________________
Study of Civakocintamani the kavya which should be honoured". These descriptions do not sound very appropriate if they refer to commentaries as suggested by Lewis Rice.
In Tamil the Cc. and the Culamani are considered to be two good kavyas and it is believed that the Cajamani came after the Cc. This is illustrated by the phrase in Rajarajan Ula "cintamani tanta cajamaniya" (the Calamani which was given by Cintamani). The author of the Tamil Culamani is usually taken to be one Tolamolittēvar. But, it is thought that Tolamoli is a name which the author acquired as result of the phrases "arkkum tolatay" and "tola nävir caccutan" found in his work, Hence we do not know what his original name was.
From verse 4 in the Culamani3 we see that this book was submitted in the court of a king called Centan who is traditionally believed to be a Pandya king.
42
There is another isolated verse 5 which says that Tolamoli was honoured by a Kärvetti king (i.c. Pallava king). We have no means of identifying these kings at present. It has however been suggested that the Pandya king might be the one belonging to the middle of the 7th Century. This would be hard to reconcile with the evidence presented earlier.
The problem is yet far from resolved and must necessarily await further evidence for definite conclusions to be made. The evidence presented in this chapter appears to point to the period between the later half of the 8th Century A.D. and the first half of the 9th Century as the most probable date. The one result which seems fairly conclusive to us from the comparative analysis of this chapter is that the Cc. preceded Vadibhasimha's works and is not based on them as it is usually contended.
The analysis of the social, religious and literary background in the next chapter is made with the adove period in mind. With the present evidence it is also not possible to indicate the source book of the Cc. As the Up. of Gupabhadra is the earliest among the books written on the Jivandhara story (except the Cc.), we have considered. the similarities and the differences in the plot between the Up. and the Cc. in chapter III in an effort to assess the probable Sanskrit influence on the story of the Cc.
1 S. Vaiyapuri Pillai, op. cit.
2 P. V. Comacuntaran, Culamani, edited by South India Saiva Siddhinta works, Tinnevely, 1962, vol. I, pp. 12, 13.
3 "nämänp uraikkun kuraiy en itu nāma ven vel teman alankar virumal netuñcantan ennun tüman tamilin kijavan cutar ära märpin kaman avaiyu teruntar kolappatatanṛe. 4 P. V. Comacuntaran and C. A. Iramacamipulavar,
5 Tikk ettum pukalpataitta viral vicayan puyal anaiya kaiyan tevvaik Kaikkotti nakaikkum ikar karveliy
araiyan vala natark arppap
Commentary written on Culamani v. 4. pokkettum pottum ilan pukalt taruma tirttan malarp patam pūcippin corketta varan tolamoli culamaniy unarvör tural kantore.
P. K. Comacuntaran, Introduction to Culamani, op. cit. p. 12.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
