oh Malathy, you should have become a lawyer. YOu really read between lines. I didnt mean anything and never put the word in quotes as you did. It was just a simple expression. Though I mentioned it without intention, I take back the words.
In thiruvilayadal, there is a dialogue which goes like - 'kuttram kandu pidithe peyar vangam pulavargal irukkirargal'.
Sorry I cant deny remembering that dialogue here. Please do take atleast this in lighter sense. :)
This is indeed my first post in this group. Ha Ha Ha.... The Vaishnavite in me screaming!!!! Hey, definitely it is not. All along I have observed the valuable contribution of others on History of TN here. I would contribute only on the subject that I know. Since I knew very less or nothing about the history (Honestly, only PS created the interest in History on me) I was a silent observer. As you observed correctly, since the topic was about something the I knew I contributed. So please do not conclude that I know much. And no sorries please. I understand your intention and no ill feelings.
In fact I know that there is a widespread belief about the Iyengars being Fanatic in that they wont go to Siva Temple. This is just misrepresented and that is why I tried to clarify the reason why the Iyengars do not go to Siva Temples. Honestly, I have been to Siva temples, but let me admit that I dont pray there. Another refuge under Nammazhwar. He says in his Thiruvaimozhi
....koLLak kuRaivilan, vEndiRRu ellAm tharum kOdhil en maNivaNNan....
He says that Vishnu is capable of giving all that one wants, in the spirit of the same philosophy (husband-wife bhAvam) that I wrote before.
This is what is called harmony. I may believe in a God and stick to Him. But I will never defame another God. I may not pray to Him. That doesn't mean I disrespect Him. Exactly like a wife being loyal only to her Husband. Thirumazhisai Azhwar's life history signifies tis. He was a staunch Vaishnavite everyone knows. One when he was stiching his clothes, Siva and Parvathi were coming rounds around the earth and Parvathi was attracted by the "tEjas" of this Azhwar and told Siva that we should give him some boon. Siva, knowing about this Azhwar, was hesitant but gave in to the pressure of Parvathi (mmmmm.... anga kooda appidithAn pola) and both came down and asked the Azhwar to ask for a boon. The Azhwar said with complete respect that he does not want anything from them. But when insisted, he being a truly surrendered soul awaiting only mOksha, asked for it. Siva says that only Vishnu can give that. Azhwar says then he does not want anything. But again on insisting, he asked a very trivial boon that the thread should enter the needle at the back. Though at the outset it will look like a dry sarcasm without any respect, it is just reflective of the position that he does not want anything. The Azhwar never disrespected Siva. This is the same bhAvam that all Iyengars follow.
However, if any Iyengar, talks ill of any other God, not only Siva, he ceases to be a true Vaishnavite as again Nammazhwar glorifies in his Thiruviruttham this time as....
vaNangum thuRaigaL pala pala Aakki, madhi vigaRppAl piNangum samayam pala pala Aakki, avai avaidhOru aNangum pala pala Aakki, nin moorthi parappi vaithAi iNangu ninnOrai illAi, nin kaN vEtkai ezhuvippaNE
Wonderful words. For Nammazhwar everything is Vishnu or Kannan as he says "....uNNum sOru, thinnum vetRilai, parugum nIr, ellAm kaNNan..." He say in the above pAsuram that Vishnu created so many religions and so many forms of worship so that all the jeevAthmAs can attain salvation by one means or other and He is present in all those religions and forms. So where is the question of disrespecting Siva or for that sake any god. I would consider that every God of every religion is Vishnu as per the above words of the Kulapathi Nammazhwar.
And lastly I dont want to start a debate on Vaishnavism Vs Saivism and spoil the wonderful ambience of this group, which respects all.
Sorry for the digression and thank you for the opportunity to present a more clear picture about the Vaishnavites sticking only to Vishnu, which is definitely not fanaticism, but a bhAvam as per their philosophy.
No need to explain the meaning as the Tamizh is very simple. Yes, you look upon the Supreme Being as Siva, He will show himself as Siva, if you look upon Him as Vishnu, He will show himself as Vishnu.
