> I don't think that this was something specific to this part of the > world.
Er, yes. I didn't say it was. But so what if it wasn't? The fact remains that pilgrimages could not be depended upon to be "free", either in the monetary sense or in terms of security and easy passage. > I don't think the Shaivism or Vaishnavism has anything to do with > taking care of guests. And I don't see how "taking care of guests" has anything to do with what I wrote. > As far as my limited knowledge goes, kings used to deliberately invite > people who had a different viewpoint to foster cultural growth and it > was a matter of pride for them to do it. No doubt some kings at some times did this, and others didn't. I don't see how this is relevant. Or are you claiming that every ruler across the subcontinent always did this? > >> No similar records of people being prevented from travelling to > >> the pilgrim centers of Badrinath and Kedarnath. Or the yet to be > >> pillaged temple at Somnath. > > > > There are certainly several such records. Since you mention Somnath, > > So there were instances where rulers prevented visitors from entering > temples? Please provide relevant evidence. There are instances of people being prevented from travelling to their place of pilgrimage because some ruler of a kingdom on their route was hostile or indifferent. These conditions were always changing. > > have you read Romila Thapar's book about Somnath? It's very good. > > ISBN number would be appreciated. I don't know it. Ask Google about "Romila Thapar Somanatha book". It has relevant evidence in spades. > It is possible that she was named after the kingdom/place. There was certainly a Gandhara kingdom. Kandahar may have derived its name from it, or from Alexander's name. I don't think anyone knows for sure. There's no evidence of a beautiful princess or blind king being involved in the mix, though. (And wasn't the Mahabharata supposed to have taken place eight hundred thousand years ago, or something?) > There was a kingdom known as Gandhara and Gandhari was their princess > who married a blind king called Dhritarastra. And you accept this as historical fact? Really? > Again, the biggest problem in making this believable is a lack of > written history. "Making this believable", you say? I wonder why it needs any "making". (Oh, and there's no written history for the majority of Homo sapiens's existence on this planet.) > But there are researchers who are discovering new things everyday. Good point. Maybe they'll discover something to corroborate this theory someday, so it should be safe to accept it as fact in the meantime. -- ams
