Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c12: Chapter VII. Narasimhavarman I (Mahamalla) A.D. 630-660

History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c12

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. Narasimhavarman I (Mahamalla) A.D. 630-660

c12.2

NARASIMHAVARMAN I succeeded Mahendravarman I on the Pallava throne about A.D. 630. He is called in some of his inscriptions, Vātāpi-Koṇḍa-Narasimhavarman and this alludes to his supreme achievement, namely, the capture and destruction of Vātāpi (Badami in the Bijapur District). He is one of the most remarkable sovereigns of the line of Simhaviṣṇu, and the Pallava empire must have been considerably enlarged during his reign. His reign is well-known for the following :—(1) Invasion and capture of Vātāpi; (2) Invasion of Ceylon; (3) The excavation works at Māmallapuram; (4) The visit of the Chinese pilgrim to Kāñchīpuram.

c12.3

*The Chālukya-Pallava Relations.*—It has already been seen that in about the middle and closing years of his father, Pulakēśin II advanced as far as the city of Kāñchī, forcing ‘the lord of the Pallavas to retreat behind the walls of Kāñchīpuram.’¹ The Kūram plates ² belonging to the reign of Paramēśvaravarman I mention the important fact that Narasimhavarman I inflicted a crushing defeat on Puḷakēśin, in the battles of Pariyaḷa, Maṇimangala and Śūramāra. The exact locality corresponding to these places cannot, at this distance of time, be made out except in the case of Maṇimangala which may be safely identified with the modern village of Maṇimangalam, situated at a distance of only twenty miles from Kāñchī. This reference in the Kūram plates indicates another Chālukya invasion early in Narasimhavarman’s reign on which occasion the Chālukya army would appear to have advanced very near the Pallava capital itself before it sustained the defeat mentioned in the record.

c12.4

¹ Ep. Ind., vol. vi, p. 11.

c12.5

² S.I.I., vol. i, p. 152.

c12.6

Raid on Vātāpi.—Shortly after the repulse of the Chālukya armies from the neighbourhood of Kāñchīpuram, Narasimhavarman I made serious preparations for a counter-invasion into the Chālukya territory. This expedition was entrusted to the command of Śiru-Toṇḍa who was known otherwise as Paranjōti. That this aggressive expedition under the command of Śiru-Toṇḍa marched against the Chālukya capital, captured it and returned with great spoils to Kāñchi is learnt from the life of Paranjōti,¹ otherwise Śiru-Toṇḍar in the *Periyapurāṇam*. The Vēlūrpāḷayam plates refer to this exploit:—‘From his son Mahēndra was born Narasimhavarman I famous like Upēndra (Vishṇu) who, defeating the host of his enemies took from them the pillar of victory standing in the centre of Vātāpi.’² This is also referred to in a mutilated inscription found at Vātāpi³ and written in characters of this period, probably put up by Narasimha to commemorate his capture of the city. This record, although mutilated, contains the surname Mahāmalla, and the words *Kshitibhujām-agrēsara Pallava* and (Nara) *simha-vishṇu*. From these it is clear that Narasimhavarman I captured the city of Vātāpi; and probably set up a pillar of victory at this place recording this achievement. There can, therefore, be no doubt regarding the capture of the city by the Pallava king.

c12.7

¹ > மன்னவர்க்குத் தண்டுபோய் வடபுலத்து வாதவித்

c12.8

² *S.I.I.*, vol. ii, p. 508, verse 11.

c12.9

³ *Ind. Ant.*, vol. ix, p. 199.

c12.10

Ceylon Invasion.—The circumstances that led to the intervention of Narasimhavarman I in the affairs of Ceylon are gathered chiefly from the *Mahāvaṃśa*.⁴ It appears from this account that Mānavamma, a Ceylon prince, having become an exile fled to India, and, arriving at the city of Kāñchīpuram, managed to enter service under Narasimhavarman I with a view to secure his aid and ultimately to gain the Ceylon throne.

c12.11

⁴ The *Mahāvaṃśa*, ch. 47 (Turnour's translation).

c12.12

தொன்னகரந் துகளாகத் துன்னெலில்கை வரைபுகைத்துப்
பன்மணிய நிதிக்குவையும் பகட்டினமும் பரித்தொகையும்
இன்னனவெண்ணிலகவர்ந்தே பிகலாசன் முன்கொணர்ந்தார்—
*Per. Pur.*, Life of Paranjoti, *v.* 6.

