Mahabharata Quiz - 112

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 112

It was possible to observe the change in the appearance of Arundhati – Vasishtha due to their proximity to each other. But how did Vyasa detect the change in Dhruva by stating that it made apasavyaṃ movement?

Answer

Vyasa did say that Dhruva made apasavyaṃ (clockwise) movement in the same context of nimitta-s. There are two issues involved: (1) whether he meant the pole star of his time (2) was there another star in proximity of Dhruva (as a marker for comparison) that enabled him to detect that Dhruva moved in wrong direction.

Taking up the second point first, detection of change in the alignment of Arundhati and Vasishtha shows that it was possible with stars close to each other – when one acted as a marker for the other. So, the change in the direction of Dhruva could be possible if it was aligned to another star.

Dhruva was the name of a star and not just a pole star. The Saptarishi Mandala in which Arundhati- Vasishtha are located point towards Polaris which is known as Dhruva. Texts speak of only three pole stars – Dhruva, Agni and Kashyapa of which Dhruva is the brightest. All the three are in a constellation called Shishumara which is nothing but the Ursa Minor (Little Dipper). In the 3600 years long to or fro oscillation of the equinox, only three stars of the small constellation of Ursa Minor become northern pole stars. In the Mahabharata period which occurred close to zero-degree ayanamsa at the middle of the path, Dhruva was not the pole star, but Agni was.

Since Dhruva is always aligned to the first two stars of the Sapta rishi Mandala (Ursa Major), a tilted appearance of the Saptarishi Mandala due to the swinging of the earth by comet-hit, would have caused the Dhruva (Polaris) also appear to have moved. The shift can be shown as follows. This was similar to the hand drawn shift shown in the previous question.

The major impact having taken place in the twilight hour, Vyasa must have been in the river side to offer his evening prayers. He must have worshiped Sapta rishis. As he looked towards the Saptarishi Mandala, he would have noticed the change in the appearance of Arundhati and Vasishtha and also Dhruva.

My interview in Pesu Tamihzha Pesu on political talks about Deepavali

 தீபாவளி வந்தாலே சகிக்க முடியாத உளறல் பேச்சுகள் கிளம்பிவிடும்

சீமான் - நரகாசுரன் தன் முப்பாட்டன்

அ. ராஜா - தீபாவளி பகுத்தறிவுக்கு ஒவ்வாத பண்டிகை

கி. வீரமணி - சுற்றுப்புறச் சூழலை மாசுபடுத்தும் பண்டிகை தீபாவளி.

திராவிட ஸ்டாக் யூ ட்யூப் அறிவு ஜீவிகள் - சுரா என்னும் மதுவைக் குடிக்காத அசுரனான, தமிழனான நரகாசுரனை கொன்றதைக் கொண்டாடும் மோசமான பண்டிகை. இது ஆரியப் பண்டிகை. தமிழர் பண்டிகை அல்ல,

தமிழர் பண்டிகையான பொங்கல் பண்டிகையின் முக்கியத்துவத்தைக் குறைக்கும் பண்டிகை.

இதற்குப் போய் வாழ்த்து சொல்ல வேண்டுமா? வாங்க பதில் சொல்கிறேன் உங்கள் அனைவருக்கும்...

Deepavali, not a Tamil festival? (my talk in Mediyaan News)

In the series of 4 short videos to Mediyaan News Channel, I addressed some questions often raised by Dravidian enthusiasts of Tamilnadu. 

1. Is there any truth in the claim that Deepavali is not a Tamil festival? Or is it an Aryan festival?

2. Are crackers are a must in the celebration of Deepavali?

What is the purpose of bursting crackers as per scriptures?

3. Is Deepavali a glorification of death?

Was Narakasura a Tamilian as claimed by Dravidian politicians?

4. * Who was Narakasura?

* Where did he live? * Why was his mother Aditi happy at his death? * What were her earings kept by Narakasura? * How were all these related to Dhanteras? * How Satyabhama got Parijata in that episode?

Was Taj Mahal a Hindu temple or a palace or part of a twin temple? (PGurus )

Published in PGurus on Nov, 13, 2023

Recently the Delhi High Court directed the ASI to investigate a plea by Hindu Sena claiming that the Taj Mahal was not built by Shah Jahan. The plea was made to get the correct historical information about the age and construction of the Taj Mahal. This direction by the court generates a renewed interest in the antecedents of the Taj Mahal and a relook at the conflicting claims on its construction.

