Friday, September 28, 2018
Two important dates in Ramanuja’s life have been established so far.
CE 1078 was the year Ramanuja left Srirangam.
CE 1099 was the year Ramanuja entered Melkote.
Adding 12 years of Ramanuja’s stay in Melkote, as written in the traditional texts, we arrive at the year CE 1111 as the year Ramanuja returned to Srirangam. As Ramanuja was said to have returned only after the death of Krimikanṭha Chola, it is presumed that the Chola king had died in the year CE 1111.
The references to this Chola king from the primary texts are given below to establish that such a king did exist for long.
1. “Yatiraja Vaibhavam” by Vaduga Nambi.
This text written by Vaduga Nambi, the direct disciple of Ramanuja says that the Chola king suffered a distressful death. It is only after hearing the news of his death, did Ramanuja set out of Melkote and reached Srirangam.[i]
2. “Ramanuja Ashtotrashata Nāma stotra” by Vaduga Nambi.
Another work attributed to Vaduga Nambi having a compilation of 108 names of Ramanuja in biographical fashion, each name describing some event or a person in the life of Ramanuja, contains a verse referring to ‘Krimikantha as the king who was destroyed by Ramanuja’. The term is ‘Krimikanṭha nrupa dhvamsī’.[ii]
This description of Ramanuja ‘destroying’ Krimikanṭha is liable to be mis-interpreted by some that Ramanuja killed Krimikanṭha. But what really happened was that the harm done by Krimikanṭha to Ramanuja had gone back to him as unfortunate death.
Nature of the disease of the king.
The king had suffered from a disease of the throat or neck infested with worms. This looks like a description for ulcerous wound known as ‘Vrana Roga’ in Ayurveda. Vrana means prevent or restrain or hinder. The karmic cause of the disease can be traced to maliciously preventing someone from doing something. According to Karma-Vipāka text called ‘Veerasimhāvalokam’ the one who knows righteousness but indulges in sinful activities out of temptation, pride and anger, fear or love may suffer from this. Likewise a person who kills people by throwing them into fire or water may be afflicted by this disease.[iii]
The king, despite being knowledgeable of how to treat saintly and religious people wanted to prevent the saintly people from following their Faith and indulged in causing harm to them to the extent that two were caused to lose sight, one was made to die due to the harm caused by pulling out his eyes and one was forced to abandon his service to God and made to flee along with numerous of such persons who happened to be his disciples. So anyone in the know of Karma-Vipāka would have expected the king to get afflicted with Vrana roga, of worm-infested ulcers. This was the abhisāra that was expected to attack him anytime.
Did Ramanuja destroy Krimikanṭha Chola?
Traditional texts speak of ‘abhisāra’ (अभिसार) – done by Ramanuja. Abhisāra means convergence or flowing towards or pay back and it also means attack. The various implications of what one had done converge on the doer himself. In that sense it becomes an attack on him.
The primary text, 6000 Padi Guruparampara Prabhavam refers to abhisāra done by Ramanuja on this king in the temple of Narasimha at Sāligrāma after establishing the Sripada Theertha with Mudali Āndan.[iv] The later text Divyasuri Charita (canto XVIII, verses 71-89) has gone a step further and says that Ramanuja did a Snake sacrifice for destroying the Chola king.[v] This text also says that Siva, the God of Tiruvarur made an incorporeal sound at that time that He had finished the Chola lineage with that king.
Though there is no way to know truth of this version, we rely on the primary text (6000 Padi) that makes a significant reference to what Ramanuja did on hearing that the emissaries sent by the king had taken with them Kurattazhwan and Periya Nambi. That reference must put to rest any misgivings on the so-called abhisāra done by Ramanuja.
With his disciples urging Ramanuja to leave Srirangam expecting trouble from the king, Ramanuja surrendered at the feet of Periya Perumal (Sri Ranganatha) and recited verse 8 of Tirumālai[vi]. As we will be explaining this verse in another context later, suffice it to state here what Ramanuja exactly prayed to God after reciting this verse. He prayed that he could not do anything at that moment (to save the two – his disciple and his preceptor) as the king was ‘parikaravān’ (instrumental or assisting in – the harm done to him and his people). So saying he left everything to be done by God Himself and make him do whatever is to be done at the appropriate time.
