Hi, 1. There is no temple in existence which could be assigned to his reign. 2. There are enough references of temples' existence however we have no surviving example. 3. Simhavishnu was the king of Kanchi at the time when he vanquished Chola, however we will see later how he came to be the king of Kanchi.
Now we go to next king, Mahendravarman I. As per Kasakudi plates, he gained victory at Pullalura, which is identified with Pullalur near Kanchi. No one knows who his adversary was; however it is supposed that it was Pulakesin II. As per Aihole inscription (EI Vol VI No 1, p 11), Pulakesin II obscured Pallavas by the dust of his army and vanished behind the walls of Kancipuram. Then he drove down to Cholas, Keralas and Pandyas. The country between Ellora and Guntur was under Mahendra but in middle of seventh century, this region went into Chalukyas.
Mattavilasa-prahasana, a Sankrit play, was work of Mahendravarman who is a Pallava king and son of Simhavishnu, and has titles like Avanibhajana, Mattavilasa, Gunabhara and Satrumalla. V Venkayya (EI Vol III, p 277) states that Mahendravarman was first a Jain, later converted into Shaiva by saint Appar.
Clarifications: 1. Simhavishnu was a Vishnu devotee, how come his son Mahendravarman was a Jaina? I mean it is possible but what where the circumstances in which it happened. 2. Mahendravarman's childhood was supposed to be spent in Andhra region, which suggests that Simhavishnu was reigning over that region, without having Kanchi in his domain. Correct? If yes then he would have conquered Kanchi later in his career. 3. Any relation you see between Mahabalipuram's initial monuments and Mahendravarman I?
-Saurabh
There are many inscriptions about Mahendravarman I, we will look into details in coming posts, when I will start referring other books.
There is a reference of Simha Vishnu's father Skanda Varman - also referred as Skanda Sishyan in Thirukkazhugukkundram. Our Gokul has written about this
In fact that was a grant and shows that the temple predates him.
Yes it could be, however Simhavishnu being a devotee of Vishnu would not acknowledge this kind of change as this is not just a change of religion of a normal person but of a prince which might have dire consequences. First of all, all the Brahmana priests would try to oppose this move as change in religion would mean shift of favors. Second, it will have an impact on general public as well which was probably devoted to Vishnu as per their king but now they would find a new religion or devotion. Such kind of changes are not easy. I remember as Buddha story of Malati, depicted in a painting at Bagh, where Malati was devoted to Buddha. But Brahmana priests of that kingdom were not happy with this and they sent an ultimatum to the king that either chose Brahmanas or his daughter, if she does not leave Buddha's path. Malati did not move and the king was forced to chose Brahmanas over his daughter. What I meant is that such kind of changes are not always easy.
This kind of royal conversion must have happened several times; and as you said, the ramifications are more widespread, as many citizens follow the king. One instance, well documented in vaishnava literature, is the conversion of Hoysala king Bitti Deva of Thondanur (Karnataka) to Sri Vaishanavam when his daughter was cured of a rare disease (possession by a brahmarakshas). The king took the name of Vishnu Vardana and built several Vishnu temples. You must visit Talakkad, in Mandya district, where one Kirti Narayana temple, buried under sand is under excavation and rebuilding. Our patron novelist, Kalki, in the novel Ponniyin Selvan, refers to possible snatching of Arulmozhi ( Rajaraja) to Buddhism (not by force, but by conviction, influence and association) as expressed by some key characters and angry public. Kalki's narration is poetic, as usual, when he describes these scenes. Sampath
Dear Members, Let me clarify my point or the answer I am seeking. It is stated that Mahendravarman was Jain, later converted by Appar. I want to understand the circumstances and reasons for such a change as his father was a devotee of Vishnu. Can you please furnish references which supports this theory? I am aware of such conversions happening in our earlier history, best known example is of Asoka The Great, who embraced Buddhism after Kalinga war.
Both Mahendra Varman and later the Pandya King Nindraseer Nedumaran were converted to Jainism.
They were becoming very influential with Royal support and temple worship started to have severe impact and Thevaram cronicles closure of many temple - say Pazhayarai Vadathali and Thirupparamkundram siva temple.
Sambandar chronicles the violent acts on him on the way to Madurai and simillarly how Appar had to suffer for reconverting to Saivism from Jainism
Mahendra had jain leanings. this is gleaned from the way he mocks the buddhists and brahmins in his play.
we know for sure that he did convert back to worshiping the linga from his famous inscription in tirchy lalithangura pallava cave.
it is known that he and appar were contemporaries - we all know of appar's reconversion back to siviate faith in more detail and that he was subject to tortures by a powerful king under the tutelage of jain monks who were not wanting such a celebrity to ` defect'. in the end matters turned worse and the king himself converted after seeing the miracles that assisted appar to overcome the trials.
now problem is appar never mentions the kings name, so there is only circumstantial evidence to point at mahendra. though not many accept, there are too many coincidences. there is a further verse which states that the king destroyed a jaina centre of learning and built a shiva temple with the name gunabareswaram - gunabara being one of the birudas of mahendra !!
The name, Mahendra, added to it, Varman, means he is a follower of Vardhaman...the Jain thirthankara. He sems to have destroyed the Jain temple at Pataliputra and named the deity Pataleswara!!
The Pallava king was also so much impressed by the Jains that he agreed to ban sericulture in Kanchipuram, though Kanchi is still famous for weaving silk sarees!!
Hi, I read this play and the conclusions from my side are as follows: 1. one Kapalika mocking Buddhism and Jainism 2. one confused Buddhist monk, swayed away by worldly pleasure
Now, I am not able to see where the play writer tried to mock Brahmanas!! To me the play is about conflicts of different religions as seen by other religion such as Kapalika talking bad about Buddha etc. Also there is not Brahmana character, Pasupata may be Brahmana but not sure. In conclusion I am not able to find any verse where Brahmanas are mocked. @Vj - any help as this play is not giving ample proof of Mahendravarman's intention to mock over Brahmanas. A Kapalika cannot be considered as Brahmana as this is a different sect itself???
Is this Ekambranatha same as Ekambareshvar in Kanchi, I would suggest that we should check a proper translation from some other writer, most preferable an Indian translator.
Does this mean that Ekambranatha is (pre-?) Mahendra?
Also, interestingly, the whole thing starts with an invocation to "The god who carries a skull, the great Kapalin"; wonder if/what this signifies for the Jain Mahendra theory...
Dear Members, When you quote any reference, please give the original reference of the literature or study from where it is taken, except this your own idea. It will help us to understand the reference from our perspective as well. This is just a request from my side.
All - Thevara, Thevara Vaippu and Divya Prabandha temples are Pre mahendra.
Temples like Thiruvallikeni were repaired by Danti Varma etc etc . There are references to Appar, Sambandar themselves taking up repair work/ re opening of temples.
Kamakshi reference - in Appar Thevaram - will give by 9 pm
For anyone who's interested, here's an English translation of Mahendra's play: http://books. google.co. in/books? id=hayV4o50eUEC&lpg=PA84&ots=ZgVnAwxVjj&dq=mattavilasa% 20prahasana% 20translation&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=mattavilasa% 20prahasana% 20translation&f=false