c12.13

Here he is described as having constantly engaged himself in service of the king and proved his trustworthiness by many an act of bravery and loyalty. The *Mahāvaṃśa* mentions in great detail the various acts of Mānavamma, particularly his services to Narasimhavarman I in his wars against the Vallabha, the Chālukya king : how once king Vallabha came to make war against Narasimha and how the Pallava king with a view to test Manavamma left him at his capital city and proceeded to the battle-field alone, and how Manavamma’s affection caused him to leave the safety of the fortified capital and join his king in the field of battle in victory, defeat, or death. Such action was bound to increase Narasimha’s esteem for him, and it is therefore not surprising that when the Ceylon prince prepared to go back to his country Narasimhavarman I gave him a strong escort and an army with which he was able to secure the Ceylon throne. But this success did not last long. Soon after, his army deserted him and the Prince of Ceylon came back once more to seek the help of Narasimhavarman I. Again Narasimhavarman I gave him an army much bigger than before, and this time the Pallava king himself accompanied his troops as far as the harbour where his men went on board on their voyage to the shores of Ceylon. It is noteworthy that this naval expedition of Narasimhavarman I set sail from the ancient Pallava port, Mahābalipuram, which, according to contemporary account was a harbour at this time. It is worthy of note that Hiuen-Tsang¹ who stayed in the city for a considerable time (*circa* 642) recorded the fact that ships go to Ceylon from Kāñchi, and that it extended by twenty miles to the coast.² Tirumaṅgai Āḻvār also records that Mahābalipuram was a busy port in his hymns on this place and particularly notes that in its harbour ride at anchor ‘vessels bent

c12.14

¹ Beal, *Records*, vol. ii, p. 228.

c12.15

² புலங்கொள் நிதிக்குவைபோடு புழைக்கைமாகளிற்றினமும்

c12.16

நலங்கொள் நவமணிக்குவையும் சுமந்தெங்கும் நான்றொசிந்து
கலங்கனியங்கும் மல்லைக்கடன் மல்லைத்தலசயனம்
வலங்கொள் மனத்தாரலவர் வலங்கொள் என்மடநெஞ்சே-
*Peria Tirumoḻi*, Kaḍanmallai Hymns, 6.

c12.17

to the point of breaking laden as they are with wealth, big trunked elephants and nine gems in heaps.’

c12.18

This second naval expedition was a complete success and must have made a profound impression on the contemporary powers of South India.¹ The Kaśākkuḍi plates which confirm the conquest of Ceylon justly compare this achievement of Narasimhavarman I with that of Rama’s conquest of Lanka.² Prince Mānavamma was firmly placed on the throne, and not until Narasimhavarman I’s death did trouble overtake him again.

c12.19

¹ ‘It is certainly astonishing that in the inscriptions of the Pallavas and other Southern dynasties no reference whatever is made to the relations-which in those days must have existed between Coromandel and the Far East. The explanation probably is that those relations, of which the accounts of the Chinese pilgrims have left us such a valuable record were of a perfectly peaceful nature. Suppose the powerful Pallava princes of Kāñchīpura had equipped armadas and carried their arms to the remote shares of Campā and Java, may we not assume that their conquests on the far side of the ocean would have been extolled in their praçastis with no less effusion than we find lavished on their victories over the Chalukyas?’—J. Ph. Vogel—The Yupa Inscriptions of King Mulavarman.

c12.20

² S.I.I., vol. ii, p. 343, verse 22.

c12.21

Monuments of Narasimhavarman I. Improvement of Mahābalipuram.—Like his father, Narasimhavarman I was a lover of building temples all over his kingdom. Some of his earlier monuments such as the cave temples at Trichinopoly district and Pudukotta were excavated from out of rocks as those of Mahendravarman I. The peculiar features of the monuments of Narasimhavarman have been described by A. H. Longhurst as follows :—‘The cave temples are excavated in the face of the rock in the same manner as those belonging to the earlier period, but their facades are usually more ornamental and contain pillars of a different variety. On plan the interiors are much the same as those of the cave temples of the Mahendra style, with similar small square shrine chambers cut in the back wall which are usually free from ornament within. The pillared-hall in front of the shrine often contains large panels cut in the side walls filled with sculptural figures in high relief. These are usually of great beauty and executed with remarkable skill. The interior too of the more ornamental cave temples is provided with cornice and plinth mouldings.