After that Ramanuja was continuously on the move till he reached Sāligrāma. In the Sripada Theertha incident he got acceptance from the community of that place who became his disciples. It was after this he was reported to have done abhisāra at the nearby Narasimha temple. What he actually did there can be known from what he did after receiving the news that Krimikanṭha chola had died an unhappy death.
He received the news when he was near the Kalyani tank of Melkote situated next to the temple of Tirunarayana who was discovered by him in an ant-hill. On hearing the news of the death of the Chola king due to worms in his neck (could be a reference to throat cancer) Ramanuja climbed the hillock of Azhagiya Singar (Known as Yoga-Narasimha nowadays) and paid obeisance at the feet of the Lord saying that He had destroyed the king by means of worms in his neck for having caused harm to ‘Sadhu-s’ like Kurattazhwan and Periya Nambi, like how He (Narasimha) destroyed Hiranya kasipu for refusing to accept His supremacy. This makes it clear that Ramanuja had anticipated that the king would suffer from Vrana roga and that had happened.
This also shows that Ramanuja’s anguish was nothing personal but caused by his helplessness in protecting his disciple and his preceptor when they were taken by the Kings’ men. The moment he could settle down in a place, he had prayed for protection of them by seeking the harm done by the king to get back to him (abhisāra). Though he was sad to hear about what happened to Kurattazhwan and Periya Nambi, he was happy that the Lord had given a fitting verdict to the king. After thanking Lord Narasimha on the hill, Ramanuja went on to worship Tirunarayana of Melkote.
Yoga Narasimha Swamy temple, Melkote
This is specifically being pointed out here, for, in the later part of series we will be highlighting similar counter- worship done by none other than Kulottunga I presumably for the sake of Krimikanṭha Chola who was terminally ill then. The deity of worship was Narasimha – in both the cases – with Ramanuja praying for the destruction of the king who harmed the Sadhu-s and Kulottunga I praying for the removal of the harmful effect.
It is not out of place to recall here the Jaina inscription on Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana written in Part 6 that the king led a “‘pure life rendered permanent by the praise of Nrisimha”[vii] This shows the belief of those days that Lord Narasimha was a bestower of pure, healthy and long life. The same God was sought to destroy the life of the wicked (in which case it is called abhisāra), and also to get relief from the effect of such abhisāra. Going by all these, one can get the true meaning of the name ‘Krimikantha nrupa dhvamsī’ for Ramanuja.
3. ‘Sriranga Nāyagar Usal’ by Divya kavi Pillai Permal Iyengar.
Pillai Perumal Iyengar also known as Azhagiya Manavala Dasar belonged to the lineage of Tiruvarangathu Amudanar, a contemporary of Ramanuja who composed Ramanuja Nootrandhadi eulogising Ramanuja. There is a widespread opinion that he was the son of Tiruvarangathu Amudanar while some say that he was the grandson.[viii] He was the disciple of Parasara Bhattar, the son of Kurattazhwan and this was expressed by himself in one of his compositions known as ‘Nootrettu Tirupati Andhadi.’[ix] This establishes that he lived close to Ramanuja’s time period and must have had first hand information on Ramanuja’s life.
He is credited with having composed ‘Ashta Prabhandam’ – a compilation of 8 types of compositions. He mentions about Krimikanṭha Chola in one of those compositions, titled ‘Sriranga Nāyagar usal’ which is a ‘swing-song’ on Sri Ranganatha.
In verse 20 of this composition he has recorded the episode of Kurattazhwan boldly making a pun on the declaration of supremacy of Siva as ordered by the king. In this context he refers to the king as Krimikanṭha – one whose neck was infested with worms.[x]
The aversion to mention the king’s name seems to have started immediately after his death. His ill-treatment of the Sadhu-s (saintly people) seemed to have caused the aversion not to mention his name but to refer to him by the misfortune that befell him in the form of a disease. The verse refers to him by that name even before he was struck with the disease – by saying that Kurattazhwan reached the court of the king who had ‘worm-infested- throat’.
The above references prove beyond doubt that the king who persecuted Ramanuja and his men died of a horrible disease of the throat.
Looking at the Chola lineage, only one king fitted with the slot of this king– he was Parakesari Adhirajendra, who ascended the Chola throne after the death of his father Vīrarajendra in 1070. But according to all historians, he was presumed to have died soon after accession.