This is glorified by Ramanuja himself. Once when he was walking through the Kaveri Banks in Srirangam, the kids of Srirangam were playing with the sand, building a temple and on seeing Ramanuja called him and said " svAmin, come here. Take this prasAdham of your beloved PerumAL". This noble man, immediately obeyed the kids and took the prasAdham, which is nothing but sand, with utmost respect in the angavasthram and paid obeisance and left the spot. He accepted the sand as both Ranganatha and His prasAdham. This is what is glorified as bhAva suddhi.
This is why I wrote in my previous mail that no true Srivaishnavite will disrespect another God.
The Guruparampara Prabhavam is said to have been compiled sometime after the demise of Ramanuja. I vaguely remember it was Pinbazhagiya Perumal Jeeyar, a third generation disciple of Ramanuja.
Ramanuja l l Parasara Bhattar l l Nanjeeyar l l Nampillai l l Pinbazhagiya Perumal Jeeyar.
The tree will clarify this. But remember all the above AchAryAs upto Nanjeeyar lived along with Ramanuja. Nampillai and Pinbazhagiya Perumal Jeeyar were contemporaries though the latter was a disciple of the former. I will throw more light on this, regarding the timelines shortly. Kindly bear with me.
Forget about Vaishnavite and Saivite. Even within vaishnavite, acharyas devoted to Rama would never go to Krishna temple and vice versa. Again this is their bhava, this is called ananya bhakthi - http://vedabase.net/a/ananya. Not a disrespect to Rama or Krishna.
For eg., One of Panduranga's leela is to pull Ramadasar (Guru of King Sivaji). Ramadasar never visited krishna's temple due to his Ananya bhakthi and Pandurangan wanted to see him ONLY because of that.
> This is why I wrote in my previous mail that no true Srivaishnavite > will disrespect another God. >
Thiruvalangadu Copper plates describe Rajaraja as having been born with Chanku Chankra Rekhas and the wives of Adhisheshan were joyed to realise that their husband's burden would soon be RELIEVED OF .. by RRC ... !
So much to share...
Pls put more of AZHWAR'S THIRUMOZHI... THAEN MOZHI..
NAMMAZHWAR is my Favourite Aazhwar ...
Been to Azhwarthirunagari last year and medidated under that ancient Tree !!
Though there are 12 Azhwars, MADURAKAVI did not hymn on Vishnu.. He hymned only on NAAMAZHWAR..
Hence 11 Aazhwars hymned on Sriramngam..
and 10 on Thirumala...
Thirumangai has hymned on most of the Divyadesams...
And NAMMAZHWAR did not go around to see the Divyadesams..
Satish, how can you not mean 'anything', we all mean something dont' we :))? I did not read between lines, only quoted what you said.
I will confess my weakness too, I hate being too soft on these age old divisionary arguments, basically all is one, leave it at that, that is all. If we try to argue on those lines it is just an attempt to dilute that stance.
Venkat II, very well said tht both versions are not in league with the original beauty of hindu thought.
As far as Vaishavites take 'offence' at depiction of mal in sculptures etc, that somehow to me adds up to what Mal means to the person. God is beyond such petty offences, He whether you see him as Mal or Shiva is the embodiment of compassion, He is not standing for election and not expecting his devotees/followers to save him from insults. As a vaishavite myself I would just look at it as the sculptor's perspective that is all.
The late D.K. Jayaraman, brother of veteran singer D.K. Pattamal had a song in one of his albums - I forget the author of the song, but it went like Hariyum Haranum Onre endru ariyadavar ularo... Jayaraman used to end the song on humorous note 'Oooh oru silar ularae'...
sure malathi the oneness of god is what a lot of people accept today. but the greatest of our saints who attained super human energetic levels never beleived in it. even in hinduism which is the most tolerant of those religions existing today. "MatrOr theivam vanthipathEn" says abiram pattar. sundarar in his devaram even mimics the jain prayer sambanda did not hesitate to see thousands of jains impaled when they lost in a debate to him.
Venkat I don't disagree that Sambandar and Appar had jains impaled. They lived in diferent times. There are things we can accept about those times and things that we cannot. Forget even about Sambandar and Appar if you look at the gory exploits of our divine figures it is not something we can digest in our time and age.
