your authority.

Viviliam, Thirukkural Saiva Siddhantam Oppaivu-(Tamil) Comparative Study of the Bible, Thirukkural and Saiva Siddhanta)-Ph. D. Thesis by Dr.M.Deivanayagam-University of Madras-1985

Tamil Bhakti Iyakkathin Thotramum Valarchiyum – Vivilia Oliyil (Tamil) (The Origin and Development of Tamil Bhakti Movement (in the Light of the Bible) by Dr.D.Devakala – Ph.D. Thesis –University of Madras - 1993

Ilakkiyangalil Moovorumai Kotpadu(Tamil) (Trinity Concept In Tamil Literature)–Ph.D. Thesis  by Dr. A. Johnson Thankiah – University of Madras-2003

Siddhar Padalkalum Viviliyamum (Tamil)(Songs of Tamil Siddhars and the Bible) Ph.D. Thesis by Dr. Moses Michael Farradey – University of Madras.-1999

Aru Vagai Darisanangalum Tamilar Samayamum – Viviliya Oliyil (Tamil)- (Six Darshanas and the Religion of Tamils – in the Light of the Bible)by Dr .J. D. Baskara Doss- Ph.D. Thesis – University of Madras -1998.

Sir, is part of that Article of Marvin Olasky as I have saved many years before-

//No one today knows for sure, and the three sites traditionally associated with Thomas in the city of Chennai, formerly known as Madras, do not exactly inspire confidence. One looks like a putt-putt golf course with larger-than-life colored Jesus and Thomas statues and footprints in stone that some say Thomas left—except that the footprints are about double the size that even Shaquille O’Neal would leave. Another site includes a portrait of Thomas purportedly painted by Luke, except that the style is that of paintings done 1,000 years later.//

Very Clearly the original book of Deivanayagam was refuted and Tamil scholars were totally against it and the “International Institure of Tamil Studies” Disowned it as an worthy Research paper after publishing with your 100% Grant.

இந்தியாவில் செயின்ட் தாமஸ் கட்டுக்கதை-தொகுத்தவர்: வேதபிரகாஷ்

பதிப்பகத்தார் மேனாட்டு மதங்கள் ஆராய்ச்சிக் கழகம்
57, பூந்தமல்லி நெடுஞ்சாலை
மதுரவயல், சென்னை – 602102

வெளியீட்டுத்தேதி ஆகஸ்டு, 1989 விலை ரூ. 3/-

This was sent to Arch Bishop, Deivanayagam and all important persons of your Diocese under Registered Post.  No Response.

Later Tamil Sholars published the book

which clearly proves that your department certified scholar has not followed any Principles of Tamil or research and totally the book is a Trash. The copy of the book was sent to Archbishop.

Inspite of this Your Arch Diosese still supports

“International Conference on the Religion of the Tamils” was inaugurated at the Archdiocesan Pastoral Centre, 25, Rosary Church Road, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004 on Thursday evening (August 14^th, 2008).

The main paper session of Deivanayagam was headed by Dr.Ovvai Natarajan who said on the Dias that the Paper is totally flawed and meaningless. Earlier another Paper Presenter Johnson Thangaiah was hesitant to take Questions in spite of Session Head saying so.The Conference was such a meaningless show and final day few ordent tamil lovers refuted all falses by your church’ scholar.The Link gives all details.

http://www.tamilhindu.com/2008/08/christian-conspiracy-thwarted/

Till date church or Deivanayagam has not responded. What then is the Dialogue about.

http://saintthomasfables.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/%e0%ae%aa%e0%af%81%e0%ae%a9%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%a4-%e0%ae%a4%e0%af%8b%e0%ae%ae%e0%af%88%e0%ae%af%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%b0%e0%af%8d-%e2%80%8d-%e2%80%8d%e2%80%8d%e2%80%8d-%e0%ae%af%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%b0%e0%af%8d/

What is the opinion of Catholic Scholars about Alleged Saint Thomas visit-

Holy see’s Publisher “Burn Oates & Wash BouRne Ltd”has Published Multi Volume “Butler’s Lives of Saints” Edited by Rev.Alban Butler (with Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur from Two Archbishop for its Doctrinal Acceptance)says-“.. the Syrian Greek who was probably the fabricator of the Storywould have beenable to learn from Traders and Travelers such details as the name Gondophorus with Tropical details.”. Pages 213-218, in Volume December.

The Authors have gone through all the major works of the claims of St.Thomas Indian visit claims and one of the highly acclaimed work of ‘The Early Spread of Christianity in India’- Alfred Mingana connected this with Apostle Thomas visit claims and clearly affirms-

“It is likely enough that the Malabar Coast was Evangelized from Edessa at a Later date, and in the course of time a confused tradition connected this with Apostle Thomas himself.”

Present Pope also in his speech in  Vatican clearly said so. All this can be seen in this Link

Renowned Tamil Writer Jayamohan Wrote : http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=600

It is high time Your Office give a clear clarification that there is no historic basis for the visit of St.Thomas to India and revoke those P.Hds.

