I have not yet read the full novel - but was pleasantly surprised with the nice q & a session in your blog (http://www.vamsadhara.blogspot.com/). You have taken pain to clarify many points reg the novel.
In the passing you have mentioned about the udaiyaloor inscription that talks about rajendra renouncing the kingdom for few days after rajaraja's death. Certainly it is a very interesting and rare news. I was only aware of a much later period inscription which talks about renovation to a Maaligai which is associated with Rajaraja (ezhundarula nindra).
Looking forward to hear more on this & also to read your novel.
Makutakamam, I had to consult more sanscrit Pandits and read more research books. The Akamam speaks all especially Construction of Temple and Samadhi rituals. Our Great Kings were more keen on this science especially RRC, RJC, KC-1, and 3.
One example: Your Guide Kudavayil Balu wrote a book about 'Gopurakkalai'. You can find the construction details of Garbhagruham and Rajagopuram details in that (and I am sure you must have mastered those). And Makutakamam rituals were clear - how it was followed while constructing Temple structure.
My thought was fully on RRC's Big temple connection with Makutakamam. When searching on other sceinces of Makuta through Pandits, we have got another theory, i.e. Samathi rituals. Fortunately our leader SPS helped me in procuring the important guide book of Makutakamam, where these points alone glorified in such a way how it can be attained.(which I gave reference in back pages of book).
And Udayalur inscription is the key to my search and started to question myself why not RRC could have utilised such a great opportunity. Afterall he mastered in the Makuta science by building a great big temple.
During RJC ruling period, RRC was portrayed as one among Gods and the once great King was treated on par with 'Moovar' especially whenever procession takes place. These incidents helped me more.
Once again thanks Gokul, for refreshing my thoughts on great kings
Thanks for very detailed mails. SPS & myself have discussed the topic at great lengths - very fascinating indeed. What confused me was the reference to udaiyaloor inscription. Now I know that it is actually the Thiruvalanchuzhi inscription which is being referred to.
Coming to the sciences of temple building versus rituals: - The sciences that deals with building cities, villages and temples were called Vaasthu vidhya or vaasthu saastras - The ones with shilpas in particular are called shilpa saastras - The ones with paintings chitra sastras
Whereas the aagamas are generally ritualistic in nature.
Many books belonging to the above mentioned 3 classes predate aagamas. But that does not mean the principles outlined are late. Some of the rituals may be very old - but they got codified and compiled as aagamas only at a later date.
Coming to Makutagama:
The earliest reference to makutagama occurs in Thirumandiram. Dr Rajamanickanar places Thirumular on par with Karaikkal ammaiyar and before Appar. But this view is also being debated.
Thirumoolar quotes navagamas - 9 aagamas. Kaamika and Kaarana have been given first ranks indicating their early dates.
The entire Makutagama has not yet been translated and published as a single book. Out of 3 parts - Chariya paadha, Kriya paadha and samaadhi paadha only 2 have been published.
1. By Thennindhiya archakar sangam based on a thanjore manuscript. Full grantha no translation. I had to seek the help of a young exponent to read thro this. This has been referred to by SPS. Only one padha.
2. The other is the banaras publication which says it is kriya paadha but I think this is samaadhi paadha. Not sure.
Coming to RRC, there are circumstantial evidences which can help us to analyze how his ending came through. - No recognized pallippadais - Probably no sati was performed. Atleast no references. Panchavan mahadevi lived after his passing away. - Udaiyaloor inscription which talks about the high esteem he commanded even during kulothunga period - Possibly no self sacrifice of Udankoottathar after his death and so on - HE IS NEVER EVER REFERRRED TO WITH THE WORD "THUNJIYA". Usually it is a practice to refer to previous kings with "Thunjiya" title.