________________
No. 8.1
NIDUR INSCRIPTION OF KULOTTUNGA-CHOLA.
In any case, from internal evidence alone, it might be said that Gupasāgara could not have written his commentary on Yapparungalakkārigai in the interval between Saka 200 and 300 as stated by the late Mr. C. W. Damodaram Pillai. Now that we have definite information that Amudasāgara wrote his work in the reign of Kulottunga-Chola I (A.D. 1070-1119), it is clear that Gunasigara should have commented on it in still later times, i.e. after the beginning of the 12th century A.D. An earlier Ganasigara-Bhatāra, also a Jain by religion, is known from inscriptions. He figares as a contemporary of the Pandya king Mårañjadaiyap in two inscrip tions of Kalugamalai in the Tinnevelly district, dated in the 3rd year of the king's reign. This Gunasagara, who fourished long before his namenske-the commentator on the Yapparungalakkārigai--seems to have made a gift of land for meeting the expenses of foeding oertain Vairagyas (?) who were required to expound the Siddhanta. From paleographical grounds as well as from references made in those epigraphs to the tank Viranātāyana-ori evidently called after Par otaka I and the field called Uttamafolay it might be inferred that this Marañjadaiyan must have been a suOB Bor of the Pandya king Rajasimha III in whose reign the bigger Sippamandr copper-plates were issned.
Besides settling the date of the Tamil work Yapparusigalakkdrigai, the extract given above from the commentary of Gapasāgara enables us to know definitely the authorship of the Banskrit work Chhandovichiti which is referred to by Dandin in his Kávykdersa (First Parich. v. 12) and which has been considered by some to be one of Dandin's own works, wbile others regard it to be an earlier treaties. As Gupasagara states that Ohhandopifita (Chhandovichiti) is otherwise called Perigalam, it is clear that the latter name must have been derived from the name of its author who must have been no other than Pingals and by Ohhandovichiti must be meant Pingala's Ohhandas-Sastra, if there was not a different work of the name Ohhandovichiti by the same author.
Of the places mentioned in the two inscriptions, Nīdür, as stated already, is in the Mayavaram Taluk, and is reputed as the birth-place of one of the 63 Saiva saints called Mupaiyaduvir who gave away all the wealth acquired by him to Siva temples and Saiva devotees. Tiruvindaļür, the district in which Nidar was situated, is a village near Nidūr. It is very likely that the epithet Karigai was applied to Kulattur in commemoration of the composition of the work at the place or by the fact of its gift to the author. I am not sure if we can identify this place with Kulattar, a village near Nidär. Millalai-nidu is stated to be a sub-division of Virudarājabhayankara-valanada in an inscription of Véppattår.
Sisukupra-nadu is perhaps identical with Kaprattar-nägu, whence Śēkkilar, the euthor of the Tamil Periyapurd nam, hailed..
In connection with the construction of the pavilion at Tillai for expounding the Puraņas it is interesting to note that according to the Tamil Periya purānan the thousand-pillared mandapa in the temple at Chidambaram was the place where originally that work was first expounded by
Nos. 116 and 117 of the Madras Epigraphical collection for 1894. * No. 45 of the same collection rodiora probably to bemele disciple of this Gunasigara-Bhatara. .See the We of Yogniyuduvar in the Periya puranam, .No. 47 of the Madras Epigraphical collection for 1910. • Kalattir-periyor pēr-paļaitta guņattir-perigitte kodai-pperiyor
talattir-periyor-Anapayap-ralara tamugautapilerippalattir-peru-pabobak kara nil-pidiyir. Periyapuranattai valattirkolav-arang-orri-vaittar sola-mandalamē.
v. 76, Solamandalasadagam. Viņnir-plakkum pagal-kKung-nádap vilatgu-Tamil-ppappir-pirakkam Periyaparanam pagar dapirap.
v. 19, Tondaimandalaiada gam. Orar-mali-Puliyur-kköffn-nar-Kupratturil-alla tirar-valamali-päkkilaron pagal Chehekalavon.
v. 66, Tond aimandalatadagım.
