Talk:Chola dynasty

Chola record-keeping

I read somewhere that the Cholas were very good at record-keeping (at least as compared to other Indian kingdoms rather than the Europeans) in the form of thousands and thousands copper plates that are still preserved in the various temples. I didn't see much content related to that in this article and I'm wondering if we can source a paragraph about it? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There are more historical records concerning South Indian than north due to interaction with Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has a continuous historical records from ~5 century BCE to present day as Buddhist monks had written all those Pali chronicles (Devipuram, Mahawamsa, Chularwamsa, etc..) that cover South Indian history and interactions with Sri Lanka. Otherwise, any Indian region does not have extensive historical records. Moreover, most of the history of ancient India is coming from Chinese and Sri Lankan sources. Lipwe (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Chola conquest

Chola conquest does not only involve SriVijaya in Malay peninsula,the cholas also diminishes Kedah Tua and Gangga Negara.Other than inscriptios that is found in Southeast Asia were also in pallava sanskrit indicating the presence of pallavas in SEA most probably during 2nd-4th century.Thanks for the response SWH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review

I think this article is due for a Featured article review as it no longer meets many of the criteria. I brought this issue up a couple of years ago (see above: Article issues). Some problems include an over reliance on Sastri when those notes may not reflect more recent academic consensus, addition of a lot of unsourced text over the past many months among other issues that have already been highlighted. —SpacemanSpiff 06:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. I can only speak for a general SE Asian history perspective but the article relies too much on Sastri. The SE Asia related claims need to be cross-checked with the academic opinion of those supposedly conquered lands. I'm surprised the original FA process didn't take this into account. Hybernator (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - the nom and Hybernator have hit the nail on the head, especially wrt Sastri. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Support - I too agree, there is a lot of un-referenced comments under sub-title 'Religion'. Sastri being the main source is also not OK. There have been many developments in undrestanding Cholas in the resent times, perhaps using them woulf be mor prudent. Maps, the inclusion of the 'Parambanan temple Complex' photo, make this article of less vale for a reliable reference on Chola Dynasty. The presence of Cholas in SE Asia should be presented with good references, the current picture is not accurate. guru (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Choda as synonym for Chola

There appears to be some opposition to mentioning Choda as a synonym for Chola. One person has even suggested that the corruption appears only where foreign authors are concerned, although that really would be irrelevant to the issue of synonymity if the sources are reliable. The Choda community definitely existed, eg::

• Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, p. 79 and here
• Sri Varadarajaswami Temple, Kanchi: A Study of Its History, Art and Architecture by K. V. Raman
• Dimensions of Human Cultures in Central India: Professor S.K. Tiwari Felicitation Volume
• Precolonial India in Practice : Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra Cynthia Talbot/Oxford Univ Press

So the question seems to be whether the term only ever refers to the Chodas of Nellor or is also a synonym for Chola. The cited source - Durga Prasad - says "The words Chola and Choda are taken to be synonymous". This, too, is absolutely specific at p. 212 ("One of [Ashoka's] edicts refers to five independent states that presumably existed beyond the southern borders of his empire: the Choda (Chola), Pandya, Satiyaputra, Keralaputras (Chera), and Tamraparni (Sri Lanka)." Also, . 328 here says "comme on l'a reconnu depuis longtemps, Soli est la transcription de Soli, forme dialectale du nom des choda ou chola de Coromandel".

It certainly is not as common as Chola but that is reflected in our choice of article title. What am I missing here? - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the sources it seems that, as Durga Prasad says, "Chola and Choda are taken to be synonymous", with the former being the more common spelling used for the Chola dynasty, and the latter being the more common spelling in context of the Velanati Chodas (and possibly Telugu Chodas). I don't believe anything more needs to be done about this, although if it continues to be a concern, we can include some of the above-cited references in the article, and add a hidden-note "not a typo, see talkpage" to ward off editors who may think that "choda" is a vandalism based on the common vulagarism with an identical transliteration. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sanskrit

@Agasthyathepirate: Hi. Could you please expand the article with content rather than just adding a link to the infobox? Please also use scholarly sources rather than newspaper reports to support your additions. There appear to be plenty of hits for "Tiruvalangadu plates" Sanskrit and "Thiruvalangadu plates" Sanskrit on Google Books including stuff by KANS and RC Majumdar. This request applies to your addition to Pandyan dynasty as well. Thanks :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

