Dr.R.Nagaswamy #CD853F In a recent article "The philosophy of Mahendravarman's Thiruchirappalli Epigraph" published in "Studies in Indian Epigraphy" vol. 3, 1976 Michael Lockwood states "Nagaswamy is quite right that there is an error in the reading of the word "Silakhara" (P. 92.) I am glad that the above authors have accepted their error and agreed to my revised reading. They persist however in their folly, when they state 'This problem has not been solved by Nagaswamy's article either.' They want to solve a problem that does not exist at all, and in this they brand Hultsch as a misinterpretter of this inscription. They also conclude that it is 'Philosophy which has allowed us such an insight'. Before we examine the philosophy that gave their insight, it is necessary to state that, they make no reference at all to an article written by me on the subject, in 1971, in Dr. V. Raghavan felicitation volume, though they are discussing the very same points raised by me in that article. We have to take it that the omission is deliberate (see my article below and their note, especially the title Anumana). Before I take up the examination of their views, I reproduce the article I wrote in Raghavan's felicitation volume. 'Mahendra's contribution to the development of South Indian culture is unparalleled in the field of art, music, painting and literature. He is the pioneer in propagating cave architecture in the Tamil country. His wrok on music is well-known. Mattavilasa-prahasana composed by him is one of the best prahasanas in Sanskrit literature. His love of painting and his proficiency in the art is attested by his title Chitrakarapuli. Among the monuments he has left, the upper rock-cut cave at Thiruchirapalli, called Lalitankura-Pallavesvara-grham, named after one of his titles, is unique and is a landmark in the study of South Indian art and culture for it is here that the best representation of sculpture of Mahendra is noticed in the Gangadhara panel. There is here a unique example of Mahendra's inscription expressed in ornate poetry. The second verse of this inscription has been a puzzle to students of history and art. It is in this he mentios that he embraced Saivism from some other faith. A study of the second verse of Mahendra's inscription in this cave is as much fascinating as it is important for the study of Siva worship in South India. A re-examination of this verse is all the more necessary since some recent writers have suggested that the installation of Sivalinga in the snactum sanctorum as the principal object of worship was unknown in the time of Mahendra. If the meaning of the second verse of Thiruchirapalli rock-cut cave is once properly understood, all doubts regarding the worship of Linga during the reign of Mahendra will be set at rest. The verse under discussion reads as follows: Gunabhara-namani raja- nyanena lingena lingini jnanam Prathatam ciraya loke vipaksavrtteh paravrttam In the verse under discussion, that slesha (double entendre) is employed is patent. There are therefore necessarily two meanings which are to be understood here. The words Linga, Lingin, Jnana and Vipaksa have two meanings. Linga seems Sivalinga and Linga means also hetu, reason, middle term or probans in an Inference. Since the word is employed in slesha, both the meanings should be taken into account and one of the two viz., Sivalinga, should not be rejected as is done by the protogonists of the view that Linga worship was not prevalent during the time of Mahendravarman I. It is not only the word Linga that is used here in slesha but the whole verse is, as stated above, in slesha giving rise to two meanings. If one meaning alone is accepted and the other rejected, it would mean that the composition is faulty. When the second import is quite meaningful, to brand this verse as a faulty composition will not be proper. Hence in this case both the meanings have to be accepted. The first meaning of the verse is as follows: anena lingena: Through the Sivalinga (established) here. Gunabhara-namani rajani: in the king named Gunabhara, lingini: who bears the Linga (i.e. constantly adores Siva) jnanam: the knowledge vipakshavretteh paravrttam: that he has turned away from the hostile faith loke chiraya prathatam: let it become well known in the world for long. There is a clear reference here to Mahendra's conversion, from Jainism to Saivism in the words Vipakshavrtteh paravrttam. There is also an unequivocal reference to the worship of Sivalinga in the terms Linga and Lingin, Lingin meaning one who bears the Linga, i.e. worships Linga. The second meaning of the verse will become evident when it is understood in terms of the process of inference, (1. Inferential cognition is accepted as a valid cognition by all systems of Indian philosophy. A syllogism employed in this process of cognition comprises the following elements: (1) Hetu or Linga or the probans or the reason or the middle term e.g. smoke (2) Sadhya or Lingin the probandum or major term which is to be established, e.g. fire. (3) Paksha the subject in which the probandum is not known and is to be proved, e.g. a mountain as having fire when smoke which is noticed is relied upon as the probans. (4) Sapaksha a similar instance in which the probandum is known for certain, e.g. hearth where smoke and fire had been seen together invariably. (5) Vipaksha a counter example in which the non-existence of the probandum is known for certain e.g., a tank where neither fire nor its concomittant smoke is known) The elements of the inference are stated here in the terminology of prachina (ancient) nyaya and not of modern logic. According to Gautama, the author of the Nyaya sutras, the first limb of a syllogism, the statement of the thesis called Pratijna is given as Sadhya-nidresa and this includes the minor and major term. (1. See also Mudrarakshasa Nataka, V. 10 Sadhye nischitam etc.) The invariable relation between