Generally though when saint says his God is the only way they mean what they have seen and experienced spiritully that is all. The only way to expound such experiences is by unilaterally asserting that it is the only way - the 'only way' referred to by Christ and pattar are the same 'only ways' just their experience that is all.
If we study spiritual ecstasy in any culture and tradition, it is not the path but the ultimate experience it is the same that is why we believe it is One. We can say there is no proof, and continue on the lines of my God versus your God, that is not going to lead anywhere other than everyone finishing one another off, that is all.
You have literally bombarded me with informations. I will try to analyse the possibility of a Chola King being the reason behind Ramanuja's exile. I request some time before I reply to this. I will reply to this within a week's time.
The Chitrkoodam of Ramayana is neither the Thillai Vilaakam nor Chidambaram. It is somewhere in Madhyapradesh. This is were Rama,Sita and Lakshmana stayed for atleast 11 years before Sita was abducted by Ravana. One can google and find many references to this place.
Azhwars never talk about Chidambaram being associated with Thiruchitrakoodam where Rama had stayed. The the name for Chidambaram as Thiruchithrakoodam is at best a co-incidence or namesake. And by the above, Thillai Vilaagam stands no were near to be termed Chithrakoodam of Ramayana fame, though the Rama idol was found there.
For the records, I had never visited Thillai Vilaagam.
Wow, that is a news to me. Atleast we definitely do not have such an inclination in Tamizh Vaishnavism, if can say so to give an identity to the one followed by the Tamizh Azhwars and AchAryas like Ramanuja upto Manavala Mamuni
Smt Malathi, Agreed, there cannot be another God. But as perspectives differ from one sect to other sect, this term "another God" came into existence and that is what I meant. As you are all aware, the look upon the only Supreme Being as Vishnu, while others may view Him as Siva or any other name. This is what I tried to say.
Very Simple Tamizh again. However I wouldn't look at it as a true differentiation, but just an aberration due to the perspectives prevalent. The loyalty of the Azhwar or the Abhirama Bhattar or Sundarar was at extreme that they praised very high about the form they loved. That is it?
You share my thoughts too. The stories of Vishnu getting ostracised by Siva, in the Sarabeshwarar or ThiruvIzhimizhalai legend and vice versa are, in my humble opinion, at best fictitious. I, for one, do not want to believe these Sthala Puranams, which associates an ancient Puranam, for even a temple built as recently as 150 years ago.
I was watching the Jaya TV sometime back and they were showing about the Mannargudi Rajagopala Swamy temple. It is very well know that it was built during the times of Kulothunga I and he built it during his "kADu thiruthi nADu paDuthum paNi". But immediately the presenter started associating some PuraNa which did mention about a PerumAL being present there. How!!!??? How in the world is this possible.
Like wise the Sarabeswarar legend is very funny. It is said that Siva took the form of Sarabeswarar to kill Vishnu. First of all what is the motive? Afterall Vishnu took the form of Narasimha to protect his own devotee, Prahaladha. He did achieve His mission. What was the need of Siva to kill Him? Okay let us ascribe some motive and accept it for argument sake. Off late, we can see the legend of Pratyangira becoming famous and more with the visits of ex-CM JJ to the temple in Sholinganallur. The legend behind Pratyangira is that, Parvathi or Kaali took the form of Female lion and killed Narasimha. My God!!! If the husband has killed a person earlier, why would the wife need to take another form to kill the same person and again what is the motive. Or did Parvathi kill a "dead snake"?
It is just that our ancestors who framed all these stories wanted to ascribe some antiquity to all these stories by way of a SthalapurANam so that the temple can be glorified. Really funny marketing tactics.
It is very simple. Our writer Venketesh writes his name with an 'e'. The other Venkatesh, with an 'a'. There wa an acrimonius exchange between two venkats in another forum; one was k****** venkat and the other started identifying himself as not k****** venkat.
I agree with with Rahul; the vadakalai-thenkalai debate can easily get out of bounds as aryan-dravidan or other sensitive topics we have seen. It is better to stay clear or just state facts (?) with proof (?).