Stephan Knapp in his website has produced a list of articles by authors who claimed that the Taj Mahal was a pre-existing Hindu structure – either a palace or a temple – that was appropriated by Shah Jahan (reign 1628 to 1658) to house the last remains of his wife, Mumtaz who died during the delivery of her 14^th child. It was claimed that Shah Jahan employed 20,000 men who worked continuously for 22 years to complete the Taj Mahal. It is said that Mumtaz died in the year 1631, the work to construct the Taj Mahal commenced in 1632 and it got over in the year 1653. Several details pertaining to the authenticity of this claim and counterclaims can be read on Stephan Knapp’s website while here I would like to focus on less discussed or unpublicized issues only.

In any historical analysis, contemporary literature is accepted as primary evidence. Only two such texts exist as we know. One is the travelogue of  J.B. Tavernier and another is Badshanama, an official biography written by chroniclers employed by Shah Jahan himself. Tavernier had written his work in French which was translated into English later. The English translation claims that he was present in Agra at the time of commencement of the Taj Mahal and he returned when it got over. It was his assertion that the Taj Mahal was completed in 22 years with a manpower of 20,000 men.

A reading of his original version in French however showed that he came to Agra ten years after the year of commencement of the Taj Mahal and he was not in Agra at the time of completion. Therefore, whatever he had written was not a firsthand information but something he wrote by hearsay. Hence, his version cannot be taken as primary evidence.

The only other contemporary work was Badshanama which contains vital information on the Taj Mahal. Of the total of 1600 pages, the information on Mumtaz and the Taj Mahal are found only in two pages. It says that the palace of Raja Man Singh which was in the custody of Raja Jai Singh was chosen for burying the late wife of Shah Jahan. Though Jai Singh was unwilling to part with his ancestral property he relented without expecting anything in return when the body of Mumtaz arrived. However, he was compensated with a piece of government land.

Badshanama says that in the following year the body was buried under the dome. This makes it clear that there was a pre-existing structure which was used for burial. Here we must know background information about Raja Jai Singh. He was a subsidiary of Shah Jahan and fought for him in battles. His grandfather Man Singh whose palace was asked by Shah Jahan worked as a commander in the army of Akbar. During Akbar’s reign, Man Singh renovated the Kashi Vishvanatha temple where Gyan Vapi is located. Later this temple of Bhagawan Vishvanatha was vandalized by Aurangzeb to build a mosque over it. But the temple was out of reach for the Mughals during Man Singh’s period.

Now examining the claims on the Taj Mahal as the palace of Man Singh got from the custody of his grandson Jai Singh to build the mausoleum for Mumtaz, it can be theorized that Jai Singh would not have let it into the hands of Shah Jahan if it was a temple. It is reasonable to assume that it was indeed a mansion which he gave up.

However, further developments raise doubts about the nature of the structure used by Shah Jahan. There are four extant farman-s (orders) issued by Shah Jahan to Jai Singh to send stone- laborers and cartloads of marble stones from the mines of Makranna. Jai Singh was reluctant to obey, and he delayed the dispatch of marbles and prevented the manpower from going to Agra to work on the mausoleum. Why did he do so? He handed over his palace in exchange for land, knowing very well the purpose for which it was going to be used. Having known that why did he not cooperate with Shah Jahan in getting the mausoleum finished in the way he liked?  

Suppose the palace was not used for the purpose for which it was bought from him, and instead another site was used for the same purpose, there is scope to say that Raja Jai Singh was upset with the new site used for burying. Suppose the new site was a temple building, captured already by the Mughals, then Raja Jai Singh could have had no say in the way it was used. He would have been helpless. In that context we can understand his reluctance to oblige the farman-s of the Badshah.

This doubt arises from the numerous evidence cited by researchers like P.N. Oak and Dr. Godbole that Taj Mahal could have been a temple. Certainly, Jai Singh did not give a temple for burying the corpse of Mumtaz; he had given only his palace. If there was a temple, he could be expected to have to protected it or renovated it like his grandfather who renovated the temple of Bhagawan Vishvanatha. On the other hand, if a temple was already in the control of the Mughals, he had nothing to do about it. Perhaps to save the temple from becoming the mausoleum, he might have taken the difficult decision of giving up his precious ancestral property on the assurance that it would be used for housing the coffin of Mumtaz.

This looks feasible given the fact that he was hesitant to give his ancestral property. Only after the body arrived, he had reluctantly given up without expecting any returns on the assumption that the temple in the custody of the Mughals would be spared. But within a year the body was buried under the dome, says Badshahnama. Which dome? Where was the dome? Was that the dome of Man Singh’s palace or the dome of the temple?

In the latter case, there is a strong reason for the way Jai Singh was upset with the plans of Shah Jahan. He could not be expected to cooperate with him such that it required four farman-s to be issued by the Badshah – they are the only evidence for the work of marbles done by Shah Jahan.

