Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c19: Additional Notes by the Editor

History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c19

Language
English

Additional Notes by the Editor

c19.1

This work traces the descent of Daṇḍin in its introductory chapter. In doing so it brings his great grandfather Gopala as a fellow-pupil of Bhāravi whom it brings into contact with three kings of South India, namely, Viṣṇuvardhana, the father of Jayasiṃha I of the Cālukyas of Bādāmi; of Durvinīta, among the Gangas who was his own pupil and commented up on the 15th Sarga of the Kirātārjunīya and wrote a Sanskrit version of the Bṛhatkathā and Siṃhaviṣṇu of Kanchi. These details come out clearly from the MS. copy of the prose work *Avantisundarikathā*, not the versified *sāra* or abridgement, as shown by Pandit Harihara Sastri, Curator of Sanskrit MSS., Trivandram, in a paper presented to the fourth Oriental Conference in Allahabad.

c19.2

*Page 11, note 2.*

c19.3

The discovery of these panels raises the question as to the religion of the kings and the existence of the place. Siṃhaviṣṇu was a Vaiṣṇava as he is described as Siṃhaviṣṇu who worshipped Viṣṇu in devotion; *Bhaktyaradhita Viṣṇuḥ Siṃhaviṣṇuḥ*. His son and successor Mahendra is said to have been a Jain originally and then become a convert to Śaivism through Appar. It seems likely that he was Jain as in the *Mattavilāsa* he brings into ridicule the Śaiva Kāpālika and the Śākyas or Buddhists. He has no reference to the Jains. His father’s devotion to Vaiṣṇavism may explain its omission. His portrait in the Varāha cave may be due to the fact that he was there a prince with his father and like him, he may then have been a Vaiṣṇava. This raises the question of the origin of the place. There is little doubt that the place existed before whatever Mahamalla may have done to enlarge and beautify it.

c19.4

The style of pillar described does mark a distinct class of pillars. If Mahamalla originated it, as probably he did, his successors continued it, and we find this kind of pillar in buildings of later times of different ages. To mark it distinctly as having been originated by Mahāmalla we want a few undoubted examples of these ascribable to his age. We cannot say we get that in Mahābalipuram.

c19.5

*Page 102, note 1.*

c19.6

There is no evidence in support of the assertion that Narasimhavarman Mahāmalla founded the town. The town had the vernacular name Mallai and in that name was known earlier, as Bhūtattālvār, a native of the place refers to the place by that name. Tirumangai Ālvar a contemporary of Nandivarman Pallavamalla refers to the place as *kaḍal mallai-Talaśayanam*, meaning Mallai close to the sea which is otherwise known *Talaśayanam*, lying on land. This last is in reference to Viṣṇu who is abed on the earth, as though on the sea usually, to let a devotee have a view of him in that posture. It was called *kaḍal* Mallai to distinguish it from other Mallais clearly indicating that it is an ordinary native name. This is distinct from the Māmallapuram given to it by Mahāmalla, as is very commonly the case in South India. The village Mallai became the city Māmallapuram by this rechristening. Pandit M. Raghavaiyangar has suggested, from a reference in the *Śangam* classic *Perumbāṇārruppaḍai*, the identification of this place with *Nirpeyarttu* in the poem in the *Journal of Oriental Research*. This term means that which has the name of water and the Pandit finds justification for it in the name *Jalaśayanam* given to the Shore-temple in one of the later inscriptions. Tirumangai Ālvar's reference is *Talaśayanam* and not *Jalaśayanam*. It would be difficult to find a reason for the alteration. It must also be noted that *Jalaśayanam* is given to the *Śiva* shrine in the inscription. While the Pandit deserves credit for the suggestion, *Nir-peyarttu* is more likely to refer to another place *Tiru-Nir-Malai* near Pallāvaram and the poem has to be examined closely to see whether this is the place actually meant. (See *Indian Antiquary*, 1917; *The Antiquities of Mahābalipuram*, pp. 49 ff.)

c19.7

The views of the late Mr. H. K. Sastri seem to have been due entirely to a misconstruction of the *śloka* in the Taṇḍantoṭṭam plates and a misunderstanding of the word *punaḥ* (again). The previous verse refers to the conquest of the south and refers obviously to the exploits of Simhavishṇu of the main line. From these the genealogy passes on to the descendants of his younger brother Bhīmavarman. The first important character in this line is Hiraṇyavarma whose son Nandivarman Pallavamalla became a great Pallava ruler. The poet apparently spoke of Simhavishṇu as an *avatar* of Vishṇu and refers to Hiraṇya similarly as a second *avatar* of the same Vishṇu (*Bhuṟaṇyutējaḥ*). The use of the *punaḥ* (again) is then quite justified. There is no need to identify this Nandivarman with Nandi of Teḷḷāru and create difficulties to surmount. The first is given his peculiar title *Ēkadhīra* and he is described as a *Paramavaishṇava*. The other is described as an equally devout *Śaiva*. Each of them gives himself credit for such allegiance in religion in the concluding verses. There is no room for a second Hiraṇyavarma nor is there any need.

c19.8

*Page 138, note 2.*

c19.9

The name of this author Perundēvanār and his work *Bhāratavenba* have been too readily identified with the author Bhāratam-pāḍiya Perundēvanār and his *Bhāratam*. The first refers himself and his work to the reign of Nandivarman of Teḷḷāru and therefore to the ninth century beyond a doubt. In regard to the other however we have neither the work nor any extracts. He is regarded as the author of the invocatory poems to the eight Śangam collections of which the Ahanānūru collection was made for Ugra-Pāṇḍya by Rudra Śarman. An ancient Pāṇḍya, anterior to the genealogical lists, is given credit for having got the Bhāratam done into Tamil in the larger Sinnamanūr plates. This achievement is put on a footing of equality with the victory at Talaiālaṅgānam and the establishment of the Śangam in Madura. In the face of these distinctive features the identifications of the two Perundēvans would be impossible and the Bhāratam of the earlier Perundēvan cannot be the veṇbā that has come down to us in part.

Linked texts (8)