The Colas c20.31

c20.31

³⁵ 'Abhaya' in this verse x. 18 does refer to Vīrarājēndra cf. viii 29; and from this account of Vīrarājēndra's recognition of Kulōttūṅga, the conclusion has been drawn that Adhirājēndra was a bastard with no title to the throne.
36. vi. 7-26.
37. Fleet IA. xx. p. 281.
38. *IA.* xx. p. 282:
39. *IA.* xli pp. 217 ff.
40. Ed. Ālkoṇḍavilli Gōvindācārya-Mysore 1885, text in Telugu characters. Nāgarī text in the *Sahṛdayā* (New series).
41. *IA.* xxxviii pp. 129 ff. See, however, *IA.* xl p. 152, for a critique.
42. xviii 84:
43. To refrain from dogmatism in dealing with such shifty material is as necessary as it is difficult. Kṛmikaṇṭha-Cōḷa has generally been identified with Kulōttunga I, on the strength of the name Kulōttunga given to the Cōḷa persecutor of Rāmānuja in late works like the *Kōyilolugu*, A. Govindācāryasvāmin—*Life of Rāmānuja* (Madras 1906) p. 170. S. K. Aiyangar *Ancient India* pp. 150 and 207. Dr. Aiyangar is inclined to date the decline of Cōḷa power from the end of Kulōttunga I's reign. *op. cit.* pp. 152 and 318. It has been pointed out that the traditional date for the foundation of the temple at Mēlukōṭe is against this identification of Kṛmikaṇṭha. (IA. vol. xli. p. 224). It is possible that ‘Kulōttunga’ is used in late works as a generic name for Cōḷa. The name is not found even in the *Guruparamprāprabhāva*, (*Āṟāyirappaḍi*; ed. Madras 1927). Kṛmikaṇṭha-Cōḷa is said to have uprooted and thrown into the sea the image of Gōvindarāja from the front of the Naṭarāja shrine at Cidambaram, and this act of sacrilege is placed by the *Divyasūricarita* at the very beginning of the Cōḷa persecution of Viṣṇuism, (xviii 72). The same fact is recalled by the much later *Prapannāmṛtam* (quoted by Dr. S. K. Aiyangar *op. cit.* p. 320). The poet Oṭṭakkūttan seems to attribute this deed to Kulōttunga II—*Kulōttungaśōḻanulā* ll. 76-8; *Rājarājaśōḻan-ulā* ll. 64-6 which is most explicit, and *Takkayāgapparaṇi* v. 777. But no one, on this account, seems to be prepared to identify the persecutor of Rāmānuja with Kulōttunga II. This king is, however, known to have extended the temple of Naṭarāja by putting up new structures and 'gilding' it, and it may be that the Tamil poet in describing this act of his attributes to him a deed of one of his predecessors. Otherwise the genuineness of even the *Divyasūricarita* would be suspect.
44. 358 of 1917; 425 of 1912.
45. 497 of 1920; 55 of 1911; 279 of 1929; 185 of 1919.
46. 156 of 1923, (2); 101 of 1928, 468 of 1913 (4).
47. *SII.* iii pp. 132, 140.
48. The civil war between Adhirājēndra and the ‘usurper’ postulated in *ARE.* 1904 paragraph 21 is pure myth.
49. 145, 147, 151 of 1906; 142 of 1929; 55 of 1911; 586 of 1907; 267 of 1917; 126 of 1912.
50. *EI.* vii. p. 7 n. 5. See also n. 1 *ante*.
51. *SII.* iii 68. ‘*Podumai*’ does not mean ‘prostitution’ as Hultzsch understands it. The idea is that Lakṣmī, the wealth of the southern country, had become common, ownerless, and the land of the Kāvēri lonely, uncompanioned, when the Cōḷa succession failed; both found a remedy for their situation in the coming of Kulōttunga.