________________
August, 1906.]
TIRUMANGAI ALVAR AND HIS DATE.
231
This would make Ålavandêr's grandfather Nadhamuni mach prior to the age ascribed to him by Gopinatha Rao. He lays much stress upon the fact that Nâdhamuni was accustomed to going to Gangaikonda Cholapuram, founded by Gangaikonda Chola, in 1024 A. D. This is a detail which cannot be looked upon as a crucial piece of evidence, as it is possible that the hagiologists alone are responsible for it. When the earliest among them wrote the lives of their saints, they were so accustomed to Gangaikoụda Cholapuram as the Chola capital, that when they heard that Nadhamuni visited the Chola ruler, they naturally put down Gangaikonda Cholapuram as the Chola capital. It certainly would not be unreasonable to ascribe Nádhamuni to a period in the earlier half of the 10th century A. D. This is exactly the conclusion warranted by the proper understanding of the traditional account, which is that Nádbamani was born in A. D. 582 and that he was in what is called Yoga Samddhi for 340 years. This would give the date 922 A. D. for the death of Nadhamuni, which is not at all improbable, taking all circumstances into consideration. But why did the hagiologists then ascribe ibis long life or long death in life to Nadhamuvi? The explanation is not far to seek. They believed, and the Vaishnavas do believe even now, that there was an unbroken succession of these saints, and unfortunately they found a gap between Nadhamuni and the last Alvår. This they bridged over this clumsy fashion,
If the above view of the connection between the Ålvârs and the Acharyas is correct, then we shall have to look for Tirumangai Ålvár a two or three centuries carlier than Nadhanjani, and this would take us to the seventh or the eighth century of the Christian era. This is certainly warranted by the frequent references to the Pallavast and by none at all to the modern Cholas, even to the Chola Rajamahendra, who did so much for the Srirangam Temple. According to Gopinatha Rao, the only Chula that is referred to by the Alvâr, and referred to elaborately, is the ancient Chola Kochchengan in the decad regarding Tirunaraiyûr. This, in combination with references to the Sangam in the body of the work, brings him later than the age of either. But another decad in praise of the Paramèśvara Vinnagar at Kanchi gives in great detail the achievements of a Pallava ruler, whom Dr. Hultzsch considers to be identical with Paramébvaravarman II., from the name of the shrine. This is not a necessary inference, as any other Pallava paramount sovereign might have had the title Pallava Paramêśvara, and the foundation, when contracted, might have become Paramêśvara Vinnagaram, e. g., Vidya Vinita Pallava Paramêśvaram. And notwithstanding the details given in the decad, it does not find support from what is known of Parameávaravarman II. This Pallava sovereign, whatever his name, won victories over his enemies at Maņņai, Nenmeli, and Karûr. At Karûr he fonght against the Pandya and at Nenmeli against the Villava (Cléra), but the enemy at Maņņai is not specified. If these names could be identified with places where Udaya Chandra won victories for his master Nandivarman Pallavamalla or Nandipôttarâja, then the Alvår must have lived after Nandivarman, or, at the earliest, during his reign.
Among these victories we find mention of a defeat of the Pandyas at Mannaikkudi and the taking of Kalidurga. Mannaikkudi may be the Alvâr's Mannai, and Kalid urga the Alvar's “Kunrail." Karâr as such does not find mention in the inscriptions. It may be that this name refers to an incident in which Udaya Chandra played no part. Then comes Nelveli, whero Udaya Chandra won a victory; but the Alvar speaks of Nenmeli, and the war was between the Pallava and the Chêra (Villavan). It is probable that these separate incidents refer to different Pallapa princes who worshipped Vishņa at the Paramêsvara Viņnagaram shrine. Whatever be the real pature of these references, whether they refer to one Pallava Nandivarman or to several, such as Simba Vishnu, Paramébvaravarman and Nandivarman in fact, all the Vaishnava Pallavas), it is
• If Kalhana, the professed historian of Kalmtr, did the same with respect to early rulers of Kasmir in the first gentarios A.D., is it wonderful that these hagiologists fell into such a trap P
• See p. 486, Vol. III., Bon Tamil, Pandit M. Raghavaiyangar's article. • Vide 8. Ind. Ins. Vol. II. Pt. III, No. 74. Floot, Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I. Pt. II. PP. 336-827.