c12.22

‘The most striking feature about the Māmalla style is the curious shape of the pillars.¹ The square heavy pillars with corbel-capitals of the earlier period are replaced by pillars of a more elegant shape and better proportion. The base of the pillar is carved in the shape of a conventional lion sitting very erect and carrying the shaft of the column on the top of its head. This shaft is still octagonal in section but of better proportion and crowned with a bulbous capital having a flat abacus. Between the capital and the architrave is usually a double-bracket supporting the cornice. This latter feature is obviously a stone copy of a wooden model.’²

c12.23

¹ Note by Editor.

c12.24

² *Arch. Report for 1918-1919*, p. 26 ff. Also see same writer’s remarks in *Pallava Architecture*, Part i, *Memoirs of the Arch. Surv. India*, No. 17, p. 11.

c12.25

According to Mr. Longhurst examples of Māmalla style are only found at the Seven Pagodas. ‘It will be remembered,’ says he, ‘that it was Māmalla who founded Māmallapuram naming the town after himself.³ Although most of the monuments there may be said to be in the Māmalla style it is quite certain that all of them could not possibly have been excavated during his life time, as the work must have taken over a century and even then was never finished. Therefore we may presume that Māmalla’s son and successor Mahēndravarman II and also the latter’s son Paramēśvaravarman I, carried on the work begun by Māmalla keeping more or less to the original style. . .’

c12.26

³ In the opinion of the late James Fergusson derived from a study of the sculptures and the architecture the date of the Seven Pagodas is somewhat earlier than 700, but their execution may have been spread over half a century or even more and that A.D. 650 or 700 may be safely relied upon as the date at which the rocks were carved into the wondrous forms which excite our admiration. *Cave Temples of India*, p. 110.

c12.27

Dr. Hultzsch on the age of the Seven Pagodas.—About the exact age of the monuments of the Seven Pagodas the views of scholars differ considerably. According to Venkayya⁴

c12.28

⁴ *A.S.R.*, 1906-7, p. 234.

c12.29

Mahābalipuram was founded by Narasimhavarman I, surnamed Mahāmalla,¹ after his own surname and that the earliest of them cut out by him.

c12.30

¹ Note by Editor on the age of Mahabalipur.

c12.31

The place is ordinarily supposed by most official Epigraphists and Western archæologists to have had no previous history² or existence although the mention of this place by the earliest Ālvārs and the recent discovery of inscribed statues of Simhavishnu and his son Mahendravarman I clearly goes against such a presumption. According to Dr. Huitzsch the majority of short epigraphs on the monolith now styled Dharmarāja Ratha resemble those of the Mahēndravādi and Śiyyamangalam cave inscriptions of the Pallava king Mahēndravarman. Among the names and surnames of the king who excavated the Dharmarāja Ratha, we find twice the name of Narasimha which seems to have been his actual name while the remaining designations look like mere surnames. Among the successors of Mahēndravarman I there are two kings named Narasimhavarman. As the type of the alphabet is more archaic than that of the second of the inscriptions which probably belongs to Paramēśvaravarman I, father of Rājasimha, Narasimhavarman of Dharmarāja Ratha inscriptions may be identified with Narasimhavarman I, the son of Mahēndravarman I. This identification is rendered almost certain by a reference to the published facsimile.³

c12.32

² According to Jouveau-Dubreuil the monuments at the Seven Pagodas do not go back prior to the seventh century, A.D. see his Archæologie du sud de L'Inde, tome i, pp. 74-102. His theories on the age and the evolution of Pallava monuments are generally followed by A. H. Longhurst, V. A. Smith and Ananda C. Coomaraswamy in his recent work on the History of Indian and Indonesian Art. (pp. 102-104.)

c12.33

³ Hultzsch, Ep. Ind., vol. x, p. 1 ff.

c12.34

About the year A.D. 642, the celebrated Chinese pilgrim and Master of Law, Hiuen-Tsang, visited the Pallava capital and appears to have stayed there a considerable time. He described the country round the capital by the name of Drāviḍa, and extending about 6000 *li* in extent. The soil was fertile and produced abundance of crops. He found the climate of the region hot, and the character of the people courageous. The people were deeply attached to the principles of truth and highly esteemed for their learning¹ a fact which is also noted by one of the *Tēvāram* hymnists.²

c12.35

¹ Beal, *Records*, vol. ii, p. 228.

