Sthala Puranam says that Rishi Agasthiyar, couldn't witness Shiva Parvathy Kalyanam and it is said that Bhagwan gave darshan to Muni here with Parvathy Devi in Kalyanakolam. It is also believed that Indra, who had Brahmahatya dosham,
Papanasanathar temple
#Tirunelveli
#Tamilnadutemples ЁЯЪй
Papanasanathar Kshetram, situated in Papanasam is a famous Shiva temple. Paramashiva is Papanasanathar and Parvathi┬аDevi as Ulagammai. Temple is one among Nava Kailasa famous for Surya Deva, also called Surya Kshetram.
Sthala Puranam says that Rishi Agasthiyar, couldn't witness Shiva Parvathy Kalyanam and it is said that Bhagwan gave darshan to Muni here with Parvathy Devi in Kalyanakolam. It is also believed that Indra, who had Brahmahatya dosham,
More from Anu Satheesh ЁЯЗоЁЯЗ│
More from All
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
