Sri Chandrasekaraswami Temple History - Part IV

The third scholar who has dealt with this issue, is Mr. S. R. Balasubrahmanyam. Writing in the book ‘Early Chola art’ he says:

*** The village Tiruchendurai, which is in Tiruchy District, lies on the southern bank of the river Kaveri, six miles five furlongs (10.66 km) from Tiruchy, and about three miles from the Elamanur railway station. It has an ancient Chola temple now called the Chandrasekhara temple.

The temple has inscriptions on its walls which cover almost the whole of the Chola period. Among the early inscriptions, there are four of a Rajakesarivarman, twentyone inscriptions of Parakesarivarman without any distinguishing epithets and three of Madirai-konda-Parakesari i.e.Parantaka I.

The most important of the Parakesari inscriptions is one of his third year and it refers to the construction with stone of this Siva temple at Tiruchendurai, described as being situated in the brahmadeya of Isanamangalam, by one Pudi Adichcha Pidariyar, daughter of Tennavan Ilangovelar and the queen of Arikula-kesariyar, son of Koparakesaripanmar alias Solapperumanadigal.

The inscription makes provision for sacred offerings to the God from the interest on the endowment of 60 kalanjus of gold. Arikula-kesari was a son of Parantaka I, who ascended the throne after Gandaraditya, and he was the father of Sundara Chola and the grandfather of Rajaraja I the Great. His queen Pudi Adichcha Pidariyar is credited with the construction of this temple with stone (karrali). The editor of the South Indian Inscriptions has held that this inscription has to be ascribed to Parantaka I and this temple was built of stone in his days.

The following factors have to be considered before fixing the date of its construction. In the inscription of the third year of Parakesarivarman, the expression used is “tam-eduppittha” which is in the past tense—“(the temple) built by us” and so it may mean any time before that date.

There are two earlier inscriptions of the second year of Parakesarivarman which mention this temple as a karrali (stone temple). The gift is also by Pudi Aditta Pidari. The Government Epigraphist mentions that the inscription has pulli marks throughout, a feature of its early age.

Yet he assigns this to Uttama Chola or Aditya II. Pudi Aditta Pidari cannot be assigned to the days of both Parantaka I and Uttama Chola and hence this view is untenable. Moreover, there are four inscriptions of a Rajakesarivarman – and two of them with high regnal years – 20 and 23 – could be assigned only to Aditya I. Pudi Aichcha Pidariyar mentioned in the third year of Parakesarivarman above referred to figures also in an inscription of the twentythird year of Rajakesarivarman. She makes a gift of five kalanjus of gold and the Parudaiyar (the Maha sabha) of Isanamangalam sold to this lady six ma of land as an endowment to support pipers (uvachchar) to this temple. Hence it seems to me that the stone temple might have come into existence in the latter part of the rule of Aditya I sometime before his 23rd regnal year.

The same Pudi Adichcha Pidari makes other gifts which range from the second year of Parakesarivarman to at least his 14th year. It has to be observed that almost all these Parakesari inscriptions have to be ascribed only to Parantaka I, as in the case of his third year. Further, one Bharatayan Nakkan Kandan of Isanamangalam who figures in the 28th year of Parakesarivarman is mentioned as a donor in three inscriptions of ‘Madirai- konda Parakesari, i.e. Parantaka I” of his 12th year, his 16th year, and his 20th year.. Hence it will be legitimate to infer that the inscription of the 28th year of Parakesarivarman should also be assigned to Parantaka I.

It is rather curious that the distinguishing title of Maduraikonda is omitted in inscriptions of Parantaka I in this locality even as late as his 28th year. But this is not unusual as we have in Kudimiyamalai a Parakesari inscription of the 38th year which has to be assigned only to Parantaka I. These three inscriptions of ‘Madiraikonda Parakesari’ relate to gifts of lamps, and for the supply of the Kaveri water for the sacred bath of the God.

Pulalaya Vinnagar -- The Viswanatha shrine situated within the temple of Chandrasekarahas has an inscription of the 20th year of Rajakesarivarman. It mentions that there was in the western part of the village a Vishnu temple called Merrali (the Western temple). All Vishnu temples are located in the western part of a village and are called Tirumerrali.

A merchant of Tanjavur called Manikka Vaniyan Karunataka Pulalaya rebuilt this temple with stone and bought from the Assembly of the village 100 pattis of land for the temple and its adjuncts and the temple was named after him “Pulalaya (or Pulaliya) Vinnagar Here is the text – “Ivvurt- tirumerraliyana Sri Koyilai pulaliya vinnagaram ennum peral karrali eduppittu devaraip piradishtai seyvitta Pulalaya Chetti”. This affords additional proof for assigning the temple of Chandrasekhara to the days of Aditya I.