On the same line of thought n in relation to cholas...why does the sibi ( swmbian) legends find place in the buddhist jataka stories. Similarly srilankan chronicles talk of a similar legend to the manu needhi cholan...
Venkat2, whatever little I know from my grandmother, Narasimha's anger was not appeased even after killing Hiranya so Parvati or Shiva decided to confront the lion (not exactly Vishnu).
I agree with what you say that many stories may have been invented as marketing tactics for the temple. There are several stories like that about Shiva too (The mohini basmasura tale where Shiva takes refuge in Vishnu to save him).
Personally I have found them interesting and useful for their morals and similes to some situation spiritual or otherwise.If we look at them as independant tales not some correlation on a larger scale it may make some sense.
> > VIII. Post Malik Kafur period for 70 years NO POOJA FOR NATARAJA > > IX. Malik Gafur (1327 .. AD) invaded Brahastapuri - having Siva > Linga and Golden Narayana with Horses and a view that it was > Chidambaram is not refuted.. >
malik kafur invaded a decade earlier. must be 1311-1312. what temples he left was wiped out in the second turkish invasion a decade later. but only temples on the way to madurai. thanjai was not touched. lots of things are not clear during this period. temples like madurai and srirangam have functioned quite well in the period between the two invasions. chidambaram has not functioned. another opinion on bramastapuri could it have been sirkali?
but one has to remember all these are from the accounts of the turks wassaf and khusro. they even called madurai 'maabaar'.
I get to see some obscure characters. I am not able to read it in Tamizh. Can some one guide me as to how to get it done.
Mr Vijay,
Excellent writeup. For a Vaishnavite perspective, the story of Chidambaram goes like this (Could be a well exaggerated and aberrated one). Once, there was a competition between Nataraja and Thillai Kaali as to who is the best dancer. They decided to compete it out. As Vishnu is the Supreme Being (for the Vaishnavite Perspective) they approached Him to be the judge. So Vishnu in the form of Govindaraja came and reclined at Chidambaram to be the judge for the competition. This is how both the murthys came into existence in the same temple.
The story goes on to get completed thus, when Nataraja did the most wonderful cosmic form of the dance by lifting His leg, which Kaali could not do due to the inherent shyness of a Woman and thus Govindaraja declared Nataraja as the winner. I dont know if any one of you heard this before. But I have heard it umpteen times.
=========Quote================ therupon vishnu lay prostrate ( > bhoga sayana) in the hall of thillai inorder that his prayers to see > the other leg might be granted. ========Unquote===============
I have a different view of this. Fine that it was recorded by Manikkavasagar. But can someone confirm if Manikkavasagar used the word "prostrate". The reason I ask this is, Logically, a person who is praying or prostrating would never be in such comfortable Bhoga Sayana pose. Rather, only the person, who is so very comfortable and doesn't need anything more, would be in such a pose. I am sure you would all agree to this logic. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also as I am unable to read the Tamizh verses below, please clarify.
But Personally my opinion about the co-existence of both the murthys at the same temple is different. In my humble opinion, as I would always, I would discard the Sthalapuranic versions of both Vaishnavites and Saivites. I would only say that both were in separate temples close to each other, with no connection whatsoever. When Kulothunga II wanted to expand the temple of Nataraja, it is recorded that he approached the Vaishnavites of the area to dislocate the Govindaraja shrine for which there was a vehement opposition. Irked at it, he got the Murthy removed from the temple. This is recorded by the court poet Ottakoothar in his ThakkayAga bharaNi too. Now there is also the account of the Senji, king, re- installing the Perumal in the shrine, much against the opposition of the Dhikshitars. I would only say that the Vaishnavites were very good in getting the king convinced that the Nataraja temple was expanded over the old Vishnu temple and hence Govindaraja needs to be re-instated there. This king being a staunch Vaishnavite did so with his authority.
So the basic problem, in my opinion, in Chidambaram, is the egoistic authorities of two Kings during two different era, which has give rise to the Saivite-Vaishnavite conflict.
I request the learned members to correct me, wherever I am wrong in my above assumptions.