The Chola Kingdom was very powerful. 171.76.76.28 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Cholas claimed suryavansh lineage

Cholas claimed suryavansh lineage, I would like to add a section on this, please discuss

https://books.google.com/books?id=1ZhnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT209&dq=suryavanshi+cholas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIk-CkxJfdAhXjIjQIHXe4D10Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=suryavanshi%20cholas&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=cc9qCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT252&dq=suryavanshi+cholas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIk-CkxJfdAhXjIjQIHXe4D10Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=suryavanshi%20cholas&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sangitha rani111: Yes, you can add it at the end of origin section and mention that the Cholas claimed to be descendants of Iksvaku and Manu(Solar dynasty), source being Rajendra Chola's plates. Also, some of the chieftains and feudatories of the Telugu country claimed in their epigraphs that they belonged to the solar dynasty and kashyapa gotra of Karikala Chola. Nittawinoda (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Cholas were stable for three centuries and more

Sir, I edited and (secondly) made or changed the sentence "held as one state for a period of two centuries and more" to "held as one state for a period of three centuries and more" first because from the very second king Aditya I, the Later Cholas acquired the status of an empire... Aditya I not only defeated the Pandyas and Cheras (of Kerala), he married a Chera princes, and later also obtained submission of a Kannada kingdom, namely the Gangas and during his time itself, the Chola domains had reached the Mysore hills and plateau (bordering Kerala). As proof, kindly read page 159 of the book "A history of South India" by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, which mentions that Aditya I overpowered the Pallavas and ended their existence and that "the whole of the Pallava kingdom now became Chola territory which henceforth bordered on that of the Rashtrakutas (903)" i.e. 903 AD. Rashtrakuta core areas were in what is modern Karnataka and central and southern Maharashtra. Further, the next para states: "The Ganga Prithvipati II, the grandson of Prithvipati I, soon afterwards acknowledged the suzerainty of Aditya", which attests to the fact that in addition to Pallava areas in Telugu lands, namely from Tirupati to Cuddapah-Guntakal belt, the Chola territories extended even to the Tamil lands to what is southern Andhra, central and southern Karnataka and Kerala. This is further proven by the sentence that "He (Aditya) is said to have built tall stone temples of Siva on both banks of the Kaveri from the Sahyadri to the sea." As proof there is still a Chola temple standing on the west coast, at Bhatkal. Sir, this was in AD 903-907, with the latter being the year Aditya I expired. From here, we go to AD 1215, when the Chola King Kulottunga-III loses to the Pandyans under Maravarman Sundara...Kulottunga, who ruled from 1175-1216 (41 Years) had defeated the Pandyas, occupied Sri Lanka, defeated Hoysala Veera Ballala -III in battle and counted Nolambavadi, Banavasi, Hangal and eastern Gangavadi in Mysore, Vengi (Rajahmundry-Vizag region), Nellore-Cuddapah belt among the areas of his hegemony and core territory. This means from 907 to 1215, despite wars, victories or defeats under Parantaka I and Kulottunga I, the territories of the Cholas both within Tamil lands but also in what is Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra, practically remained unviolated, and the Chola empire/rule only declined from 1215 and they practically went into oblivion by 1280 AD. (Though there are records of minor Cholas even up to 1464 AD during the rule of Vijayanagara).... hence pls. allow me to change the caption to "held as one state for three centuries and more". Thank you Srirangam99 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Religion

@Utcursch: These are my sources- The map shows that present-day Kerala is covered and that is why I put the edits. The sources claim is around 1st century. Roman presence in Kerala could be a reason for the spread. I would like to know your thoughts on this. I understand I have edited other kingdoms. Do you know what Kingdoms controlled present-day Kerala in the Common Era? Again, these groups are minorities. Where should I put them? Also, I saw the Kerala Sidebar was removed. I may not be the only one but WP:POV is questionable. This requires more consensus but I recommend merging Template:Keralahistory with Template:TNhistory and merging with Dravidian portal. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

References

The first two books don't even mention the Cholas; the third book does mention them, but doesn't seem to suggest that Christianity was remotely significant in their kingdom.