the Linga or probans or middle term, in this case between the Sivalinga established by the King in that temple, and the Lingin, the major term, viz., the knowledge of Siva as existing in the King (the paksha or minor term) should be free from any flaw; one of the flaws which would vitiate the inference is the presence of this in a counter-example; i.e., it should be vipaksha-vyavrtta; in the present case, this Sivalinga and knowledge and devotion to the same are absent from Jainism. (2. I am thankful to my Professor, Dr. Raghavan, for clarifying the meaning of the verse, on the side of logic.) King Mahendravikrama was evidently a lover of logic. Along with the other well-known titles related to his artistic activities Chettakari, Sankirnajati and Chitrakarapuli, he assumed a significant title to commemorate his love for logic, viz., Anumana. This title is recorded in the middle of the second pillar in the same cave temple of Tiruchirapalli. The same is also mentioned in the Pallavaram cave of Mahendra where besides the title Anumana, the title Upamana is also noticed which again proves his love for logic. Thus we may say that in the second meaning of the verse, the King himself is inferred as Anumana. According to Sekkilar, a 12th century poet, the Saivite saint Appar, also known as Tirunavukkarasu, was a contemporary of a Pallava monarch whom he converted to Saivism. All evidences point to the fact that Appar lived in the 7th Century CE. Mahendra I, Narasimha I, Mahendra II and Paramesvaravarman I were the Pallava monarchs who ruled in the 7th Century CE. It is only in the Trichy inscription of Mahendra I, we have a positive reference to his conversion to Saivism from some other faith, while the inscriptions of other monarchs portray them as great Saivites. Thus we have both epigraphical and literary references, pointing to the contemporaneity of Saint Appar and Mahendra. This is further substantiated by other evidences. In many of his verses, Appar mentions the worship of Siva in the form of linga.(inkurren enru lingatte tonrinanai) (lingapuranttu ullanai) It is therefore evident, that the worship of Siva in the form of Linga was well established long before the time of Appar and Mahendra. Thus the second verse of Mahendra, at Tiruchirapalli, is of historic interest. It refers to the conversion of Mahendra to Saivism. It illustrates his love for logic and above all it points to the state of Saivism in Tamil country in early 7th century CE." Hultsch's interpretation Lockwood and V. Bhatt have brought out three points in their article on 'the Philosophy of Mahendra' and state that:- 1. "Hultsch in his translation has wrongly interpreted the sanskrit word 'nidhaya' and says that King Mahendra 'placed' an image of Siva in the cave temple. 2. Hultsch did not understand that when Mahendra had the figure of Siva Gangadhara carved, the figure was also fashioned as a portrait or representation of the King himself and 3. The expression, the daughter of the mountain actually refers to goddess Ganga who is depicted in the panel and not to Parvathi as all scholars have been assuming since Hultsch's day." (P.91-92) Regarding item I, the word Nidhaya - i.e. placed, Hultsch has given the meaning of the word, and is absolutely justified in his meaning (See Monier William on the word Nidhaya). Regarding the third point, Hultsch and others held that there are three girls in the picture. One is that beautiful girl (river) Kaveri, the second is the girl (river) Ganga and the third is Parvathi. Siva as Gangadhara is already attached to Ganga. according to the verse Parvathi cannot bear the claim of another rival to his love in the from of Kaveri. So she runs to this abode from Himalayas and diverts Siva's attention. This view cannot be held wrong, for this is fully borne out by the inscription. Parvathi expressing her displeasure at the presence of Ganga and Siva appeasing her as Gauriprasada is depicted in thousands of sculptures and literary compositions. The introduction of three maidens as rivals, by Mahendra, certainly hightens the charm and aesthetic delight, quite in confirmity with the literary taste of the country. Further the very fact that a separate garbhagraha has been excavated by Mahendra, shows that some form of Siva, which (incidentally) would be the main deity, to which at least a part of the inscription refers. The second point, relating to the identity of Mahendra with Gangadhara is discussed in detail here. In the Gangadhara panel, certain features exist which are persistantly ignored by the above writers. Apart from the central panel of Gangadhara, there are two human-figures seated one on either side of Siva. Both of them are shown holding their hand in adoration of the central figure and bending their head slightly in supplication. It is suggestive of two points, (1) The central figure of Siva, stands above the head of these figures and (2) The human figures are bowing down to the Lord. It is against this background two of the verses in this inscription should be understood. Sailendra murdhani silabhavane vichitre Sailin tanum gunabharo Nrpatih nidhaya Sthanum vyadhatta Vidhiresha yathartha samjnam Sthanur svayamca saha tena jagatsu jatah. King Gunabhara having placed the stone image in this charming stone temple, on top of the glorious mountain, set the meaning of the term Sthanu (Siva) true, and it is quite appropriate that he has also became Sthanu (permanent) in this world. The term "Sthanu" has two mwanings namely Siva and permanent. This verse nowhere says that Mahendra merged with the image of Siva and is reflected in the figure of Siva. On the contrary it specifically states that he also became permanent "tena saha" i.e. along with Sthanu. His separate identity is not only retained but also emphasised. The other verse reads Krtva sivam sirasai dharayati atma samstham Uccaih ciratvam acalasya krtam krtartam. Having made (the image