Issues in accepting early death of Adhirajendra
Writing on this king noted Historian K.A.Nilakanta Sastri thinks that Adhirajendra ascended the throne in CE 1070 after the death of his father Vīrarajendra but died within a few weeks. He was succeeded by Kulottunga I in the same year. His version is reproduced below.[xi]
The assertion that Adhirajendra died in the year 1070 that was followed by the accession of Kulottunga I is not supported by the dates found in epigraphy. Let us examine the available inscriptions mentioning Adhirajendra.
An inscription found on a stone pillar near a Shiva temple in Chittamalli in Mannargudi taluk gives the Panchanga factors of the date of inscription along with the regnal year and days of the Adhirajendra. It is reproduced below.
Source: Annual Reports, 1945, Table 140
The Sun in Taurus, Moon in Rohini, week the day being Tuesday on the first tithi of waxing phase cannot concur on any date except on a specific date. That date happened to be 9th May, 1071. This shows that Adhirajendra lived beyond 1070 as thought by all historians.
Adhirajendra’s 3rd year inscription.
An additional detail in that inscription is that it was inscribed on the 329th day of the 3rd regnal of Adhirajendra. This vital information helps in deducing the date of his accession (co-regency) to the Chola throne. That date happens to be 15th June 1068.
Date of accession of Adhirajendra
Thus we are able to arrive at the exact date of accession of Adhirajendra and the date of the inscription in his 3rd regnal year.
Now let us look at the inscription having the Panchanga features of Kulottunga’s reign.[xii]
This inscription having sufficient number of Panchanga features such as Sun in Pisces, Moon in Rohini, day being Friday and lagna in Taurus was issued on the 44th year of Jayadhara, another name of Kulottunga I. It tells about a grant made by his sister Kundavai to the Nataraja temple at Chidambaram. The date of this inscription falls on 20th March, 1114.
Inscription at the 44th year of Kulottunga I.
The regnal year being 44th year, the base year turns out to be 1070. In other words, Kulottunga I ascended the throne in the year 1070 – the year accepted by all historians.
This contradicts the version of all historians including Nilakanta Sastri that Kulottunga I ascended the throne after or upon the death of Adhirajendra. Chittamalli grant given in the reign of Adhirajendra had happened in 1071, a year after Kulottunga’s accession to the throne.
This is not the lone inscription of Adhirajendra. Yet another inscription has been found at Tirukkaaleeswara temple in Veppankulam in Kanchipuram. It makes a specific reference to the date of inscription as the 161st day in the 3rd regnal year of Adhirajendra. [xiii]
This corresponds to 23rd November 1070. This inscription also establishes the first regnal of his father Vīrarajendra as 1063 by seeing that the income for that particular grant was procured on the opposite year to the 7th year of Vīrarajendra. This is supposed to mean the 8th year.
Continuation of the above inscription.
This conveys that Adhirajendra had taken the mantle from his father Virarajendra. Sastri refers this inscription showing the regnal year of the father and the son, beyond which no other inscriptions mentioning Vīrarajendra is found.[xiv]
Just by the mere mention of year number, the historians seemed to have been misled to believe that Adhirajendra did not live beyond 1070. The Hindu calendar year of this inscription is Sadharana Year. In other words, Virarajendra had died in Sadharana Year. This can be further cross-checked by another inscription found at Paraasalesvara temple which refers to Virarajendra’s 7th regnal year as Saumya Year.[xv]
Sequencing them, we get
Virarajendra’s 7th regnal year – Saumya varusham (1069)
Virarajendra’s 8th regnal year (last year) – Sadharana Varusham. (1070)
Kulottunga’s accession year – Sadharana Varusham. (1070)
Adhirajendra’s Chittamalli inscription – Virodhi krutu varusham (1071)
Adhirajendra’s accession year – Keelaka varusham (1068)
Therefore it is a Himalayan blunder to have hypothesised that Adhirajendra died in the year 1070 following which Kulottunga I ascended the Chola throne. It can be seen that both Adhirajendra and Kulottunga had been kings of the Chola country simultaneously. How was this possible?
Before finding the answer for this, let us highlight the issues arising out of the assumption that Kulottunga came to the throne after the death of Adhirajendra.
According to the dates we established so far, the Chola king had persecuted Ramanuja in the year 1078. It is beyond doubt that Kulottunga didn’t persecute Ramanuja. Then who did that?