As for the template merging, I doubt the respective folks from Kerala and Tamil Nadu would like that, but you can try initiating a discussion on the template page, and dropping a note on WT:INKL, WT:INTN, and WT:IN. utcursch | talk 14:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Cholas were also called Koliyar

Hi, this edit looks dodgy, not helped by the edit summary. Your first source is self-published, another has no page number, and others look to be very obscure. I suspect you had built a house of cards there, synthesising material to get a desired outcome. I have reverted for now - feel free to provide relevant quotes from the reliable sources on the article talk page & thus obtain consensus to reinstate. Obviously, the first source is not reliable, and some others may not be (Ramaswamy is definitely ok). - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush and Kautilya3:, Hi Sitush has raised a concern (see above) regarding one of my recent edits to the Chola article. I was not aware of the self-published sources, of course I knew about blogs and personal websites but was not aware that the rule covered self-published historical books. In any case I am not sure why my second source was disregarded. So I am here to obtain consensus so that the following content can be incorporated into the article.

"The Cholas also went by the name Koliyar. Vikrama Chola referred to himself as Koliyar Kula Pati, that is the head of the family of Cholas (Koliyar) in one of his epigraphs. The Koliyar are mentioned as one of the artisan communities during the period of medieval Cholas. According to historian Vijaya Ramaswamy, the Koliyar were weavers."

Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging others, @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, QEDK, and Winged Blades of Godric:. Request you to review the above content. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible addition to the page?

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Takkolam should be mentioned briefly in the page or linked at its bottom.

SlimShady32123 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)SlimShady32123

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle of kedah.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New map replaced the old map showing the greatest extent of Chola empire. It was corrected based on primary literature cited to show actual control Chola had on Sri Lanka.

The Chola empire never had full control of the island at any point in history, and this is already discussed in a large amount of literature published on the matter, including primary literature cited on the page. Spencer, G. W. The Politics of Plunder: The Cholas in Eleventh-Century Ceylon. The Journal of Asian Studies 1976, 35 (3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2053272.

According to Spencer, “Under Rajendra Chola I, perhaps the most aggressive king of his line, Chola raids were launched southward from Rajarattha into Rohana. By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra "completed" the conquest Rajaraja had begun. But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon, which in any case lacked large and prosperous settlements to tempt long-term Chola occupation. Thus, under Rajendra, Chola predatory expansion in Ceylon began to reach a point of diminishing returns”

Moreover, Spencer talks about the continuous line of Sinhalese kings during the Chola period in the Rohana kingdom. “Ironically, the Chola settlements in the north in turn became targets of attack and plunder, partly because the Sinhalese "enemy"-remnants of the royal court and some chiefs who supported it were now more dispersed and capable of organizing guerrilla resistance. Since members of the royal house of Ceylon were natural rallying-points for counterattacks, the Cholas were anxious to seize them. The Culavamsa admits that Rajendra's forces captured King Mahinda and transported him to India, where he eventually died in exile.47 But Prince Kassapa, son of Mahinda, hid in Rohana, where Chola forces vainly searched for him. Kassapa assumed the title of Vikkamabahu I and ruled" in Rohana for several years (c. I029-Io4I)48 while attempting to organize a campaign of liberation and unification””

Thus it is clear that Cholar only had an influence on the Rohana kingdom of the south of Sri Lanka, not direct control. Lipwe (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

New details:

Chola only had complete control of the Anuradhapura Kingdom, while the Principality of Ruhuna (Ruhunu Rata) was still under Sinhalese kings. States of the Principality of Malaya is not clear. The following map shows the area under each administrative unit. The corrected map only included the Principality of Ruhuna (Ruhunu Rata) as the area of influence, while the entire Principality of Malaya was put under Chola control, even though this might not be the case.

Requested move 6 October 2022

Chola dynasty → Chola Empire – Enter the correct name please J.k.r0012 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the target article that validates this claim. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bro check this link:

Chola Empire - INSIGHTSIAS (insightsonindia.com)

This is an official link. 2406:7400:63:66FA:FC02:3036:74DA:1736 (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@J.k.r0012: Pinging requester to let them know the discussion moved here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose In fact there would be room for both articles, but the "Imperial Cholas" represent only part of the history. This old discussion is relevant. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Chola Dynasty" is the more common name. >>> Extorc.talk 20:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The initiater haven't given any reason for the move and I don't see any. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I just wanted to add about the descendants of Cholas as you could find it with evidence in google and other sites Descendant of Pandya (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Religion...