c12.36

² கல்விபே ரறிவாளர் கஞ்சனூர் — Appar, *Tēvāram*, *Tirukachchimērrali Patikam*, verse 8.

c12.37

As regards Buddhism the pilgrim found some hundred *Sanghārāmas*, and 10,000 priests all of whom studied the teaching of the *Sthavira* school of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The Hindu, including the Jaina temples numbered about eighty and in other parts around he found that the sect of the Digambaras had many adherents. Hiuen-Tsang also refers to the tradition current then that the Tathāgatha in olden times when he lived in this world frequented this part very much and converted many men. Therefore Asoka the Buddhist emperor is believed to have built a large number of *stūpas* here traces of which the pilgrim was able to notice in many places around Kāñchi. The Chinese pilgrim also refers to the tradition that Kāñchīpuram was the birth place of Dharmapāla, the well-known metaphysician who preceded Śīlabhadra as head of the great University of Nalanda. The pilgrim also visited Molo-kiu-chi (the Pāṇḍya country) where he found some of the inhabitants following the true doctrine, but others impetuous and wholly given to commercial gain. The Buddhist pilgrim also found that in the Pāṇḍya country his religion was in a state of decay though traces of monasteries were found everywhere.³

c12.38

³ Beal, *Records*, vol. ii, pp. 228-30.

c12.39

*Mahendravarman II*.—About A.D. 655, Narasimhavarman I, the Mahāmalla, died having raised the Pallava power to a glory unprecedented in Pallava history. The exact period of the duration of Narasimha’s reign is not known, but from the evidence of the *Mahāvaṃśa*, and the prolonged stay of Mānavamma at the court of this king as well as the military and naval enterprises associated with his reign, his reign must have lasted a fairly long time. He was succeeded by Mahendravarman II about whom practically nothing is known, except the reference in the Kūram plates that he ‘thoroughly enforced the sacred law of the castes and the orders.’¹ This probably indicates a peaceful reign free from disturbances of hostile invasions from outside. According to Mr. M. S. Ramaswami Aiyangar, Mahēndravarman II was the contemporary of Appar.² But there is no evidence to show that Mahēndravarman II was a Jain in the earlier part of his reign and that his conversion to Śaivaism was brought about by Appar. On the other hand, as we saw already, Appar was a contemporary of Mahēndravarman I, the son and successor of Simhavishṇu (A.D. 600–630).

c12.40

¹ The Vēlūrpāḷayam plates omit his name altogether from the genealogical list. *Ibid.*, *S.I.I.*, vol. ii. ² *Studies in South Indian Jainism*, p. 66. ³ *Ep. Ind.*, vol. x, No. 22, pp. 100-6. ⁴ As regards the identification of Uragapuram the statement in the plates that it was on the southern bank of the Kaveri makes it clear that it must have been the ancient Chōḷa capital Uraiyūr near Trichinopoly. Dr. Hultzsch was inclined to identify it with Nagapatam taking Uragapura to be a literal translation in Sanskrit of the Tamil word Nāga-Paṭṭinam. (*Ep. Ind.*, vol x, p. 102.) Attempts have been made to identify it with Pāmbūr. But the fact that Peruvaḷanallūr, where a battle was fought between the Pallavas and the Chālukyas, lies about twelve miles from Trichinopoly (north-west) shows the camp where Vikramāditya stayed and made this grant could not have been very much farther According to Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil (*Pallavas*, p. 43) Uragapuram is the ‘City of Ranarasika,’ of the Kailāsanātha temple inscription (*S.I.I.*, vol. i, p. 13). But it seems more sound to regard that Paramēśvaravarman I led another invasion against Badami, and that the Kailāsanātha temple inscription has reference to this achievement.

c12.41

Paramēśvaravarman I (circa 600 to 680).—With the accession of Paramēśvaravarman I we once again find ourselves in very stirring times. Invasions and counter-invasions of the Pallavas and the Chālukyas become once more the order of the day. His great Chālukyan contemporary was Vikramāditya I who, according to the Gadval plates,³ conquered Kāñchi, defeated Īśvarapōtarāja and destroyed the Mahāmalla family. This grant also gives the very important particular that at the time of the southern invasion, Vikramāditya I was encamped at Uragapura⁴ on the southern bank of the Kavēri. These plates furnish the details of date, i.e. the year both of the reign and of the Śaka era. The actual date of the grant as given in the record is the full-moon *tithi* of *Vaiśākha* in the twentieth year of the reign, which was current after 596 Śaka years had passed. According to Dr. Fleet the equivalent may be taken as Tuesday, 25th April, A.D. 674, which fully confirms the correctness of other dates obtained for the reign by Prof. Kielhorn.