That is easily contested from a Vaishnavite Perspective. It was true that no one was even able to near Narasimha due to the heat generated due to His anger. It is said that even Lakshmi, who is the embodiment of Karunya, could not go near Her husband. Then every one prayed to Prahaladha himself to go forward and bring down the "ugram" of Narasimha. On seeing the innocent (did I say that?? Afterall he was the greatest Bhaktha) face of the child Prahaladha, (for whose cause, Vishnu took the Narasimha Avatar) Narasimha cooled down and only then Lakshmi was able to near Him.
This is espoused in the ThiruvallikkENi pAsuram of Periya Thirumozhi by Thirumangai Azhwar.
Azhwar, as evident from the pAsuram above, clearly says that the "Ugra simham" became "theLLia singam" due to Prahaladha.
Again I dont want to contest a tale here, but the SthalapuraNams. The reason is the happening of a tale is a 50-50 probability based on the beliefs of the individual, but the sthalapuraNams never go well with the History. One will notice that 95% of the kings mentioned in a sthalapuranam will never find a mention anywhere in History. There are a very handful of divyadesams, whose sthalapuranams are atleast closer if not exactly matching with History. Srirangam for one is much better as can be seen from the Temple Chronicles called the "Koil Ozhugu".
Was not clear of your prev post, trying understand what you meant...pl correct me if i am wrong.
1. thillai had both nataraja and reclining vishnu idols - evident from the hymns 2. the reclining pose of the vishnu idol is also sung. 3. is this idol made of bronze - as of now hv seen seated or standing vishnu bonzes only. also mulavar always made of stone. so in all probability the reclining idol is a stone idol and as is seen in most simiarly dated temples, the sayana idols are massive stone sculptures. 4. similar logic, mulavar in stone - follows that the utsavar could be bronze/metal. 5. so there were a utsavar ( metal) and another moolavar ( stone) 6. now a court poet couldnt be wrong in three places - and the reference is not a casual mention but one full of ridicule - aka returning it to its original abode.. 7. so an idol was put into the sea - and was later recovered and restored back into the temple compound....this is where it defies logic . first of all it would take a lot of effort to dislocate a massive stone idol and to carry it all the way to the sea and drop it - then fishermen finding it - how did they bring it up and again move it back into the compound - would the king allow it to happen - then why drop it in the first place??
another idol ( metal) moves to lower tirupathi - was this then the utsavar that got dropped into the sea - makes more sense that way...
the stone utsavar - moved from earlier location facing natarajar - somewhere within the temple compound. the metal moolavar dropped into the sea - found by fishermen - sent to tirupathi and consecrated there...
> > I have a different view of this. Fine that it was recorded by > Manikkavasagar. But can someone confirm if Manikkavasagar used the > word "prostrate". The reason I ask this is, Logically, a person who > is praying or prostrating would never be in such comfortable Bhoga > Sayana pose. Rather, only the person, who is so very comfortable and > doesn't need anything more, would be in such a pose. I am sure you > would all agree to this logic. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > Also as I am unable to read the Tamizh verses below, please clarify. >
hi, try this link or you can go to the archive site ( thiru pl help)
the reference is kidanthan - lay - the pose of vishnu is more of enjoying the dance and hence completely agree with you , as even the author wrote ... ithought many times before posting this verse but then it is important to use this as a substantiation of the fact that both the idols co existed - hence posted it - so pl understand that i wasnt meant to harm anyones feelings.
regarding the urdva thandavam - i am not really sure of your version of vishnu being brought in to judge - from even sanksrit references and iconographic ( pallava times) - the dance of shiva is accompanied by both vishnu and brahma playing appropriate muscial instruments....the agamas of sculpture are very clear - size of the main character guides the composition - so if shiva's dance is the main plot - he is shown in much bigger size than kali in the same freeze. bramha and vishnu occupy the outer niches....you even have nandhi joining in the dance - then he moves into the composition.. you have numerous such statues in kanchipuram, gkc, big temple. our sculptures studied these verses and followed them to the tee. unfortunately as you already pointed out, since vaishnavite temples do not show this particular form, we can never see the examples from that side...