User:Tamilpadai You are in disagreement with multiple editors. Discuss your concerns here first instead of reverting again and again. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

He has already violated the WP:3RR by carrying out 4 reverts. >>> Extorc.talk 06:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamilpadai @Akshaypatill I'll introduce some sources here that clearly point out that Shaivism is a sect/faction/tradition of Hinduism.

• Peter Bisschop 2011 -

  While it has always been recognized that Shaivism, together with Vaishnavism, constitutes one of the major traditions of Hinduism, it has become increasingly clear that Shaivism, in fact, played a key role in the development of Brahmanical Hinduism.....During the early medieval period, Shaivism became the dominant religious tradition of many Hindu regional kingdoms...

• Constance A. Jones, James D. Ryan 2006 -

  Shaivism is the formal name for the group of traditions that worship Shiva as the supreme divinity..... This loose sect, which encompasses by far the large majority of Hindus, probably began ....

  - which encompasses by far the large majority of Hindus clearly means that Shaivites are a subset of Hindus.

>>> Extorc.talk 07:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Not needed really. We already have a Wiki page for that- Shaivism. "Shaivism (/ˈʃaɪvɪzəm/; Sanskrit: शैवसम्प्रदायः, Śaivasampradāyaḥ) is one of the major Hindu traditions that worships Shiva, which also includes Vaishnavism, Shaktism, and Smartism as the Supreme Being." Akshaypatill (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I know really. Just setting the ground with the most basic undisagreeable information. >>> Extorc.talk 07:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

::Here's my response that During Chola dynasty period Shivaism was the religion and not Hinduism.