c12.42

The details of the Pallava-Chālukya campaign are not clearly known from any records, but it is certain that success did not uniformly attend on the Chālukya invader. The Kūram record already referred to, which belongs to this period, after giving an elaborate account of the martial exploits of Paramēśvaravarman I mentions in particular the fact that he made Vikramāditya ‘whose army consisted of several *lakshas* take to flight covered only by a rag.’¹ Similarly the Vēlūrpāḷayam record² makes pointed reference to Paramēśvaravarman having crushed the conceit of his enemies like the sun destroying the mists. Neither of these grants furnishes any detail which might help us to locate the exact place where the Pallava and the Chālukyan forces met in battle. This very important detail is obtained from the Udayēndiram plates³ which mention the name of the site of battle as Peruvaḷanallūr which we may correctly identify with the village of Peruvaḷanallūr in the Lalgudi taluk of the Trichinopoly District. As we know that the Gadval plates mention the important detail that the Chālukya emperor was encamped in Uragapuram, this identification receives added confirmation, especially as this place lies a few miles from this village. The campaign between the Pallavas and the Chōḷas must have been therefore conducted in and around the town of Trichinopoly. A glowing description of the battle is given in the Kūram plates from which we learn that Paramēśvaravarman’s war-elephant was called Arivāraṇa and that his horse was known as Atiśaya.⁴

c12.43

¹ *S. I. I.*, vol. i, p. 144.

c12.44

² v. 11, Vēlūrpāḷayam plates, *ibid.*, vol. ii, p. 508.

c12.45

³ *Ibid.*, vol. ii, p. 371.

c12.46

⁴ ‘At the head of a battle,—in which the disk of the sun was caused to assume the likeness of the circle of the moon through the mist of the

c12.47

This king appears to have been a great devotee of Śiva and pleased that God by constructing large numbers of Śiva temples all over the kingdom. From the inscription on the Gaṇēśa temple at Māmallapuram,¹ Dr. Hultzsch has concluded that Atyantakāma after whom the temple is named must have been a surname of Paramēśvaravarman I himself

c12.48

¹ Ep. Ind., vol. x, p. 8.

c12.49

dust, there was produced by the marching of the countless troops of men, horses and elephants, which was terrible through the thunderlike sound of drums, which teemed with unsheathed swords that resembled flashes of lightning, in which elephants were moving like clouds, and which therefore resembled an unseasonable appearance of the rainy season; in which tall horses looked like billows, in which elephants caused distress on their path, just as sea-monsters produce whirlpools, in which conches were incessantly blown and which therefore resembled the gaping ocean; which was full of swords and shields, just as of rhinoceros, creepers and vāraṇa trees, which was crowded with heroes who possessed bows and mighty elephants, as if it were crowded with Sara (grass) and which was agitated by a violent wind in which the path of the wind was obstructed by arrows, that flew past each other on the bows, while these were bent by the warriors; in which javelins, pikes, darts, clubs, lances, spears, and discuses were flying about; in which troops of furious elephants firmly impaled each other's faces with the piercing thunderbolts of their tusks; in which squadrons of horsemen were connected by their swords, that had struck each other's heads, in which there were soldiers who were noted for their dexterity in fighting with sword against sword, pulling of hair against hair and club against club; in which the ground was thickly smeared with saffron as the blood was mixed with copious rutting juice of the elephants that issued in consequence of their considering each other as equals, or despising each other; in which both large armies had lost and dropped arms, necks, shanks, thigh bones and teeth; in which, owing to the encounter of the armies, both sides were broken, urged on, to put to flight and prostrated on the ground; which was attended by the goddess of fortune sitting on the swing of the doubt about mutual victory or defeat; in which brave warriors were marching on the back of lines of, fallen elephants, that formed a bridge over the flood of blood, in which soldiers stood motionless, if their blows did not hit each other's weak parts; which was covered here and there with shattered banners and parasols with fallen elephants and with dead and half dead soldiers who had done their duty whose strong arms still raised the weapon whose lips were bitten and whose eyes were deep red with fury; in which a multitude of white cāmaras was waving; in which tiaras, armlets, necklaces, ear-rings were broken, crushed and pulverised, in which the kūshmāndas, rākshasas and piśāchas were singing, intoxicated with drinking the liquor of the blood; and which contains hundreds of headless trunks, that were vehemently dancing together in a fearful manner according to the beaten time he, unaided, made Vikramāditya, whose army consisted of several lakshas take to flight, covered only by a rag.' (Kūram plates; Dr. Hultzsch's Translation, S.I.I., vol. i, p. 153 ff.)