reposting an earlier post of mine - from a book - nataraja in art thought and literature by C. Sivaramamoorthy As Siva commences his dance in the evening. Ratnakara imagines, in the loftiest terms the sun and moons as the cymbals used by the goddess of prosperity herself for tala and laya, the most important in the nritta aspect of dance. At the commencement of dance by Siva at dusk, with the sun disc setting near the astagiri and the full moon emerging into light from his locks, it seems to make the celestial goddess of prosperity hold as it were these two as cymbals for the Lord's musical orchestra: astavalambiravibimbitayodayadsrichudonmishatsakalachandrataya cha sayam sandhyapranrittaharavadyagrihitakamsyataladvayeva samalakshyata nakalakshmih (Haravijya 19.5).
This exacting musical orchestra, the vina played by the Lady of music, Sarasvati herself, the flute by Indra who excels, Brahma keeping time and Vishnu himself sounding the drum, is because Siva himself is an adept in all the musical instruments. In the Sivasahasranama, there is an elaboration of his musical accomplishments. He is described as Sarvaturyaninadi, he is also Vainavi, Panavi, Vini, Tali and Nali: vainavi panavi kalah kalakanthah katamkatah .. vini cha panavi tali nail kalikatus tatha sarvaturyaninadi cha sarvavyuapyaparigrahah (Lingamahapurana 1, 65, 11) tumbuvino mahakopah vamsavadi hyaninditah (Linegamahapurana 1, 65, 21) naikatanaratas svarah (Lingamahapurana 1, 65, 40). The commentary here explains tumbu vina as the vina provided with two gourds and popularly known as Rudra vina. Siva delights in innumerable murchhanas or tanas, and he is of the very nature of the svaras, not only udatta, anudatta, svarita, but the sangita svaras, the seven famous notes. Siva is also called Rathagita: akshayo rathagitas cha (Lingamahapurana 1, 65, 44). Ratha is Rathantarasama, by the chant of which he is invoked. Siva's fondness for Sama is very well known.
associated with several rishis, like Patanjali, Vyaghrapada, Agastya, Durvasa, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatana, Sanatkumara, and others. Ramabhadra Dikshita gives a graphic description of the rasied foot of Siva in his bhujangatrasita mode of dance at Chidambaram. Siva's performance of karanas, making up angaharas, which go along with his whirling movements in forming mandalas, scatters a spray of water from the heavenly stream on his head, bathing and purifying, as it were, the entire space around, packed with spectators. The rapid swirl of his arms raises blasts, resounding in the caverns of the mountains of the quarters, while the light form his raised lotus foot, creates a halo of light around him, fully observed only by the side-long glances of Devi, whose dark eyes are twins it would seem of the blue lotus. As Siva dances with the universe as his theme, he almost lets fall the curtain of illusion, mystifying like Sambara's when soon he reveals the truth to Patanjali, Vyaghrapada and the other rishis, 'This is the illusion of the world as you see it here, and you will now know the eternal truth of the Supreme Brahman, immanent, beginningless, eternal, sentient and blissful, unending and monistic: mandalabhramishu kirnajahnavisikarasnapitachakravalakam bahuvegapavanavapuritakrandadantaradigadrikandaram uddhritaikacharanambujaprabhasrij yamanapariveshavigraham utpalodarasahodarambikalochanantavalanaikagocharam sambariyavanikam athakshipan saprapanchamayanartanam sivah drag adarsayata gonikasutam vyaghrapadam itaran rishin api tena te svayam idam jagan mrisha janate sma paramarthatah punah brahma tat param Anadi sachchidanandalakshanam anantam advayam (Patanjalicharita 4. 70-73).
Like a musician, who, during his song, stops for a while, and draws attention to the tala or the rhythm beat, Siva the great dancer, pauses for a while, to sound the drum himself in between, to show the correct adjustment when necessary. Kshemendra describes the patting of the universal lotus by Siva by a play on the world Pushkara, to suggest his beat of the drum tala. The concept is so lofty it makes even mountain meru only a small part of the universal lotus. Sportively the hand of the Lord of Pramathas (Siva) pats the universal lotus, thus signifying the proper musical time beat, the lotus which has the golden Menu mountain as its seed vessel,
=========================Quote============================ I am YET to find mention of GOVINDARAJA in any of the ancient > Regligeous Text.. (yet to go through Kulasekara, tho" the quotes are > not mentioning of Govindaraja).. =======================Unquote=========================== This goes well with my assumption that both the temples could have been different and merged later at the behest of the ruling King.