Unable to get an answer most historians and modern hagiographers of Ramanuja’s life think that the persecutor was a local chieftain. This raises the following counter questions:
· Why Kulottunga didn’t penalise the chieftain for harming Kurattazhwan and causing the death of Periya Nambi, if it was true that Kulottunga was a patron of Vishnu temples and Vaishnavas?
· It is obvious from the list of Srikaryams furnished by Dr Nagaswamy that Kulottunga had taken over the administration of Srirangam from his 13th regnal year (CE 1083). Why didn’t he arrange for the return of Ramanuja immediately if it was true that he didn’t persecute him?
· The dates show that Ramanuja was in Thondanur for 21 long years. After that he moved to Melkote mainly in search of Thiruman (sacred mud). It is hard to believe that Kulottunga was not in the know of the whereabouts of Ramanuja? Why didn’t he bring him back to Srirangam at the earliest?
· The Sāndhivigrahi of Western Chalukyan king Vikramaditya VI had visited Srirangam temple in CE 1099, (the year Ramanuja discovered the Moolavar murthy of Tirunarayana at Melkote - refer Part 5), in the 29th regnal year of Kulottunga I through whom he would have come to know of Ramanuja’s presence of Melkote. Why then didn’t he take any efforts to bring back Ramanuja?
So there is something fishy about the whole episode. But what is revealing is that the king (not a Chieftain) who caused Ramanuja to leave the country must have been a powerful king, and more than equal to Kulottunga to have caused Kulottunga remain helpless in redeeming the plight of Kurattazhwan and bringing back Ramanuja. One must remember that Kurattazhwan had remained outside the Chola country and the Kulottunga didn’t make any effort to bring him back. This non-action to redeem the plight of Ramanuja and Kurattazhwan is against the characterisation of Kulottunga as a benefactor of Vaishnava faith by historians. Who could have wielded so much power, against whose wishes Kulottunga was not ready to act - if not for a king higher in hierarchy than him in the Chola royal house?
We have established above that Adhirajendra continued in the throne even before Kulottuga was given regency. He continued in the throne after the accession of Kulottunga. As one having received the throne from Vīrarajendra, which is well established in the Tirukkaaleeswara inscription giving the regnal years of both the father and the son, it is clear that Adhirajendra was in the throne at the capital city of Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Then what was the status of Kulottunga? This can be understood from the way kingship was shared within the royal members of the Chola dynasty in the 11th and 12th century. The successful expansion of the Chola empire of this period was augmented by a shared ruler-ship within close relatives with excellent understanding and kinship within themselves.
Concept of ‘King of Kings’.
Starting from Rajaraja I the Chola country witnessed expansionism and prominence. This became possible by united efforts by all the sons and grandsons of the royal family by working in a planned unison in their military expeditions. As a result almost all the male members of the family were involved in fighting at some place and winning there – which also involved a high probability of losing life in the process!
As remuneration, all those who brought victory were given kingship over certain territories of the Chola country which we come to know from the inscriptions of Rajendra II and Vīrarajendra Chola. The prasasti of Vīrarajendra makes a significant remark that he attained kingship of the country by ‘the right of war deeds’.. “Por-th thozhil urimai yeydhi arasu veetrirundhu”. (போர்த் தொழில் உரிமை எய்தி அரசு வீற்றிருந்து)[xvi]
There was a ‘King of Kings’ (‘Mannar Mannavan’) a reference found in Kalingathu Bharani[xvii] and also other Kings in the country. The King of Kings was the Chief King ruling from Gangaikonda Cholapuram. Others were ruling over smaller divisions of the country. This at one stroke solved two issues – of satisfying all the claimants and for administration of the country through decentralisation. This is not new as we do come across a reference to nine Chola kings in the same period in Silappadhikaram. The nine kings conspired against the Chola King (Chief), Perunar Killi who happened to be the brother in law of the Chera king Senguttuvan but were defeated by him, so says Silappadhikaram.[xviii] This is proof that many kings or more than one king was ruling in the Chola country – a scheme presumably done to satisfy competing heirs to the main throne.
This trend was at its peak after Rajendra I left with the result that we find a plethora of titles to brothers, sons and grandsons each seeming to enjoy control over some segments of the country in the regime of two kings, Rajendra II and Vīrarajendra. But within a generation, most of the direct descendants have gone missing. The cause of their death was not personal rivalry but too many wars fought by the Cholas of the period. The only direct heir left living was Adhirajendra. According to the history of Ramanuja he lived till CE1111 and died of a dreadful disease in the throat.