In support of the claim that the mausoleum was constructed on a pre-existing temple, let me quote a research work on the Mughal garden in the south of Taj Mahal, called Char Bhagh. Square in shape, it occupies a larger area than the Taj Mahal area. It is crisscrossed by water channels to divide the garden into four equal squares. At the centre, there is a fountain in existence right from Shah Jahan’s time. Water for this fountain is fed by an aqueduct from the Yamuna from the western side of the Taj Mahal and Char Bhagh. The aqueduct stops at the middle of the western side of the char Bhagh where water is kept in storage tanks. An earthen pipeline goes 6 feet under the ground from the middle of the western border to the centre of the Char Bhagh to feed the fountain.

The fountain was bordered with marble slabs by Lord Curzon. Tourists and foreign dignitaries who visit the site used to sit on the marble slab to take snaps because the Taj Mahal is exactly behind this and can be captured in photographs in its entirety from this centre.

 The central fountain bordered with marble slabs

The Char Bhagh was analysed by a researcher Dr. Amelia Carolina of Itay, whose findings offered a breakthrough in understanding what exactly existed in the site. In her paper ‘The Gardens of Taj Mahal and the Sun’ published in the International Journal of Sciences, dated Dec 2013, and made public in research Gate, (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259289314_The_Gardens_of_Taj_Mahal_and_the_Sun ) she checked whether the Char Bhagh is aligned to the solstices. And it was found to be aligned so!

(click the image to enlarge)

The Taj is on the south of the river Yamuna and the picture we see of the Taj Mahal is aligned to North – South direction. The entrance of the Taj Mahal is facing west (not Mecca). In the above picture the Char Bhagh region can be seen as a huge square with a central square met by the water lines in four cardinal directions, There are minarets on the four corners of the Char Bhagh.

Dr. Carolina found that the sun rays are passing through the minarets in the northern corner on the day of summer solstice and the minarets in the southern corner on the day of winter solstice. In other words, the Char Bhagh is aligned to the direction of the solstitial sun. If so, the equinoctial sun will pass exactly above the central fountain. This is like how the equinoctial sun passes through the centre of the Gopuram of the Ananta Padmanabha Swamy temple or Triplicane Parthasarathy temple and many temples of Bharat.

The limits of the solstices passing through the corners of the Char Bhagh are circled in the above picture. This alignment could not occur naturally, but measured over a year and marked. The solstices and the centre where the equinox passes must have been marked, for what? Did the Mughals ever apply archeoastronomy to determine the site? Never. Not seen in Bharat.

The centre in this scheme becomes a vital part because that is where something sacred must have been consecrated. What was there in the centre originally?

The central alignment of the Char Bhagh with the equinox also means that the central dome of the Taj Mahal is aligned with the equinoctial path of the sun because it is exactly parallel to the center of the Char Bhagh. On the solstices, the sun passes through the corner minarets of the Taj Mahal too. This was not observed so far because we are not seeing the Taj Mahal in the east- west direction.

The alignment of the Char Bhagh shows that there was something sacred in that huge land which was ultimately destroyed by Shah Jahan. In this context we have another piece of evidence too by means of a Sanskrit inscription that was supposed to have been removed from the Char Bhagh by Shah Jahan. Today it is in Lucknow Museum.

Mr. D.J. Kale, an archaeologist had written the transcript of that inscription (known as Bateshwar inscription) in Epigraphia Indica. He has written,

“The said Munj Bateswar Edict was laid by King Paramardidev of the Chandratreya dynasty on Sukla Panchami in the month of Ashwin, in the year 1212 Vikram Samvat (or A.D. 1156).  …  King Paramardidev built two magnificent temples with white marble, one for Lords Vishnu and the other for Lord Shiva and they were desecrated later on by the Muslim invaders. Perhaps a farsighted man took the edict to a safer place at Bateswar and buries it beneath the ground” (https://www.stephen-knapp.com/distorted_history_of_taj_mahal.htm )

So, there were two temples, not just one temple at the site of Taj Mahal built by King Paramardidev in the year 1156 CE. One was for Vishnu and another was for Shiva. The edict further states,

“He built a marble temple which is the abode of Lord Vishnu and the King bows down to touch His feet” (25).

The King has built another marble temple which has been dedicated to the Lord Who has the moon as His ornament on His forehead and Who, getting such a beautiful abode, has forgotten to return to Kailash (26)”

One of them was completely destroyed and the other was used to house the coffin of Mumtaz.

Paramardidev belonged to the dynasty which was known for having built the Khajuraho temples known for exquisite art and architecture. These two temples must have been exquisite with marble covering. These two temples must have been carefully aligned with the equinox and solstices. They must have been facing the western direction and the Murti-s  in the east.