Also in your previous message you wrote about Thirumangai Azhwar having sung Govindarajar in various forms and that there could have been more forms in the temple. I beg to differ here. It is but the nature of Azhwars to asscociate a Perumal of a Divyadesam with all the Avatharas etc. All the Azhwars have sung about Thiruvarangan as not only Krishna, but also as Rama, Trivikrama and many more. So just because the Azhwar sings about the Krishna form or any other form, necessarily does not mean there should have been more forms in a temple. An exception however, is the Parthasarathy Temple in ThiruvallikkENi (I hate to call this Triplicane). Thirumangai Azhwar has sung all the forms in this temple with explicit references. The pAsuram that I quoted for Thelliasingar in my earlier post refers to Azhagiyasingar or Thelliyasingar. Like wise, explicit pAsurams were sung for the main Perumal, Parthasarathy, Rama, Ranganatha and Varadaraja.
With reference to the Kulothunga I being called as Kirumi KaNda Chozhan and Ramanuja fleeing Srirangam, I did read some articles yesterday. As pointed out clearly, Kulothunga I seems to have contributed to the Vishnu temples a lot. That leaves one wondering how could he have persecuted a Vaishnavite at the behest of Siva. Considering the fact that there was no need to account for something which had not occured, in the Guruparampara, P Sri Acharya, who wrote an account of Ramanuja observes that, while Kulothunga I was a stauch Saivite, with utmost tolerance towards all other religion and was espousing the growth of Saivism, he could have been worried about the prospects of Srivaishnavism, spearheading the race, under the able guidance of Ramanuja and hence in order to have a check, probably, could have summoned Ramanuja to his court for a debate. However when KoorathAzhwan spoiled this by appearing in the King's court in disguise, and also sarcastically pulling down Siva as God, he was irked by the sarcasm and in a fit of rage could have ordered to blind the eyes of Azhwan and Periya Nambi.
Now, the question may arise as to why did Ramanuja flee the place at first, if the King was not so cruel. Again, probably the case was misrepresented to Ramanuja about the loyaties of the King and also it is recorded that Ramanuja was emotionally forced to flee by his sishyas.
Even if the history has not recorded any kind of disease to Kulothunga I during his end days, it had indeed recorded that the Vishnuvardhana of Hoysalas invaded the Chola territory during the end times of Kulothunga I and hence a state of chaos prevailed during the time when Kulothunga I died, which is attributed as a divine punishment by the Vaishnavites.
But the Koil Ozhugu, the temple chronicle of Srirangam, which mostly goes well with history, records that, after the death of Kirumikanda chozhan, his son Vikrama Chozhan who ascended the throne felt bad about the deed of his father (Kulothunga I???) and had even commented that "How did my dad ever think that by bringing down a temple how could Srivaishnavism be killed. Afterall it (Srivaishnavism) has two major pillars, by way of SriRamayana and Thiruvaimozhi to protect it". Interesting part is that this is recorded by some of the commentators to the Divyaprabhandhams as well. More interestingly the chronology is maintained that after Kulothunga I, his son Vikrama Chozha ascended the throne, which goes well with History, accurately.
SriVaishnava Sri Krishnamachariar of Panchajanyam magazine, as quoted by you in your previous discussion opines in the same way. Rather I have copied him as it made more sense logically.
In view of the above, we could not clearly discard the happening as fiction in my humble opinion.
P Sri Acharya, goes on further to refer to the incident of Govindarajar being thrown into the sea by Kulothunga II and observes that Sadasiva Bandarathar, has refuted that Kulothuga II had comitted such an act, purely out of his love for the Chozha dynasty, while, the contemporary court poet Ottakutthar himself has recorded this incident in his ThakkayAga bharaNi, the song beautifully quoted below.