Another question: What's the deal with the Tirumayam and Malaykoil inscriptions? If they're really Pandya inscriptions of Gunasena (like Kudumianmalai), that's a big argument against the Kudimuanmalai inscription being by Mahendra.
Also, are the Pandya caves older or newer than Mandagapattu? If they're older, what does that do to our long-time working hypothesis that Mahendra was the first to excavate in Tamil Nadu?
I raised a point, putting a question mark on Mandagapattu as the first cave, in my Vilappakkam article, the only reason for this was the simple and primitive architecture of Vilappakkam cave,
also another point was when they can try to excavate seven cells in a cave, why would not they try ornamenting it, i would say a better design would be less cell hence less work and time, so utilize the time which you spent in excavating seven cells into ornamenting the cave with fewer cells one more reason is if Mandagapattu is the first cave, I do not understand why it was dedicated to trinity instead of Shiva, as per one theory Mahendra was converted from Jaina to Shaiva hence if he is constructing his first shrine, to whom he will dedicate? of course to Shiva, why to someone else or Mahendra was never a Jaina, he was a vedic follower and later his dedication was more towards Shiva, that's all
My philosophy is put why against all the theories, and seek answers from that, no intentions to go against all well known scholars
What about Pillayarpatti? We can argue whether Pillayar is earlier or later. But the Siva and hariharaof pillayarpatti are defenetly pre Mahendra - as per the inscription style.