கபாலீச்சுரம் கோவிலின் புராதன வரலாற்று விளக்ககூட்டம்

கபாலீச்சுரம் கோவிலின் புராதன வரலாற்று விளக்ககூட்டம்: கபாலீச்சுரம் கோவிலின் புராதன வரலாற்று விளக்ககூட்டம் மயிலை மாங்கொள்ளை மைதானத்தில் இன்று சனிக்கிழமை மாலை – 6.00 மணிக்கு நடைபெறும் என்று மைலாப்பூர் பக்கம் சில சுவரொட்டிகள் பார்த்தபோது வியப்பாக இருந்தது.

கிருத்துவர்களா, நாத்திகர்களா, யார் இந்த கூட்டத்தை நடத்துவது? ஏனெனில், ஏற்கெனவே கிருத்துவ தெய்வநாயகம் பலதடவை[1] இங்கு வந்து கலாட்டா செய்துள்ளது நாளிதழ்களின் மூலம் தெரிய வந்துள்ளது[2]. அந்நிலையில், இது அந்த கிருத்துவக்கூட்டமே நடத்தும் கூட்டமா, இல்லை பெரியார் பனியன்கள் அணிந்துகொண்டு வந்து ஆர்பாட்டம் செய்த கூட்டமா, செபாஸ்டியன் சீமானின் கூட்டமா, நெடுமாறன் கூட்டமா, இல்லை சில இந்துக்களுக்கே ரோஷம் வந்து நடத்தப்படும் கூட்டமா என்று ஆச்சரியமாக இருக்கிறது.

“ருத்ர சேனா” என்றால் என்ன? “ருத்ர சேனா” அன்ற அமைப்பு நடத்துகிறது என்றுள்ளது! ஆனால், தெய்வநாயகம் போன்ற சரித்திர புரட்டர்களுக்கு, “ருத்ரன்” என்பது ஜேஹோவா / ஹேஹோவா[3]என்ற கடவுள் ஆவர்! ஆக யார் இந்த கூட்டத்தை நடத்துகின்றனர் என்பது, அவர்கள் பேசுவதிலிருந்து தான் தெரியவரும் போலிருக்கிறது! “ருத்ரன்” என்றாலும் தமிழ் கடவுள் ஆகாது[4], ஏனெனில் திராவிட புரட்டர்கள் அது ஆரியமயமாக்கப் பட்ட “சிவன்” என்று கூறுவார்கள்!

தமிழர்கள் கோவிலுக்கு விரோதமாக இருப்பது ஏன்?தமிழர்களுக்கு இப்படி அவர்களுடைய கோவில்களைப் பற்றிய வரலாற்றைச் சொல்லவேண்டிய அவசியம் என்ன? தமிழ், தமிழர் என்றெல்லாம் சொல்லிக்கொண்டு, நாத்திக பித்து பிடித்து தமது கலாச்சாரம், பாரம்பரம், பண்பாடு, நாகரிகம் முதலியவற்றை மறந்து, சொந்தத் தாயை விடுத்து, மாற்றாந்தாயோடு வாழும் போக்கில், கிருத்துவ-முஸ்லிம்-கம்யூனிஸ கோஷ்டிகளுடன் சேர்ந்து கொண்டு, இழிவு படுத்தி வருகிறார்கள். கோவிலைச் சேர்ந்த எந்த பொருள், வஸ்து, வாஸ்து[5], விஷயம் என்றாலும், அதில் தங்களுக்கு என்ன காசு கிடைக்கும் என்ற நோக்கில்தான் இந்த பாதகர்கள் இருக்கிறார்கள், செயலில் இறங்குகிறார்கள்.

கோவிலில் நுழைவோம் என்று இருமுறை ஜூன் மாதத்தில் கலட்டா செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.

செபாஸ்டியன் சீமானுடன் ஒருமுறை கூட்டம் போட்டது – 02-05-2010.

நெடுமாறன் மற்றும் பெரியார் பனியன்கள் அணிந்துகொண்டு வந்த கூட்டத்துடன் கலாட்ட செய்தது – 13-06-2010

[2] இதைப் பற்றிய விவரங்களை, இதே தளத்தில் மற்ற கட்டுரைகளில் விவரங்களுடன் காணலாம்.

[3] அர்னால்ட் டோயன்பி (Arnold Toyanbee) என்ற பிரபலமான சரித்திர ஆசிரியர் எப்படி ஒரு காட்டுவாசிகளின் கடவுள், காலனி ஆதிக்கக் காலத்தில், கிருத்து பரப்பு முறைகளில், ஒரு அனைத்துலகக் கடவுள் ஆக்கப்பட்டார் என்று தமது நூலில் “An Historian’s Approach to Religion” விளக்கியுள்ளதைப் பார்க்கலாம்.

[4] தொல்லியல் நிபுணர் டாக்டர் ஆர். நாகசாமி பலதடவை ருத்ரன், சிவன்……. எல்லாம் ஒன்றுதான் என்று விளக்கியுள்ளார். ஆனல், அரைகுறை வேக்காடுகள், மூலங்களைப் படிக்காமலேயே, பொய்களைப் பரப்பி, மக்களை மடையர்களாக்கி விட்டுள்ளதை தமிழகத்தில் பார்க்கலாம்.

[5] வஸ்து-வாஸ்து என்றெல்லம் பேசும் திரு. கணபதி ஸ்தபதி கூட நாத்திகர்கள் போல பேசுவது வேடிக்கையான விஷயம். “கடவுளையே” நாங்கள்தாம் உருவாக்குகிறோம் என்ற அகம்பாவமும், சில நேரங்களில் காணப்படுகிறது