c12.50

‘The second and very florid alphabet found in the inscriptions of the Pallava king Atyantakāma on the monolith now styled Gaṇēśa temple (No. 20), in the two caves called Dharmarājamaṇḍapa and Rāmānujamaṇḍapa. The same alphabet is employed in the Kāñchī inscriptions of Rājasimha and his son Mahēndravarman III. The Kāñchīpuram inscriptions state that Rājasimha was the son of Ugradaṇḍa the destroyer of Raṇarasika’s city and that the epithet Raṇarāsika refers to the Western Chāḷukya king Vikramāditya I (A.D. 655-680). The alphabet of the Atyantakāma’s inscription at the Seven Pagodas resembles so closely that of Kailāsanātha temple epigraphs that both must be assigned to the same period. That Atyantakāma’s actual name was Paramēśvara is seen from verse 2 of No. 20.’ ‘I propose to identify this Atyantakāma with either Paramēśvaravarman I, the father of Rājasimha or Paramēśvaravarman II, the son of Rājasimha preferably with the former.’

c12.51

It thus appears that the rock-cut monument known as the Gaṇēśa temple as well as the Rāmānujamaṇḍapa were probably excavated at the orders of Paramēśvaravarman and that the former one was a Śiva temple. From the eleven ślokas in the Gaṇēśa temple inscription we learn that Paramēśvaravarman I had Chitramāya, Guṇabhājana, Śrībhara and Raṇajaya as surnames. Vidyāvinīta Pallava was another title of Paramēśvaravarman I. In the village of Kūram Paramēśvaravarman appears to have built a structural temple to Śiva, called in the plates Vidyāvinīta-Pallava-Paramēśvaragṛha. The object of the Kūram grant is a gift of the village of Paramēśvaramaṅgalam (evidently named after the king) made to the temple of Śiva which had been built at Kūram by Vidyāvinīta Pallava. The village was probably named after the king himself and divided into twenty-five parts of which three were to be enjoyed by two Brahmans Anantaśivāchārya and Pullaśarman who looked after the divine service of the temple. The fourth part was set aside for the providing of water and fire for the temple maṇḍapa, the fifth for the reading of the Bhārata at this place while the remaining twenty parts were given to twenty Chaturvēdins. Kūram is described here as belonging to Mānyavantarāshṭra of Nīrvēlūr, a division of Uṛṛukāṭṭukoṭṭam.

c12.52

Narasimhavarman II—Rājasimha, circa 680-700.—Narasimhavarman II succeeded his father towards the close of the seventh century. His reign appears to have been completely peaceful and free from foreign invasions. Among the temples built by his king may be mentioned the Kailāsanātha temple, called the Rājasimhēśvara after his surname Rājasimha, the Airāvatēśvara temple at Kāñchi, the Shore-temple near the sea at Mahābalipuram, and the Panamalai temple all of which contain his inscriptions. The habit of registering the surnames of the ruling king begun by Mahēndravarman I appears to have become exceedingly popular now and was extensively put into practice by Rājasimha more than 250 of his birudas being found in the walls of the Kailāsanātha temple alone.¹

c12.53

¹ S.I.I., vol. i, Nos. 25 and 26, pp. 14-18.

c12.54

Some of these are:—‘Rishabalāñchana’, ‘Śrī-Śankarabhakta’, ‘Śrīvādyavidyādhara’, ‘Śrī-Āgamapriya’, ‘Śrī-Pratimalla’, ‘Śiva-Chūḍāmaṇi’, etc. These titles are suggestive of his personal tastes, his accomplishments and religious inclinations. The inscriptions of the Kailāsanātha temple besides the birudas of this king, include those of his son Mahēndravarman III and his queen Rangapatāka whose names are associated with the erection of a part of the temple.² This Rangapatāka appears to have been one of Rājasimha’s queens and her record consists of three Sanskrit verses in characters similar to Rājasimha’s inscription. This inscription registers the fact that the small Śiva shrine was constructed by Raṅgapatāka³ the Queen of Narasimhavishṇu, or Kālakāla whose sign was the bull.