They were captured soon after they were built because Paramadidev was defeated by the the Ghurid general Qutb ud-Din Aibak around 1202–03 CE. Since then, Agra and the twin temples must have come under the control of the Muslims. No worship of the deities was possible since then. As time went by the temples continued to be under the control of successive Mughal rulers of whom Shash Jahan seemed to have decided to use it for his own.  Probably, Raja Jai Singh wielded an influence to desist him from using it. In that context, Shah Jahan might have hoodwinked Jai Singh for an exchange of his ancestral property. No Rajput King would have liked to part with his precious ancestral palace. He was not willing, but the hidden intention of Shah Jahan to use the twin temples could have made him hatch a deal to offer his palace to bury the queen. But Shah Jahan faltered and used the temple to bury his wife. This angered Jai Singh who refused to cooperate with him.

This hidden scene looks plausible given the fact that the site is remarkably demarcated by archeoastronomy which is not a hallmark of Mughal architecture. Man Singh’s palace must have existed outside the Taj complex. A weak Jai Singh was duped into ceding his palace to the cunning Badsha thinking that he was saving the temple. This seems plausible because Jai Sigh was the grandson of Man Singh who protected Kashi Vishvanatha temple. Jai Singh would have wished to safeguard these temples too, but alas, they were already in the custody of the Mughals.

A fresh study of the archaeo astronomy of Char Bhagh and the Taj Mahal must be done to check the veracity of my claim. The Bateshwar inscriptions must be studied once again and the contents be published now because both these go hand in hand in proving that twin temples existed in the site. It is my understanding that the Char Bhagh housed the  Shiva temple which was demolished completely. A ground penetrating study can reveal if foundations of a temple are present underneath.

The Shiva temple was whitish in colour says the inscription such that Shiva preferred to stay here than in the snow-white Himalayas. This implies that the temple was covered with marble. The marbles were used for the other Vishnu temple which was converted into the mausoleum for Mumtaz. The image of the Sun on the underside of the dome of the Taj Mahal could mean that it was a temple of Surya Narayana.

The image of the sun on the underside of the central dome of the Taj Mahal.

When Shah Jahan ran out of enough marbles to cover the Mausoleum, he stripped some from the upper stories of the Taj Mahal and requisitioned some from Raja Jai Singh which he refused.

These revelations were spoken by me in PGurus you Tube channel which can be viewed here.

 

Karikāl Chola who built Kallaṇai (Grand Anicut) was a contemporary of Adi Shankara

 The quest for establishing the date of Adi Shankara brings up an interesting information that a Chola king by name ‘Rājasena’ helped Adi Shankara in setting up three temples and in re-modelling Kanchipuram into two parts – as Shiva Kanchi and Vishnu Kanchi.  Even today these names exist with an additional identity as Big Kanchi for Shiva Kanchi and Small Kanchi for Vishnu Kanchi. Shiva temples are concentrated in Shiva Kanchi while Vishnu Kanchi is dominated by Vishnu temples, but the king’s name ending with ‘Sena’ is not heard of in the Chola genealogy.

The life history of Adi Shankara given in a text named, ‘Shankara Vijaya Vilāsa’ talks about the service of this Chola king in developing these towns and temples at the behest of Adi Shankara from verses 6 to 61 in chapter 25. Rājasena as the name of a Chola king doesn’t appear in any Tamil sources but this name appears with a variation in the Bhashya (commentary) to Chandogya Upanishad by Adi Shankara where he refers to ‘Rājavarman’ - a king who brings rewards equal to kingship. Rājasena being his contemporary, it makes us wonder whether Adi Shankara mentioned Rājasena as Rājavarman.

Checking the authenticity of this text, this book is indeed the lesser known among the many hagiographies of Adi Shankara. Only four manuscripts of this book were found in different parts of Bharat. The earliest to appear in print was published by Vāvillu Rāmasāmi Sāstri in 1876 at Madras. All the four manuscripts were compared and found to have less variations. The text is in the form of a narration of Adi Shankara’s life history by one Cidvilāsa Yati (who learned it from his Guru) to his disciple, Vijnānakanda. It is not possible to find out the date of this composition, but scholars are of the opinion that it follows Brihat Shankara Vijaya by Citsukha, the first disciple of Adi Shankara. There are however others who deny the very existence of Citsukha!

This text cannot be ignored because it talks about six kings from different parts of Bharat as contemporaneous to Adi Shankara of whom the Chola King at Kanchi appears traceable with Kanchi having more than 2000 years of history, recorded in literature (Tamil Sangam texts) and inscriptions. The other kings were Bhadrasena of Rudrākhya nagar near Prayāg, Vіrasena near the bank of Thungabhadra and Shringeri Mutt, Bhojasingh of Cidambar, Ratnasingh of Badarī and Rāmarāja of Anantasayana.