of) Siva who was residing in his heart (atma) now bears him on his head. By this, he made the meaning 'that Siva stands on his head appropriate. There is also a second meaning rfering to the mountain (acala). The term "Acala" is used in double meaning here - Acala means mountain and also immovavable image. The term uccaih ciras used here also suggests two meanings namely- lofty peak and above the head. That by this the mountain with its peak and Siva who stands above the head of the human figures in the sculpture quite appropriately has became lofty. In this verse also there is no mention of Mahendra being identified with the figure Gangadhara. On the contrary there is a specific reference to Siva who was in his heart, is now borne on his head. Bearing Siva on his head is only a figurative expression and it means that he has become an ardent devotee. It is in this connection the human figures shown at the feet of the Gangadhara image assume significance. The figures are suggestive of bearing Siva on their head. That he stands above their head is suggested by the verse is also evident. Sculpturally the seated figures (one of them or both being the reflection of the same), admirably confirm to the meaning of the verse of the inscriptions and probably represents the portrait of Mahendra. So the seated figure, (Mahendra), bears Siva on his head, becomes meaningful. Figuratively, Mahendra became an ardent devotee of Siva is suggested by the verse. The usage, "I bear the Lord on my head" is an oft repeated expression in Saiva Siddhanta philosophy. Any elementary book on Saiva Siddhanta system will explain this concept. It is also called "Thiruvadi diksha", in Tamil (Sanskrit: Sripada diksha). On the physical level the devotee supplicates before his teacher whose feet touches the head of the disciple. Symbolically the desciple carries the sandals of the preceptor on his head, a tradition known to all the Hindus. Metaphysically when the Lord bestows grace on the devotee, which makes him mature or ripe in his devotion, it is called Thiruvadi diksha. The literal meaning is "Intiation through sacred feet". This is obtained by the devotee from the Lord himself psychologically or through one's preceptor. That great Saivite saint Appar received this Thiruvadi diksha from the Lord (placing the feet of Lord over the head of the devotee) is mentioned in many of his own Tevarams. Such usage is uttered both in the figurative sense and actual sense. There are instances where the devotee carried either a Linga or the pair of sandal on the head. There are sculptures which actually show the ruler carrying the pair of sandals of Siva on their head. A recent find shows a royal figure carrying such sandals. In the Gangadhara panel, Siva is not shown on the head, but is certainly suggested, being borne on the head of the seated figures. There is not even the remotest suggestion that Mahendra is identified with the standing Siva. In our opinion Hultsch has not misinterpreted the verses, but has given the simple straight forward meanings. The authors also seem to confuse the meaning of dhvani (which they translate as alternate meaning) with slesha. Dhvani is that which is suggested; slesha is that which gives double meaning. In the verse under discussion, the intention of the poet is to give double meaning and so it falls under the category of slesha. As these are elementary exercises known to Sanskritists, and Hultsch, an eminent Sanskritist he was, has given the meaning of the verses in the right perspective. (1. We do welcome academic discussions on various views, or subjects and postulation of diametrically opposite views which is essential for the proper appreciation of the subject, However we prefer a sobre approach, especially in dealing with the views of pioneering and eminent scholars like Hultsch, whose contribution to our knowledge of South Indian Epigraphy is unparalleled to the views of Michael Lockwood and Bhat who do not even know the simple basic difference between slesha, and dhvani.) In this connection it is amusing to read an article on the subject by B.G.L. Swamy 'the date of Tevaram Trio', in the Bulletin of Institute of Traditional Cultures, published in 1975. It is not proposed to go into the points raised in this article in details for there are many absurdities which call for no answer. A few are examined here. Nothing can be more ridiculous than the following statement. "The identification of the Pallava donor of the Trichy inscriptions as Mahendravarman I, rests largely on flimsy and legendary grounds" In this cave temple, the name Mahendravikrama is inscribed in bold characters, which not a single visitor to the cave will miss. Of course Swamy can always say Mahendravikrama does not mean Mahendravarma but something else! But besides this title, there are a score of titles found here repeated in the Pallavaram epigraph. There can be no two opinion about the authorship of the upper rock cut cave of Trichy, that it is a monument of first class calibre of Mahendra. There is another interesting assertion by Swamy, "They (The Tevarams) speak of Andhakasuravadha, Kamadahana, Jalandharavadha which have no parallels in Pallava sculptures." All these representations are very much there in the Kailasanatha temple of Kanchi. Another amusing statement of Swamy is, "In the literary history of most languages in India the original and elaborate pieces of witing chronologically precede their respective abridged version - Thiruttondattohai, and Thiruttondar Thiruvandati are examples of abridgements of Sekkilar's Thiruttondar Puranam." (1. P. 171) So according to him Sankara's Bhashya, should precede the Brahma Sutras! Sekkilar himself states at the beginning that he is enlarging the Thiruttondattohai of Sundarar and also Nambi Andar Nambi's work. Of course it is possible for Swamy to say that, "Sekkilar the author of Periyapuranam does not know that he is talking!"