The inscription with the high regnal year of the 20th year of Rajakesarivarman in a shrine within the Tiruchendurai Temple, the existence of an inscription of the 23rd year of Rajakesarivarman which mentions Nangai Pudi Adichcha Pidariyar who figures also almost continuously upto the 14th year of Parakesarivarman, who has to be identified with Parantaka I, the mention of the existence of a stone temple (karrali) even in an inscription of the second year of Parakesarivarman --- earlier than his third year inscription which mentions clearly the construction of this temple with stone by the said Nangai Pudi Adichcha Pidariyar -- all these point out clearly that this Siva temple should have been constructed of stone sometime on or before the 23rd year of Aditya I and not in the days of Parantaka I as the Government Epigraphist has held. ***

Our village should be thankful to all these scholars who took pains to translate the inscriptions and present a history of the temple as well as the village of the olden days. And we should be proud that the village and the Temple attracted Archaelogists, historians and scholars alike with its invaluable inscriptions contributing to the history of Tamilnadu under the Cholas.

We have one more Scholar who has contributed to this intriguing subject and we will go through that in the next installment.

(to be continued)

- Sethuraman

Sri Chandrasekaraswami Temple History - Part III

ஸ்வஸ்திஸ்ர் _ _ _ _ ஆதித்தம் பூதியேன் என் மகன் பூதி பராந்தகன் அந்நப்ராயஞ்
செ[ய்]கின்ற இடத்து தக்ஷிணையாக பிரமதேயம் ஈசான மகலத்து _ _ _ _ ம் உடும்போடி ஆமை தவழ்ந்தது எப்பேர்ப்பட்ட நிலமு முண்ணிலம் ஒழிவின்றி குடி நீக்கிய தேவதானமாக நீரோடு அட்டி இறையிலி சந்திராதி _ _ _ _ படி திருவமிதுக்கு பதக்காறு குத்தல் பழவரிசி சிறுகாலைக்கும் உச்சம் போதைக்கும் ஆக சூல நாழியால் பதின[¡]று நாழிக்கு நிசதி நெல் ஐங்குறுணி இருநாழி உரியாழாக்கான ப[டி] _ _ _ _ கலனே இரு தூணிப் பதக்கினால் நிலம் ஒன்றரையே யொருமா முக்காணி அரைக் காணி முந்திரிகையும் தூப்பருப்பு நாழிக்கு நெல் நானாழியும் நெய்யமிது முழ[¡]க்கி _ _ _ _ க்கு நெல் அறு நாழியும் காயத்துக்கும் உப்புக்கும் புளிகும் நெல் முன்னாழியும் தயிரமிது போது நாழியானபடி முன்னாழியால் நெல் குறுணி ஒரு நாழியும் ஆகநிசதி _ _ _ _னே முக்குறுணியால் நிலம் இரண்டேய் ஒரு மாக்காணியும் கணவதியார்க்கு நிசதிப்படி அப்பம் அமிது செய்ய அரிசிக்கு நெல் முன்னாழியும் நெய் யாழாக்குக்கு நெல் முன்னாழியும் சர்க்கரை இரு பலத்துக்கு நெல் இருநாழியும் ஆக இப்பரமெச்வரருடைய கணவதியார்க்கு நிசதி குறுணியானபடி
ஆண்டுவரை முப்பதின் கலத்தா - - - - - - - ம் முக்குறுணி முந்திரிகையால் நெல் நால்க்கலனே அறு நாழியுமாக நெல் நானூற்றுக் கலத்துக்கும் நிலம் நால் வேலியும் சூல காலால் வேலி நூற்றுக் கல வரிசையால் என் மகன் பூதி பராந்தகன் அன்ன பிராயஞ் செய்த நான்று இ* (incomplete)

The above inscription is in the ‘jagathi’ in front of the central shrine (sanctum sanctorum).. The inscription reads – Adithan Pudhi, on the occasion of the ‘annaprasanam’ of his son Paranthakan made a gift (devadanam) of lands, to the lord of the temple – Chandrasekaraswami, and also Lord Ganapathi located in the temple, for daily offerings in the morning and noon.. It also describes how the rice should be used for this purpose. And the offerings have been detailed as Ghee Rice, Curd Rice, appam (pancake) and the ingredients needed for this e.g. pulses, salt, and sugar (jaggery).. The measures then prevailing have also been indicated – uri, nazhi, azhakku, uriazhakku etc. (Inscription and Reading – courtesy Dr. Lavanya’s article “Kalvettu Aayvu” in the e-magazine Varalaaru)

The very first line reads ‘Adhitham Pudhiyen en magan Pudhi Paranthakan – Who is the ‘Adhithan pudhi’ mentioned in this inscription? Isn’t it a coincidence that the father is Adhithan, and the son ‘ Paranthakan’ and if one is to identify the Adhithan , referred here, as Adhitha Chola I, whose son is Paranthakan then this would clearly place the period of construction of the temple to Aditha I period -- It is also a legend that Aditha I, built Siva temples along both banks of the River Cauvery .. It is possible that there might have been a resident at the Tiruchendurai village by name Adithan Pudhi, whose son was called Paranthaka – one cannot deny such a possibility.