The information pertaining to Rājasena, the Chola king is related to developing Kanchi on the advice of Adi Shankara. Though I could get the exact date of Adi Shankara’s birth based on the Panchanga features given by many hagiographies, I wanted to find out the identity of this Chola king independently so that it would become a cross reference in support of the date of Adi Shankara which I will be sharing in another article.

About Rājasena in the text

The text says that Adi Shankara came to Kanchi from Shringeri after giving consent for setting up a Mutt in Shringeri. On coming to Kanchi, he worshiped Ekāmbranātha, Kāmākshi and Varadarāja. This shows that temples for these deities existed during his time.

Sometime during his stay, the Chola king, Rājasena came to meet him. Adi Shankara told him to develop Kanchi by making it two-told with Shiva and Vishnu, instead of the threefold division of Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu. Taking his advice, the king modelled the city as Shiva Kanchi and Vishnu Kanchi and built temples for Ekāmbranātha, Kāmākshi and Varadarāja. The building of these temples by Rājasena implies that these deities worshiped by Adi Shankara when he came to Kanchi were not housed in proper temples. Only Rājasena constructed these temples.

It is also written that when Adi Shankara came, Kāmākshi Devi was in Ugra form. She was residing in a bila (hole / cave) and often tormented the people. Adi Shankara pacified her by establishing a Sri Yanta. Adi Shankara asked the Chola king to make a golden image of Goddess Kāmākshi and install it in front of the hole. He also got the king to build a mutt for him. The King was asked by Sureshwara, the disciple of Adi Shankara to make a Sarvajna-pitha, (the throne of omniscience) made of gold and decorated with precious stones and adorned with steps. The king obliged and made the throne on which Adi Shankara ascended.

With only these details about this Chola king, we must find out who he was.

Rājasena was pre-Pallava.

In the opinion of many, Adi Shankara lived in the 7^th or 8^th century CE. The three main temples of Kanchi (Ekāmbranātha, Kāmākshi and Varadarāja) were already well developed by those centuries. Kanchi was under the control of the Pallava-s until the 9^th century when Aditya-I, the son of Vijayālaya defeated the Pallava-s. Placing Rājasena and Adi Shankara at or after the 9^th century in post-Vijayālaya period is not appropriate, because Kanchi was well developed by then.  

The only other time the Chola-s were in control of Kanchi was some time before the 3^rd century CE. As per the Pallava chronicles given in Velurpālayam plates, Kumāravishnu captured Kanchi from the Chola-s. (Verse 8)

Earlier, his father, Skandasishya snatched the Ghatika of Kanchi from Satyasena! (verse 7). The name Satyasena in the inscription shows that having ‘Sena’ as suffix was not uncommon among the Chola kings. A search for the Chola suffixes shows that their names in Tamil mostly ended with Kiḷḷi and Senni as well. But ‘sena’ being a Sanskrit word, it could have been in use in the Sanskrit names of the Chola kings. Most Chola kings had a titular name in Sanskrit while they also had a Tamil name by which they were commonly known. For example, Rājarāja was the titular name in Sanskrit for Arulmozhivarman in Tamil.

Among the Chola suffixes, Senni sounds closer to Sena. As per Sendhan Divākara Nighantu (Tamil Thesaurus, Verse 14) the following are the titles of the Chola kings. The list begins with Senni.

“Senni, Vaḷavan, Kiḷḷi, Sembiyan, Ponni-thuṛaivan, Pulikkodi-puravalan, Nēriyan, Ārththārkōn, Nēriṛai, Abhayan, Nēri veṛpan, Kōzhi vēndhan, Sūriyan, Punal Nādan, Kōchōzhan peyarē”

“சென்னி, வளவன், கிள்ளி, செம்பியன்,

பொன்னித் துறைவன், புலிக்கொடிப் புரவலன்,

நேரியன், ஆர்த்தார்க்கோன், நேரிறை, அபயன்,

நேரிவெற்பன், கோழி வேந்தன்,

சூரியன், புனனாடன், கோச்சோழன் பெயரே”

Senni seems to be a variation of Senāni, the Sanskrit word for Chief or Commander of the army or leader of the army. Senāni might have become Sena in the Sanskrit title and Senni in the Tamil title. Karikāla was known as ‘Senni Karikāla’ in Kulottunga Cholan Ula penned by Ottakūththar.

