Long Thread:
Debunking the myth of Rajputs saving Hinduism(from islamic iconoclasts) in Odisha.
In last few days there are some people who are trying to selectively quote few things and create an impression that Rajputs saved Odisha from iconoclastic muslims 1/n
In the west of Odisha, there was sultanate of Malwa and multiple invasions had happened from that side as well. Now, coming to the south there were invasions from multiple muslim dynasties over 6/n
In those wars between Odia Hindus and different muslim dynasties most of the times Odias prevailed. From 1200 till 1568, there is only one proven instance of any muslims ruler 7/n
Other than this instance there are many other claims regarding muslims capturing Odisha or part of Odisha but almost 9/n
On the other hand, Odia kings had tremendous achievements in both defensive and offensive terms. Listing down some of them in brief.
1. Rajaraja III stopping Sheran brothers to march into Odisha.
11/n
3. Narasimha I going into offensive to defeat Bengal governer under Delhi sultanate by capturing their provincial capital of Lakhnauti. Southern Bengal coming under Odia rule 12/n
5. Bhanudeva III with alliance of Bengal king defeated Firoz Tuglaq (later lost) 13/n
7. Kapilendra defeated muslim kingdoms of Bengal, Jaunpur ,capital of Bahamani kingdom.
8. Purusottam Deva defeated Bahamanis
9. Prataprudra defeated Bengal sultan 14/n
So, for most of these 370 year period Odias not only defeated Islamic invaders but also at times captured their territory. That is the reason prominent 15/n
Now, let's dig deep into the topic of Rajputs, saving Hinduism in Odisha. Any unbiased analyst will reject the entire pretext of this claim on the
More from Religion
As the Fall of man was a consequence of the pursuit of our own good, this quest intrinsically contains the possibility of our return to The Good. The route back to The Good was only revealed by The Way [Jn. 14:6], so we might say that Christ incarnates to complete the Circle.
Each thing is moved by, implicitly converted or turned back to, its own good by its cause of procession - which is principally God.
"Via est nobis tendendi in Deum." - St. Thomas Aquinas, which is to say that:
Christ, who as a man, is the way of our tending (back) into God.
Ezekiel 10:6 | When the LORD commanded the man in linen, “Take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim,” the man went in and stood beside a wheel.
"So I saw the glorious wheel move." - Dante, Paradiso 10.145
As Scripture and Dante see God's providence in circles, so did Boethius and Platonists more
Aquinas with, "Eadem est via qua descenditur et ascenditur." [SCG 4.1.3], brings back Heraclitus to the medievals, "The way up and the way down is the same." [Diels, B60]
The way up and the way down are the same.
Each thing is moved by, implicitly converted or turned back to, its own good by its cause of procession - which is principally God.
"Via est nobis tendendi in Deum." - St. Thomas Aquinas, which is to say that:
Christ, who as a man, is the way of our tending (back) into God.
Ezekiel 10:6 | When the LORD commanded the man in linen, “Take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim,” the man went in and stood beside a wheel.
"So I saw the glorious wheel move." - Dante, Paradiso 10.145
As Scripture and Dante see God's providence in circles, so did Boethius and Platonists more
Imagine a set of concentric circles. The inmost one comes closest to the simplicity of the centre, while forming itself a kind of centre around which revolve those which are set outside it. The circle furthest out rotates through a wider orbit.
— \u300e\U0001d622\U0001d633\U0001d633\U0001d636\U0001d634\u300f (@arrus_kacchi) December 26, 2020
Aquinas with, "Eadem est via qua descenditur et ascenditur." [SCG 4.1.3], brings back Heraclitus to the medievals, "The way up and the way down is the same." [Diels, B60]
The way up and the way down are the same.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?