The line-up of Kings of the Chola country starting from Rajaraja I shows overlapping of ruler-ship of every consecutive king. It is common to expect the King to appoint his son as a prince, but what makes the Chola scheme unique is that the prince, upon appointment becomes eligible to count his ruling or regnal years from the date of appointment as a prince. But he is not mentioned as a prince but only as a king in the inscriptions. This gives rise to a situation where both the father and son would be recognised as kings with respective regnal years in the inscriptions. The result is that both would be appearing as kings in the same time period and seeming to be independently governing the same Chola country. Appearance of regnal year of one in an inscription does not undermine the power of kingship of the other in the same year if both happen to be alive at that particular time. We can judge the death of the senior by the absence of inscriptions recognising his regnal year.
For example the regnal years of Rajaraja I started in CE 985 and his latest appears dated at CE 1014. This was his 29th regnal year and no inscriptions are found beyond his 29th year. So we assume that he didn’t live beyond his 29th regnal year. But the regnal year of his son Rajendra I started in 1012, two years before the end of Rajaraja I. Actually the 29th year of Rajaraja I had coincided with the 3rd regnal year of his son Rajendra Chola as per an inscription found in Tanjore which refers to a gift made by Rajaraja I in the 3rd regnal of his son Rajendra I.[xix]
The change of one year is due to the mismatch between Gregorian and Hindu calendar. The years are counted form the date of accession of the king as per Hindu calendar. What is to be understood is that simultaneous existence of kings with their own regnal years, exclusive Prasasti and deliberation of their victories (which they shared with others) can be seen in the Chola country of 11th and 12th century.
Another feature that requires careful study is that at times the same victories appear in the inscriptions of two or more kings.
An example is Vikrama Chola’s (son of Kulottunga I) inscription on his victory over Telugu Bhima.
The prasasti found in an inscription at Karuvur dated at the 4th regnal year of Vikrama Chola says that he won over ‘Telugu Bhima’, (Telinga Viman), a vassal of Kalinga king. But the war was actually fought by (a General), one Rajendra Choda of Velanādu who was a cousin of Vedura II. He killed Telugu Bhima in the war and was rewarded for this by Kulottunga I who gave him Governorship of vast regions of the Telugu country. Several inscriptions testify this. But the credit for this had gone to Vikrama Chola who was ruling Vengi at that time.
Interestingly, an inscription found at Kanyakumari and dated at the 9th year of Parantaka pandya also claims that this Pandya king taken the country of Telugu Bhima by winning him. The palaeographic evidence of the inscription shows that it belongs to the same period. So this victory by the Pandya king must be taken to mean that he had sided with Vikrama Chola in the war on Telugu Bhima.[xx]
This must be borne in mind while going through similar victories of the contemporary kings of the Chola country. We will highlight such instances at appropriate places.
Let us see the names of kings who adorned the Chola throne in succession in the period under study. This is accepted by all historians.
Rajaraja I (CE 985 – 1014)
Rajendra I (1012 – 1044)
Rajadhiraja I (1018 – 1054)
Rajendra II (1051-1068)
Adhirajendra (1068 -?)
Two lesser analysed Kings
Apart from the above mentioned ones there was a Chola king named Rajamahendra whose 3rd regnal year finds mention in an inscription at Tiruppappuliyur in S.Arcot.[xxi] But he could not be fitted into the above scheme by the historians. His historicity cannot be ignored, for, there is a street in his name – Rajamahendran Tiruveedi in Srirangam.
