Amarapujangan name is very much familiar to PS fans !
Sps umakku enna mor/ vennai viyaabaaramaa?
like in abirami anthathi thathiyuru maththil sulalum en aavi... ( in a ceaseless churn, revolves my soul)
sps is churning all info available ceaselessly. its throwing up fascinating bits of info. great leads to follow. fantastic. so it may not have been kalki's imagination atall. and all the yearning and love the grand dame has for her foster son in ps may have been true too.
come on sps pattaiya kilappunga. venketesh
> > > In the 2nd piece .. Kopparakesari .. Uthama .. Yr missing .. > > In the 10 piece (21 to 28 lines are) worth noticing : > > " ... xx than cheygavendru ith > thirukkattrali edupithu ivergal > ..... tha Shree UTHAMA > CHOZHARAI THIRUVAYIRU VAAYTHA > Udaya pirattiyar SEMBIYAN > MAHADEVIYAR Korajakesari > Yaandu 7 vathil > Arulichey .... " > > Meaning : > > The Grants were made by Sembiyan madevi in Uthama's period. Rajaraja is > regularising the grants. He has reproduced the inscriptions of > Uthama upto > the 10th piece : > In the inscriptions of Uthama, it was recited as : UTHAMA CHOAHARRAI > THIRUVAYIRU VAAYTHA SEMBIAN MAHADEVIYAR. > > In subsequent pieces, Rajarajan denotes her as "Ippirattiyar" .. > > Therefore, the famous quote of 'Uthama Chozhar Thiruvayiruthitha > Sembiyan > Mahadeviyar " is first recorded by UTHAMA CHOZHA himself ! > > There is also inscriptional evidence that (periya) Pazhuvettarayar > and Sundara > Chozha are contempraries! > > fondly, sps >
> fantastic. so it may not have been kalki's imagination atall. > and all the yearning and love the grand dame has for her foster son > in ps may have been true too.
I see them as two different things.
Kalki's imagination was that the character he created by name "Old mathuranthaka" later on becomes Amarabhujanka. There are no evidences to support this as of now. So the blind love of mahadevi to her foster son has to be left in the imaginary world of kalki and the present reference does not help to prove this to be true in any way.
What we see here(in the fantastic reference provided by SPS) is a deity being consecreted in the chola regime under uttama chola by sembiyan mahadevi and the name of the deity is "Amarabhujanka devar". I was taken aback even while sps posted this for the first time.
There are many references in which a deity or the temple itself is consecreted in the name of ruling king. The great big temple itself is a standing example in which deity is called "Raajarajeswaram udaiyar"
But what is stunning is that the deity of this kuttalam temple is called by a ruling pandiyan king's name. No other amarabhujanka surfaces in the history. Only one.
Thus, we have to take it that the pandiyan king is being honoured in some way or other in this temple by ruling chola regime. The king was alive during this event.
What is more tantalizing is the fact that this amarabujanka is the very first one to be crushed by RRC proabably even before kanthaloor chalai. And he does'nt even bother to mention this in his meikeerthi !!
The ONLY INSCRIPTIONAL EVIDENCE which provides information on amarabhujanka & RRC's victory over him is the thiruvalakadu copper plates !!
>> Uttama's period being referred to as kali in thiruvalangadu plates
We should keep in mind that this is a poet's view who lived in Rajendra chola's times. True that a number of temple building activities were undertaken in uttama chola's times - but what was the view in the RRC / RJC times about uttama's rule ?
Contemporary evidences corraborate this: To provide an example: There are around 300 thalicheri pendirs being bought to big temple by RRC. All of them bore different titles of chola kings - "Adhithi", "Paranthaki", "Raajaraji", "Kandarathiti" etc - all the past kings were covered but one - ONLY ONE - name is missing. "UTTAMA CHOZHI" OR "MATHURANTHAKI" - The name of the king who just ruled 20 years before. Common people did not bother to keep this name.
though kalki brought us up on dramatic and democratic dosages of the flower boy becoming uthama, the real life uthama's reign too wasnt all that bad.
I would always liken it to p.v narasimha rao's rule. when the history of independent india is written say half a century from now he would be rated the best prime minister we ever had. uthama's rule stabilised the cholas.the power deals that happened during his regime proved to each other that they could still get negotiated settlements within the family. uncle A( may still be alive)while nephew B rules. B's son B1 wants to take the throne but A's son also wants it. A's son take the throne and after him B's son B2 is crowned.
must have involved a hell of a lot of negotiating to avoid washing of the family linen in public.
in mario puzo's god father when the don said " here's a man I cant negotiate with" it means the man is marked for death.