Sources   Ref 1: Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Dravidians-Fichte, 1908, James Hastings. In page 24 second row para 2: "The spread of worship of Siva was in the 10th century further fostered by the conquests by the Chola Saiva Monarch Raja Raja" It also talks about How Chola kings many times persecuted Vaishnavites and their religion during their rule. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_of_Religion_and_Ethics_Dra/xC1JAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=raja+raja+chola+religion&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover Ref 2: The Siddhanta Deepika Or the Light of Truth, 1898 In page 185,second row and first para: "Raja Raja Chola professed the Saiva religion: and temples dedicated to Shiva were far more numerous in Tamil land than those of Vishnu." Line 12 further talks about the Court religion of the Cholas: "The court religion being Saivism, it was, of course in evidence everywhere." https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Siddhanta_Deepika_Or_the_Light_of_Tr/W-gSAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA185&printsec=frontcover This ref talks about Saiva as a religion in Chola period and it being the court religion (official) as well. Ref 3: Ancient India, 1911, Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar Page 256, para 1 and line 9: "Thus the we see Vaishnavaism as a religion was in existence long before the days of Ramanujan, however much he may have reformed altered or added it." The next para in the same pages says" "The advance of Chola power in South India marks the advances also of the Saiva Religion, as most of the sovereign were of Saiva persuasion and richly endowed the temples" Same para line 10: "Saiva and Vaishnava, had borne fruit in the increased attention to religion" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ancient_India/mrYBAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA256&printsec=frontcover All clearly indicated Saiva was a separate religion during Chola rule and Saiva was the official religion of the chola kingdom. Ref 4: History of Tamilnad, 1978, N. Subrahmanian In page 382: "The cholas were however consistently staunch Saivites. But while following Saivism as their parental religion and building and providing for Siva shrines they were not hostile to other religion." https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_Tamilnad/bU1uAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=chola+religion&dq=chola+religion&printsec=frontcover Ref 5: The Journal of the Music Academy, Madras, 1987 In page 80: "They actively patronized Saivism and the arts inspired by this religion." indicating Saivism was a separate religion by itself during Chola period. Ref 6: Essays and Lectures Chiefly on the Religion of the Hindus, Horace Hayman Wilson, 1861 In page 36, second para: "On his return to Sri Ranga, the disputes between the Vaishnava and Saiva religions, became exceedingly violent and the Chola Monarch, who accordingly to some accounts, was at that time Kerikala Chola, being a devout worshipper of Siva" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Essays_and_Lectures_Chiefly_on_the_Relig/sf1MAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA36&printsec=frontcover This also indicates that during Chola rule Vaishnava and Saiva was separate religions and the Chola Monarchs followed Saiva Religion. Ref 7: Critique of Hinduism and Other Religions, 1996 Lakshmaṇaśāstrī Jośī The author says: "Shaiva and Vaishnav religions, i.e, those that are based on traditional philosophy and assimilated into the Hindu religion." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Hinduism_and_Other_Religions/9xm7Jub14JMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Shaiva+religion+vaishnava+religion&pg=PR9&printsec=frontcover Ref 8: South Indian Bronzes: A Historical Survey of South Indian Sculpture with Iconographical Notes Based on Original Sources, 1978, Ordhendra Coomar Gangoly. In page 97, The author says: "South indian bronzes belong to the hey day of the Chola kings who were enthusiastic patrons of Shaiva Religion and must have kept busy many generations" https://www.google.com/books/edition/South_Indian_Bronzes/hVrqAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Shaivism+religion+chola&dq=Shaivism+religion+chola&printsec=frontcover Ref 9: The Imperial Cholas On page 191 under section Religion under Cholas: "Saivism is the worship of Siva as the supreme god. Saivism is not only the oldest but also the Most Predominant Religion in Tamil Nadu" http://gcwk.ac.in/econtent_portal/ec/admin/contents/90_P18HSC103_2020110502063319.pdf Ref 10: Ethnicity, Culture, and Nationalism in North-east India, 1996, M. M. Agrawal. Page 72 in second para and last line it says: "In Hindu society the religion of Shivaism is different from the religion of Vaishnavism and the religion of Vaishnavism is different from the religion of Vedanta" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ethnicity_Culture_and_Nationalism_in_Nor/2NoK24t_dPMC?hl=en&gbpv=1 Ref 11: Indian Culture: A Compendium of Indian History, Culture and Heritage, S. Naganath Under section C. Southern Sri Lanka and last sentence. The author says: "The chola kings introduced Shaiva Religion and Tamil language into Sri Lanka." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Indian_Culture/7xg6EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Shaivism+religion+chola&pg=PT399&printsec=frontcover Ref 12: The Hindu Speaks on Religious Values, 2000, N. Ravi "Each of the religions, including Vaishnavism of Sri Ramanuja and Saivam of Saiva Siddhaantha, has distinct features of its own. There are also points of differences between one religion and another." https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Hindu_Speaks_on_Religious_Values/cnLXAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=saivam+religion+vaishnavam&dq=saivam+religion+vaishnavam&printsec=frontcover Ref 13 : Arts and Crafts of Tamilnadu, 1992, Nanditha Krishna "But the classical age of Tamil culture belongs to the period of Cholas, who ruled from AD 850 to 1279. Shaivism received official patronage." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Arts_and_Crafts_of_Tamilnadu/KfvqAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=raja+raja+chola+official+shaivism&dq=raja+raja+chola+official+shaivism&printsec=frontcover Ref 14: Mother India, Monthly Review of Culture · Volume 50, 1997, Sri Aurobindo Ashram "Yet he wielded his sceptre in justice and cared very much for the growth of Saiva Religion. He took Intrest in upkeep of the temples all over his domain....Once King Pugazh Cholan went to Karur, another of his capitals." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mother_India/1s7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Saiva%20religion Ref 15: Caste, Class, and Power, 1965, André Béteille In page 13, third para line 8: "The Telugu Nayakars in particular were patrons of Vaishnava religion" This indicates Vaishnava was a separate religion in itself ever after the Chola rule which ended in 1279. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Caste_Class_and_Power/5Sk1jX1p0ZAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA13&printsec=frontcover Ref 16: Medieval Indian Literature: Surveys and selections (Assamese-Dogri), 1997, K. Ayyappa Paniker In page 513, line 3: "These Chola emperors were consolidators of Shaiva faith. They were also responsible for parallel upsurge of Vaishnava religion with their occasional benefaction" This indicates that Shaiva was a religion on its own during Chola period and they were against the Vaishnava religion many times during their rule. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Medieval_Indian_Literature_Surveys_and_s/KYLpvaKJIMEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA513&printsec=frontcover Ref 12: Rupam, 1985. The author says: "Belong to the heyday of Chola kings who were enthusiastic patrons of Shaiva religion" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Rupam/M5lAAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Shaivism+religion+chola&dq=Shaivism+religion+chola&printsec=frontcover Ref 13 The History of India from the Earliest Ages, Volume 4, Part 2, 1881, James Talboys Wheeler This one talks about Vaishnava religion. Between CE 1113 to CE 1164 the King Rai of Belai kingdom was converted to Vaishnava religion by Ramanuja : Page 562 fourth para and line 1: "Ramanuja converts raja to Vaishnavism religion" https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_India_from_the_Earliest_A/dmcDAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA562&printsec=frontcover Thus indicating Vaishnava was a separate religion. All these references from books and journals only proves that Shaivism was a separate religion during Chola dynasty and Shaivism was the official religion as well. It also proves that Vaishnava was a separate religion and at many times in Chola history the monarchs prosecuted Vaishnavites. Throughout history Cholas were the followers of Shaivite religion and that was their official religion of the country though most of the time were tolerant with other religions such as Vaishnavism, Jainism and Buddhism. Moden day Indians and Hindutuva followers might wish to believe otherwise but the History is already written and never in Chola land and Tamil rule Shivaism and Vaishnavism where under one umbrella or religion. They both were separate. Period.