This inscription is found in the ‘jagathi’ in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple (karuvarai) a location possibly kept for the nobles of the times – By the very title Pudhi, this person should belong to the higher class and we already know the pudhi family is closely related to the then Chola rulers.. and the gift itself makes one wonder if an ordinary resident could have contributed this much!

As stated earlier Vijayalaya’s medieval chola empire continued its reign for over four hundred years from the year 848 A.D. to Rajendra’s reign (1246-1279 A.D.) The three periods that we are concerned with are

Aditya  I       …            871 – 907  A.D.
Parantaka I     …            907 - 950  A.D., and 
Uttama Chola    …            970 - 985

Many research scholars and intellectuals have already gone into this, at great length, and I would bring forth excerpts from their findings which place the construction of the temple during Aditya’ s period, and more precisely to the year 894 A.D. We should be proud to accept this finding as it shows that the Chandrasekaraswami Temple at Tiruchendurai is over a millennium old.

The scholarly K.A.Nilakanta Sastri in his book ‘The Colas’ published first in the year 1935 has made references to this issue and these follow:

*** Aditya I is praised for his having built, on both banks of the river Cauvery all the way from Sahyadri (the birth place Of the River Cauvery) to the wide ocean (Poompuhar) rows of tall stone temples of Siva which stood as the monuments of his success... In his reign, however, brick temples were also built.

*** Parantaka I was aided in his Pandyan campaigns, by the Velir chiefs of Kodumbalur, and records dated very early in Parantaka’s reign, show that prince Arikulakesari, one of the sons of Parantaka had married Pudi Adicha Pidari, daughter of Tennavan Ilangovelar of the Kodumbalur line. (p.125, The Colas)

*** We have only one inscription, its beginning lost, giving the genealogy of the Kodumbalur chieftains for eight generations or so. It is probable that there were collateral branches of which we have as yet no information and if, failing to allow for this possibility we seek to accommodate all the inscriptions in the genealogy of this single record, we come across a number of difficulties, not easily settled. It should be borne in mind that a title like Tennavan Ilangovelar may have been borne by several persons, and no identification can confidently be based on the recurrence of such titles in different inscriptions. At any rate if Pudi Vikramakesari was, as there are strong reasons to believe, the contemporary of Aditya II who took the head of Virapandian, it is difficult to believe that he was also the Tennavan Ilangovelar whose daughter Adicha Pidari had become the wife of Arikulakesari as early as the third year (AD 910) of Parantaka (p.136)


*** Of the reign of Uttama Chola we have many stone records and one set of copper-plates. The beginning of the latter, which probably contained a genealogical account of the dynasty in Sanskrit verse, is unfortunately lost… in some of the stone inscriptions and in the copper-plate grant the king is clearly described as Parakesari Uttama Chola; but a number of other stone inscriptions bearing only the Parakesari title can be assigned to his reign either on astronomical grounds or because they mention relatives of the king. (p.159)

*** In the Chola period the more usual standard of gold was the kalanju of twenty manjadis equal in theory to 72 grains, but sometimes going up to 80. It is apparently this unit of bullion weight that is employed in an inscription of the thirtieth year of Parantaka I which equates the kalanju with the niska. When exactly the Chola currency was brought in line with this weight standard does not admit of precise determination. (p.613 )

The other scholar who has dealt with this subject is Douglas Barrett in the book “Early Cola Architecture and Sculpture” 866 – 1014 A.D., excerpts from which have been sent to me by Amrith Ram recently, and which I am reproducing below:

*** The CandrasekharaTemple at Tiruchchendurai lies on the south bank of the River Kaveri, almost six miles west of Tiruchirappalli. Here an inscription reveals factual information about the foundation of the temple. In year 3 of a Parakesari, Pudi Adichcha Pidariyar, Queen of Arikulakesariyar, son of Koparakesaripanmar, made provision for offerings to the deity of the temple which she had constructed of stone. (Karrali). The same lady made offerings in year 2 of a Parakesari when this temple is also referred to as a karrali. Now Arikula was a son of Parantaka I, so we may be confident that the stone temple was already in existence in A.D.909. There is, however, another inscription on the temple of year 23 of Rajakesari, in which Pudi Adichcha Pidariyar also makes a gift. This Rajakesari is clearly aditya I, but as in this inscription the temple is not referred to as a karrali, I prefer to believe that the temple was constructed of stone in or about A.D.909 and replaced a brick temple which Pudi Adichcha Pidariyar had already patronized.

These inscriptions present an interesting problem. If Arikula of year 3 of Parakesari was about twenty years of age and was the same as Arinjaya who perhaps succeeded Gandaraditya in A.D.956, he must have been about sixtyeight on his accession. But Pudi Adichcha Pidariyar was presumably at least fourteen years of age when she made a donation in A.D.893. Unless Arikula married a lady much older than himself he must have been about twenty in A.D.893 and succeeded at the age of about eightythree. This would make Parantaka I about a hundred years old at his death, assuming that he fathered Arikula about the age of twenty. *****

- to be continued -

- Sethuraman