To prove that this street name was in vogue as early as the 11th century we can quote an inscription in the 9th year of Rajendra II mentioning among the boundaries of a village “the road of Rajamahendra”. [xxii]
This king’s Vaishnavite association is reiterated from a reference in Vikrama Cholan Ula wherein it is stated that he donated a gem-studded cover for the hood of the snake bed of Sri Ranganatha in Srirangam.[xxiii]
There was even a Chaturvedi Mangalam in his name, known as Rajamahendra Chaturvedi Mangalam which covers Nannilam and Papanasam regions. A Chaturvedi Mangalam in his name shows the powerful position Rajamahendra had held. The mysterious element ignored by all historians is that this Chaturvedi Mangalam was destroyed by fire along with its sacred places in a riot in which the temple property was looted in the 2nd regnal year of Kulottunga I which corresponds to CE 1072 (Virodhikrutu Varusham) when Adhirajendra was very much around! No one rose to the occasion to redeem the situation. Kulottunga had taken steps only in his 11th regnal year (CE 1081) to redeem the Chaturvedi Mangalam by releasing fund from his treasury. [xxiv]
Another strange feature is that this inscription is not found in the Chaturvedi Mangalam but at the Srirangam temple situated nearly 40-50 miles away from the Chaturvedi Mangalam. Writing on this, the editor of the 24th volume of the South Indian Inscriptions says that this is inexplicable because the redemption was done long after the riot and placed at a location away from the affected region. Why did Kulottunga take a long time to give succour to the affected place?[xxv]
This observation is made on the assumption that Adhirajendra was around at the time of riots but had died after that (in that riot according to most historians). This assumption violates another assumption of the historians that Kulottunga came to power only after the death of Adhirajendra in the riot. There is no reference to the death of this king (Adhirajendra) but the damage had happened to Rajamahendran Chaturvedi Mangalam which was created by the King Rajamahendra.
The destruction of the Vishnu temple along with the Chaturvedi Mangalam patronised by Vaishnavite-leaning Rajamahendra raises a question on what happened to Rajamahendra. Why did he vanish suddenly from history around the same time as Adhirajendra who is believed to have died in a riot according to historians?
Thus we can see two Chola kings, Adhirajendra and Rajamahendra – both contemporaries of Ramanuja going by the time period they lived – mysteriously vanishing suddenly. A serious investigation into their history by taking cue from Ramanuja’s history was unfortunately not done so far with the result that Ramanuja’s history was dumped as junk while myths were woven around these two kings, mostly around Adhirajendra with Rajamahendra remaining untouched by historians.
With this backdrop, let us proceed to analyse the kings of the period under study to find out what really happened.
[i] Yatiraja Vaibhavam, verse 102.
[ii] ‘Ramanuja Ashtotrashata Namastotra’, verse 39, in Chapter 54 of “Prapannamrutam” (Tamil) Part I, Published by Krishnaswamy Iyengar, Trichy, page 610
[iii] “Medical astrology – combinations and remedial measures”, Prof N.E.Muthuswamy, CBH Publications, Nagarcoil, p.172
[iv] Refer Evidence 3 in Part 6 http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2018/09/ramanuja-is-history-6-evidences-for.html
[v] The IndianAntiquary, Volume 12 (1912), pages 220- 224.
[vi] ‘Tirumālai’ composed by Tondaradip podi Alwar.
[vii] Epigraphia Carnatica, Volume IV, part II, page 131.
[ix] ‘Nuttrettu Tirupati Andhadi’ by Divya Kavi Pillai Perumal Iyengar. Verse 5
[x] Srirangan Nāyagar Usal, page 19, Verse 20
[xi] KA Nilakanta Sastri, 1955, “The Colas”, University of Madras, 2nd edition, page 285.
[xii] Indian Antiquary, 1893, page 297-298.
[xiii] S.I.I., Volume 8. No 4
[xiv] KA Nilakanta Sastri, 1955, “The Colas”, University of Madras, 2nd edition, page 274.
[xv] V. Rangacharya, “Topographical List Of The Inscriotion Of The Madras Presidency collected till 1915”, Volume I, page 508.
[xvi] S.I.I.., Volume III, Part I, No.30. Vai.Sundaresa Vandaiyar, (2009), “30 kalvettugal” page 98.
[xvii] Kalingathu Bharani, Verse 257.
[xviii] Silappadhikaram, Chapter 27- verses 118-123.
[xix] KA Nilakanta Sastri, 1955, “The Colas”, University of Madras, 2nd edition, page 194.
[xx] The Historical Inscriptions of Southern India, page 90.
[xxi] The Historical Inscriptions of Southern India, page 77.
[xxii] Hultzsch (1899), South-indian Inscriptions Volume Iii, Miscellaneous Inscriptions From The Tamil Country. Page 113.
[xxiii] ‘Vikrama Cholan Ula’ by Ottakutthar. Lines 41-42.
[xxiv] SII xxiv. No.53. Page 53.
[xxv] SII xxiv Introduction vii