Tamilpadai (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamilpadai The argument that you are presenting is analogous to saying that Sunni Islam is not a part of Islam and should be called the Sunni religion.
None of the sources presented by you talk about Hinduism and Shaivism together in the same context.
Even if some sources call Shaivism a religion, that doesn't mean that it isn't a part of Hinduism.
>>> Extorc.talk 11:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. And Hinduism as a term did not exist until Persians and The British came to the Indian Sub Continent. What we need to look at is What was the religion of Cholas? For that i have provided enough evidence that Shaivisim was a separate religion during their time and it was their state religion.

Hinduism was never a term back them.

You are confusing with Modern day Hinduism with the then separate religion Shaivism and Vaishnavism. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Moden day Indians and Hindutuva followers - Kindly keep the discussion within the scope of Chola's avoiding WP:POV. >>> Extorc.talk 11:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

::Shaivism in the modern days might be under one Hinduism but Shaivisim during Chola Rule was a separate religion. That's all we need to consider.

The question is what was the Cholas religion?

The answer is Shaivism.

Why not Hinduism?

Because Hinduism as a collective form (under one umbrella) did not exist in Chola Land during their rule. Here we are talking about the Cholas official religion and not Nepal's or India's. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC) sock

Im sorry but any effort made by you cannot deny the fact that Shaivism by definition is a sect/faction/tradition of..... of? HINDUISM.

Just because most practitioners of Buddhism in Sri Lanka are Theravada Buddhists, we cant let you invent a new religion called Theravada religion. >>> Extorc.talk 11:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, Shivaism a sect of Hinduism is only during the modern Times. During Chola rule or even after their rule in 1279 and up until Nayakkar rules it was two separate religions.

"The Telugu Nayakars in particular were patrons of Vaishnava religion"

This indicates Vaishnava was a separate religion in itself ever after the Chola rule which ended in 1279.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Caste_Class_and_Power/5Sk1jX1p0ZAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA13&printsec=frontcover

We are only looking at what is the religion of The cholas? And if it Shivaism, then was Shivaism a separate religion or a sect? It was a separate religion as indicated by many references. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because cholas were following it, doesnt mean it becomes a religion. I repeat, Even though you aren't showing any intent on acknowledging what I'm saying., that Shaivism by definition is a sect/faction/tradition of Hinduism. It is not a religion. >>> Extorc.talk 11:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources that you have provided vouch for your argument that Shaivism and Hinduism were different in the past but I have provided you sources which say that Shaivism and Hinduism are intertwined. Unless you can provide multiple sources which can establish that, we cannot reach anywhere except towards my argument. >>> Extorc.talk 11:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Your argument is not constructive. The Cholas were following it as a religion as indicated by the refs.

"They actively patronized Saivism and the arts inspired by this religion."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Journal_of_the_Music_Academy_Madras/dwgFAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=chola+religion&dq=chola+religion&printsec=frontcover

"The cholas were however consistently staunch Saivites. But while following Saivism as their parental religion and building and providing for Siva shrines they were not hostile to other religion."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_Tamilnad/bU1uAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=chola+religion&dq=chola+religion&printsec=frontcover

"But the classical age of Tamil culture belongs to the period of Cholas, who ruled from AD 850 to 1279. Shaivism received official patronage."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mother_India/1s7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Saiva%20religion

"The court religion being Saivism, it was, of course in evidence everywhere."

I repeat, Shivaism was a separate religion back then. There was no Hinduism (a religion where Shivaism and Vaishnavism considered as one.)

Well, all the sources i have provided calls Shivaism as a separate religion. That's we need and the Hinduism you call today did even exist. It was separate religion. As i told you, in modern times Shivaism is considered a sect but back then it was a separate religion.