There is a likelihood that his Sanskrit title could have had Sena as suffix. In fact, no one knows the original name of Karikāl Chola. The name Karikāla was not his original name as revealed by Tiruvalangadu plates which state that he was Kāla for Kali. Therefore, he was Karikāla or Kalikāla. Senni Karikāla was his titular name.  Karikāla’s father was also a Senni – Uruva pahrēr Iḷamsēt Senni (உருவப்பஃறேர் இளம்சேட் சென்னி). He was the younger brother of one Sēt Senni (சேட் சென்னி) who was also addressed as Nalam Kiḷḷi (நலங்கிள்ளி) who ruled from Pūmpukār as per Purananuru verse 225. So, Senni looks like a variation of Sena. With this title seen in early Chola names, there is scope to say that Rājasena was a pre common era king of the Chola kingdom who had a hold over Kanchi too.

Golden walled Kanchi

Even as early as 78 CE when the Śālivāhana Śaka started, the Chola-s were in control of Kanchi, for, we read about Iḷam Kiḷḷi (இளம்கிள்ளி) ruling Kanchi when Manimekalai went over there. Perum Kiḷḷi (பெரும் கிள்ளி) was ruling from Uraiyūr during Kannagi’s period, as per Silappadhikaram.

We also read in Manimekalai that Kanchi was a walled city with the walls plated with gold and the city itself known as golden. In the 28^th chapter of Manimekalai, Māsātthuvān, the father of Kovalan was found to be telling his granddaughter, Manimekalai that Kanchi had golden walls. (பொன் எயில் காஞ்சி நாடு – line 156). Once again it is said in the same chapter, ‘golden city’ (பொன் நகர்- line 168) and ‘the ancient walled city with golden flag’ (பொற்கொடி மூதூர் புரிசை-   line 170). The city was a ‘popular ancient city’ (மல்லல் மூதூர் – line 237).

The city already well made with golden walls in the 1^st century CE (as known from the text Manimekalai) is proof of its development in the pre-common era. There is epigraphic evidence on who made it golden! It was Karikāl Chola!

The 42^nd verse of the Tiruvalangadu copper plates states,

“In this (king’s) family was born he, the leader of all the lords of the earth, the foremost of the great on account of his virtues, the king who renovated (the town of) Kanchi with gold, who had established his glorious fame by constructing embankments of the Kaveri and whom (people) called Kalikāla because (he) was (the god of) death to the elephants (kari) (of his enemies) as also to the Kali (-age).”

The exact verse in Sanskrit stating that Karikāla modernized Kanchi with gold is as follows:

“Kānchīm yashva navīcakāra kanakais: sōbhudamushyān vaye”

There is no way to claim that someone before Karikāla could have made the changes in Kanchi because only one king appears in the genealogy before Karikāla in Kali Yuga, and he was Perunar Kiḷḷi (பெருநற்கிள்ளி). Tiruvalangadu inscriptions offer unique information on Yuga-s in minor scale which can be called Dharma Yuga. It says that after the end of Dwapara Yuga, Perunar Kiḷḷi ruled the Chola domains, followed by Karikāla. This doesn’t mean that there were not many kings before Karikāla. There is evidence of several Kiḷḷi-s during and before Karikāla in the Sangam text of Purananuru, but only Karikāla and Perunar Kiḷḷi seemed to have stood out as exceptions, when compared with others.

The reference to the end of Dwapara Yuga before Perunar Kiḷḷi shows that they referred to the ushering in of the Kali Dharma Yuga with the beginning of Nanda dynasty as told in Srimad Bhagavatam (12-2-32). The year was 575 BCE, calculated on the basis of the Kali year of 2526 given in a similar verse in Brihat Samhita (13-3). Following the beginning of Kali Dharma Yuga in 575 BCE Perunar Kiḷḷi, Karikāla and Koccheṇganān were mentioned in the Tiruvalangadu inscription before Vijayālaya.

The Laden plates recognize Karikāla as one of the earliest kings coming after the much olden Vyāghrakētu (verse11) thereby making him a notable early king. This inscription doesn’t mention Perunar Kiḷḷi.

The Anbil plates of Sundara Chola also place Karikāla after the first Chola who lent his name to the dynasty, thereby according Karikāla an important place in the lineage of the early period. The Anbil Plates specifically state that it was a family of “kings beginning with Senni, Kiḷḷi and (kings) likewise beginning with Karikāla.”

The Anbil Plates further mention the names of the descendants of Karikāla as Koccheṇganān, Nallaṭikkon, Vaḷabha and Srikāntha coming before Vijayālaya. None of them was linked with Kanchi, except Karikāla. Karikāla seems to be the only Chola King to have made the golden wall around the city that is found mentioned in Manimekalai of the latter part of the 1^st century CE.