c12.55

² Ibid., p. 23.

c12.56

³ Ibid.

c12.57

देवै जगद्वलयलक्षणबद्धदीक्षे निर्भिन्नशत्रुहृदये नरसिंहविष्णौ ॥
बाल्भ्य मूर्जितमवारप्य विराजतया निर्जित्य गर्वमिव पुष्करदेवतायाः

c12.58

निम्मापितमिदन्धाम तया चन्द्रशिखामणेः ।
पताकयेव नारीणां रम्यं रंगपताकया ॥

c12.59

The Monuments of Rajasimha.—The most important among the temples now existing, built by Rājasimha is that at Kāñchīpuram known as the Kailāsanātha temple. One of the inscriptions in this temple records the construction of this temple by Rājasimha. There is a story in the *Periyapurāṇam* account of Pūsalār Nāyanār¹ which mentions that a Kādava king built a temple to Śiva and heard a celestial voice directing the postponement of the consecration by a day as on the day appointed he had to be present at the temple of the devotee Pūsalār for a similar function. This presumably has a reference to that erected by Rājasimha as it is mentioned that Rājasimha heard a celestial voice in one of the inscriptions the Kailāsanātha temple in itself.² The construction of this temple is also referred to in the Vēlūrpālayam plates in the following terms:—Verse 13 ‘His (Paramēśvaravarman’s) son’s son was Narasimhavarman II who equal to Mahēndra once again organized the *ghaṭika* of the twice-born and built of stone a house for the moon-crested Śiva which was comparable to the Mountain Kailāsa. Among the other temples built during this period we may mention the Śiva temple at Panamalai, the Shore-temple at Seven Pagodas and the Airāvatēśvara temple at Kāñchīpuram. It has been doubted in some quarters whether or not the Shore-temple at Mahābalipuram is a Pallava structure. Recently about six Sanskrit verses in Pallava script have been discovered round the plinths of the two *balipīṭhas* here. The record is not complete but contains an eulogy of a Pallava king whose surnames were Atyantakāma, Aparājita, Śivachūḍāmaṇi,

c12.60

¹ காடவர் கோமான் கச்சிக்கற்றளி யெடுத்தமுற்ற மாடலாஞ் சிவனுக்காகப் பெருஞ்செல்வம் வகுத்தல்செய்யா ளுடபலறியாதாறைத் தாபிக்கு மன்னான் முன்னள் ஏடவர் கொன்றைவேந்தா சீர்விடைக் கனவிலெய்தி

c12.61

² *S.I.I.*, vol. i, p. 12.

c12.62

மின்றலர்பூசலன்ப னெடிகரா ணிணைந்து செய்த என்றநீ டாலயத்து நாளைநாம் புகுவோநீயில் கொன்றிய செயலொன்ற பொழிந்துபின் கொள்வதென்ற கொன்றைவார் சடையார்தொண்டர் கோயில்கொண் டருளப்போந்தார். — *Per. Pur. Pūs. Nāy.* v. 9 and 10.

c12.63

etc., attributes that we now know belonged to Rājasimha. Another verse refers to him as Rājasimha, Raṇajaya, Śrībhara and Chitrakārmukha and is identical with verse 12 of the Kāñchīpuram inscription of Rājasimha. The mention in the record of the king as the ruling sovereign makes it almost certain that he was Rājasimha, son of Paramēśvaravarman I, who bore the surnames Kshatriyasimha and Rājasimha. The two Śiva temples of the Shore-temple Khatriyasimha Pallavēśvaram and Rājasimhapallavēśvaram were apparently contemporary with Rājasimhapallavēśvaram of Kāñchīpuram, and have been named after Rājasimha I.¹

c12.64

¹ Mad. Ep. Coll., 566 of 1912. Also see Antiquities of Mahābalipuram, Ind. Ant. for 1917, p. 49 ff.