This article is about The Chola Dynasty and not the Republic of India. The modern day Hinduism did not exist back then. Period. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Typo: *the Hinduism you call today didn't even exist. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) sock

Tamilpadai All you need to read is Shaivism. What you are doing is trying to change the definition of that page. And in this case we would need sources that shows that Shaivism and Hinduism are seperate faiths and doesn't share the relation that the current Shaivism page iterates. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That's irrelevant here. We are talking about the Chola dynasty and their religion. What all were the religions that existed during their time and what was the one they followed. Period.

It was not the current republic of India back then. It was a separate country under the Chola rule emperors. You are talking from Modern day perspective of Hinduism but I ask you see from Chola era perspective. It's not that complicated. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

How can the definition of Shaivism itself be irrelevant. It is completely if not more relevant than anything else here. >>> Extorc.talk 11:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Everything about Shaivism is modern day Hinduism perspective. But during chola era it was not the case. Both Shivaism and Vaishnavism was a separate religion and there was no Hinduism. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Kindly provide sources to support Both Shivaism and Vaishnavism was a separate religion and there was no Hinduism. >>> Extorc.talk 11:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

When did I add Modern Day Hinduism as a religion to the page. We are talking about Hinduism, of which Shaivism is a sect. Any other definition of Shaivism doesn't comply with RS. >>> Extorc.talk 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to User:Tamilpilai's claim , here is what our article on Hinduism says- "Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world." Why is this so, if it didn't exist back then? Akshaypatill (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Please understand the Hinduism as a word or as even a religion(a combined form) did not exits for at lease 1000 years back. The Persians called it sindhs and britishers called Hindus. Over time the Shivaism religion and Vaishnavaism religion all has become come under one religion which is what we call as Hinduism. Shivaism and Vaishnavism are older religions by itself. In fact Shivaism is pre-vedic religion. Since in the modern day Hinduism now includes Shivaism and Vaishnisvis togather then Hinduism can be called one of the oldest religion in the world because Shaivism (an old religion) is now considered under Hinduism. Tamilpadai (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Modern scholars call Shaivism a major Hindu traditions and not a seperate religion and that's how we should call it here too. You can write all this in the body, but that too will be irrelevent as this isn't a page about Shaivism or Hinduism. Here is list of religions in India - [[1]] and it does not list Shaivism as a seperate religion. So your arguments are not valid. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No, modern scholars call it so in the Modern perspective and not what it was during the Chola era. We should call how it was during Chola era as this is a page about the Cholas. As i said Shivaism is not a separate religion now but it was back then it was separate.

So for example, let's assume Burma, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh all become part of India in future and over time all their respective religions and long with India's were unified and called under a new name. So when you write an article about the past Sri Lanka or past Pakistan do your say their religion in the new religious name (a new umbrella term for Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism) or do you state the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka was once a buddhist country? Tamilpadai (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

My arguments are valid. Your logic is not valid when you compare and talk only in the perspective of current form of Hinduism and not Chola Era Shaivam and Vaishnavism. This page is about them and what it was back then. Simple. Tamilpadai (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

My arguments are valid. Your logic is not valid when you compare and talk only in the perspective of current form of Hinduism and not Chola Era Shaivam and Vaishnavism. This page is about them and what it was back then. Simple. Tamilpadai (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Carefully read- Indian religions. I would like to see sources that tells that Shaivism was seperate religion back then and wasn't part of Hinduism. Check [[2]]

The Epic and Early Puranic period, from c. 200 BCE to 500 CE, saw the classical "Golden Age" of Hinduism (c. 320-650 CE), which coincides with the Gupta Empire. In this period the six branches of Hindu philosophy evolved, namely Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mīmāṃsā, and Vedanta. Monotheistic sects like Shaivism and Vaishnavism developed during this same period through the Bhakti movement.

Akshaypatill (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This clearly shows that Hinduism predates Shaivism, which was mere monotheistic sect of Hinduism like the others. Unless you point to the sources proving otherwise, 'Hinduism" remains as the religion of Cholas in the article. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

.edit request on 9 October 2022

The cholas belonged to Saivism as a religion. Hinduism did not exist when the latter Cholas ruled which is about 1000 years ago. The word Hindu was brought into by the British about 300 years ago. Hence please correct the religion to Saivism. 49.204.143.168 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. >>> Extorc.talk 11:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)