Karikāl Chola is associated with building the wall around Kanchi in Sekkilār’s Periya Puranam. Verse 85 of Tirukkuṛipputh thoṇdar Purāṇam states this. The verse is reproduced below:

என்று முள்ளவிந் நகர்கலி யுகத்தி

     லிலங்கு வேற் கரி காற்பெரு வளத்தோன்

வன்றி றற்புலி யிமயமால் வரைமேல்

     வைக்க வேகுவோன் றனக்கிதன் வளமை

சென்று வேடன்முன் கண்டுரை செய்யத்

     திருந்து காதநான் குட்பட வகுத்துக்

குன்று போலுமா மதில்புடை போக்கிக்

     குடியி ருத்தின கொள்கையின் விளங்கும்.

It says that Karikāl Chola who engraved his tiger emblem on the Himalayas was a king of the Kali yuga who created mountain like walls around the city of Kanchi for a circumference of 4 Khādam (yojana) and brought people to settle there. It also says that he was asked to do this by a ‘hunter’ (வேடன்) who went before him! The reference to a hunter leading the way and showing the spot was common in olden days when a king was on an expedition or moving through forested areas. A group of people used to visit the route taken by the king to clear the path. In this case, a hunter who was familiar with the region helped the royal team to identify habitable regions of Kanchi.

The initial demarcation of the city of Kanchi was done by Karikāl Chola by building a wall around Kanchi, as per the verse of Periya Puranam. Further re-modeling with gold was done on the advice of Adi Shankara. The specific title of Senni to Karikāla raises a doubt on whether he was Rājasena of Adi Shankara period.  

Karikāla’s connection with Kanchi.

Karikāla is remembered in Silappadhikaram for quite a few things of historical importance. He visited the ‘Kāmakkottam’ - the original and olden name for Kanchi owing to Kāmākshi, the presiding deity. There is a reference to Kanchi as Kāmakoṣṇī in Srimad Bhagavatam, visited by Balarāma, the brother of Krishna (kāma-koṣṇīṁ purīṁ kāñcīṁ - 10-79-14). Kāmakoṣṇī changed into Kāmakoṭi. The seat of Goddess is referred to as ‘Kāmakoshṭha’ in Shilpa texts such as Mānasāra and in Saiva- āgama-s. The Goddess is referred to as ‘Kāmakoṭikā’ in Lalitā Sahasranama, as ‘Kāmeswari Kāmakoṭinilayā’ in Lalitā Trishatī and ‘Kāmakoṭi Mahāpadma pītasthā’ in Lalitā Ashtotthara. What is Kāmakoṭi in Sanskrit is known as Kāmakkottam in Tamil.

Of the seven Moksha-Puri-s, Kanchi is one, the others being Ayodhya, Haridwar, Vāraṇāsī, Ujjain, Mathura and Dwaraka. This classification must have come up only after Krishna’s time going by the two places (Mathura and Dwaraka) identified with Krishna’s birth and life. Kanchi was already recognized as an important religious center by appearing in the pilgrimage plan of Balarama. It is noteworthy that Kanchi was known as Kāmakoṣṇī even at that time, which can be attributed to the presence of Kāmākshi Devi only. Koṣṇī or Koṣṭha is Tamilised into Kottam – a word for temple often appearing in Silappadhikaram and Manimekalai. 

Karikāla went to Kāmakkottam of the bangled Kāmākshi to get a weapon called ‘Chendu’ from Sāsta in that temple for the purpose of engraving (his symbol) on the golden Himalayas. This is written by Adiyārkku Nallār, the olden commentator of Silappadhikaram, by quoting an ancient Tamil verse whose authorship is not known.

கச்சி வளைக் கச்சி காமக்கோட்டம் காவல்

மெச்சி இனிது இருக்கும் மெய்ச் சாத்தன் – கைச் செண்டு

கம்பக் களிற்றுக் கரிகால் பெருவளத்தான்

செம்பொற் கிரி திரித்த செண்டு.

Kachchi vaḷik kachchi Kāmakkottam kāval

Mechchi inithu irukkum meych chāththan – kaich cheṇdu

Kambak kaḷṛṛiuk Karikāl peruvaḷaththān

sempon giri thiriththa cheṇdu.

Thre is a shrine of Sāsta even today in the first Prākāra of the Kāmākshi temple of Kanchipuram, thereby establishing the fact that the same temple of Kāmākshi with Sāsta existed in Karikāla’s time.