Literature and Literary Patronage

c12.s1.1

The age of Narasimhavarman II was one of intense literary activity. It has been already pointed out that Sanskrit poets and Sanskrit culture were specially patronized by Pallava kings.² It is suggested that Daṇḍin, the well-known Sanskrit writer, probably flourished for some time in the Pallava court at Kāñchīpuram, and references to Kāñchīpura and its rules have been discovered in his works. In his Kāvyādarśa³ Daṇḍin mentions a Śaiva king Rājavarma who judging from the way in which he is spoken of must be regarded as his contemporary and probably was Rājasimha Pallava who according to his inscriptions is known to have been a very devout Śaiva.⁴ Prof. M. Rangachariar has also quoted a tradition with reference to chapter v of Kāvyādarśa⁵ that it was composed by Daṇḍin for giving lessons in rhetoric to a royal prince at Kāñchīpuram who in all probability was Rājasimha’s son.¹ All these references, taken along with the passage in *Kāvyādarśa* where Daṇḍin illustrates a particular form of composition by a couplet² which refers to the city of Kāñchī³ and its rulers the Pallavas and the evidence furnished by the recently-discovered *Avantisundarikathā*, make it clear that Daṇḍin lived for a considerable period at the Pallava court in Kāñchīpuram.

c12.s1.2

² In the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates Rājasimha is recorded to have revived the ghaṭika of the twice-born. The nature of learning acquired at the Brahminical ghaṭika is described in the Kaśākkuḍi plates ll. 71 ff (S.I.I., vol. ii, p. 358).

c12.s1.3

³ Ch ii, p. 279.

c12.s1.4

⁴ Tēśhamvamśēprasūtāt-Raṇarasikapurōn-mardhanāt Ugradanḍāt Subramanyakumārō Guha iva Paramāḍīśvarādāltajanmā. Śaktikshuṇṇārivarggōviditabahuṇayaś Śaivasiddhāntamārggō. Śrīmānatyantakāmah kshata Sakalamalō dhūrdharaḥ Pallavānām. S.I.I., vol. i, No. 24, 5, 6.

c12.s1.5

⁵ Ind. Ant., 1912, p. 90 ff.

c12.s1.6

¹ It is Rājasimha himself that appears to have been Āchārya Daṇḍin’s pupil from the *ślokas* under reference if the altered reading proves to be correct. *Ed.*

c12.s1.7

² *Kav. Dar.*, ch. 3, p. 114.

c12.s1.8

³ *Nāsikyamadyāparitaḥ chaturvarṇavibhūshitā.* *Astikāchitpurīyasyām-ashṭavarṇāhvayōnypāḥ.* *Kav.*, iii, 144. In commenting on this well-known enigma in Daṇḍin’s work Taruṇavāchaspati explains it as meaning Kāñchi ruled over Pallava kings. (Age of Daṇḍin, *Ind. Ant. for 1912*, p. 91).

c12.s1.9

Whether the series of dramas published at Trivandrum as Bhāṣa’s, were really composed during the reign of Rājasimha it is not possible to say. But certain scholars hold that *Svapnavāsavadatta* and other works of the series were abridged editions of the works of Bhāṣa prepared for the staging of them before the court of a Pallava king, presumably Rājasimha from the colophons of these plays. These plays bear a close resemblance to *Mattavilāsaprahasana* of Mahendravarman I. The evidence available seems to favour the view that the Pallava rather than the Pāṇḍya court was responsible for the production of these plays, if these are not Bhāṣa’s own.

c12.s1.10

*Parameśvaravarman II, A.D. 700-710.*—About the close of the first decade of the eighth century Rājasimha was succeeded on the Pallava throne by Parameśvaravarman II. The reign of this sovereign appears to have been shortlived. The Vīraṭṭāneśvara temple inscription of this king is dated in the third year of his reign. The Kasākkuḍi plates record of him that he conquered the coquetish ways of the Kali age, that he led the way of policy, which had been prescribed by Dhishaṇa (Bṛhaspati) and that he protected the worlds.’⁴

c12.s1.11

⁴ *Verse 26, S.I.I.*, vol. ii, No. 73, p. 357.

c12.s1.12

In the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates he is described as the chastiser of the Kali and that he governed according to the laws of Manu.¹ As we have no inscription dated in the years subsequent to his third regnal year we may 'presume' that his reign was very short.

c12.s1.13

¹ Verse 14, S.I.I., vol. ii, part v, p. 511.

Linked texts (23)