    Sāsta with Purna and Pushkala in Kāmākshi temple of Kanchi

The ‘Cheṇḍu’ is held by Sāsta in His hand. It is also noteworthy that Adi Shankara offers salutations to Sāsta in his composition, Sivapādādikeṣānta stotra. This reinforces Adi Shankara’s association with Kāmākshi temple of Kanchi, says VA Devasenapati in his book, ‘Kamakottam and Nayanmars’.

A definite town planning is seen in the position of both Shiva and Vishnu temples in Kanchi. Kāmākshi temple occupies the center while the entrances and Gopuram-s of all the other temples including the Varadaraja temple are facing the Kāmākshi temple. It is as though the entire city is centered around Kāmākshi Devi. All the deities of the other temples go round the Kāmākshi temple during Brahmotsava. This is followed in the case of Vishnu deities of Kanchi too which cannot happen unless it was an ancient practice sanctioned right from the time of building those temples in alignment with the Kāmākshi temple.

Another notable feature is the absence of separate shrine of Devi (Shakti or Ambāl) in any of the Shiva temples of Kanchi while the Shiva temples outside Kanchi have separate shrines for Shakti. Kāmākshi is the overpowering deity of Kanchi who makes her presence in the Shiva temples of Kanchi without a separate shrine for her individually in those temples.

A special feature of Kāmākshi Devi is her bangle. The bangles of Kāmākshi as mentioned in ‘Kachchi vaḷik kachchi’ (கச்சி வளைக் கச்சி) are something special as they are found as impressions in the body of Shiva according to Kanchi Puranam and Mūkapancashatī. The description of Kāmākshi Devi with bangles during the visit of Karikāla to the Kāmākshi temple to acquire Cheṇḍu could have happened after the temple was established from being a ‘bila’ or a hole into a full-fledged temple with the vigraha of Kāmākshi consecrated. It must be recalled that as per Shankara Vijaya Vilāsa, the golden image of Goddess Kāmākshi was made by the Chola king Rājasena on the advice of Adi Shankara. The Golden vigraha was taken to Thanjavur during Muslim invasion.

The city of Kanchi was renovated with gold by Karikāl Chola according to Tiruvālangādu copper plates. The city had golden walls as per Manimekalai of the 1^st century CE. This gives scope to link Karikāl Chola with the making of Golden vigraha for Kāmākshi Devi.

The arrangement of the temples in a specific fashion could not have been conceived by a king. Certainly, a religious leader of tall order must have been behind the planning of Kanchi into Vishnu and Shiva Kanchi with Kāmākshi as the central deity. Adi Shankara is identified as one who got the remodeling of the town with the help of Rājasena, who appears to be Karikāla.

At the same time, we do find another name “Iḷam Thirayan” (இளம் திரையன்) as the king of Kanchi in the Sangam Age text called “Perum Pānāṛṛu Padai”. Both Karikāla and Iḷam Thirayan seem to be contemporaries because both had been praised by the same poet, Kadiyalūr Urutthiram Kannanār (கடியலூர் உருத்திரங்கண்ணனார்). Since Iḷam Thirayan was also known as “Tondamān” Iḷam Thirayan, Kanchi was known as Toṇdai nādu or Toṇdai Maṇḍalam. The poet praised Iḷam Thirayan positioned at Kanchi whereas his poem (Pattina-p-Pālai பட்டினப்பாலை) on Karikāl Chola was about Pūmpukār. This raises a question on linking Karikāl Chola with Kanchi as Rājasena. Couldn’t Iḷam Thirayan be Rājasena?

(to be continued) 

Mahabharata Quiz - 83

 Click here for the previous question

Question- 83

What was Krishna’s reaction to the observation of Karna of odd events seen in Nature?

Answer:

That is the Ganesha moment for us to figure out Krishna's response  because Krishna did not react to those observations except by saying that Amavasya was due on Jyeshtha. It could not be so if he concurred with Karna’s version of earlier Gara Karana in Citra star. Perhaps Vyasa deliberately avoided giving us the detailed talk of Krishna regarding the change in Karana and tithi.

Krishna must have definitely concurred with Karna’s observation on earlier Amavasya and ended up saying – let us wait and watch. However, only his advice to Karna to get the war ritual done on Jyeshtha Amavasya was recorded by Vyasa in the text. Later just prior to his departure from this world, Krishna recalled the thirteenth tithi Amavasya before the Mahabharata war. Like this, somehow Vyasa has made it a point to repeat twice every controversial idea for us to have the Ganesha moment.

Failing to sense the need to think and rethink on this part of the Mahabharata, quite a few researchers have written that the war started on Jyeshtha Amavasya of Karthika, without giving a thought on further developments written by Vyasa.

One such development was about what Vyasa observed of the moon in the next phase. That phase also ended in Trayodasi tithi!

 Click here for the next question