Ponniyin Selvan Varalaatru Peravai

>
> But do you know Satish, SIVA - GANGAI is not an Ordinary word..
>
> full of indepth meaning ?
>
> We can start from Mahendra Pallava's inscriptions in Rock fort -
> Lalithankura Pallaveswaram - Trichy (ref Archieves pls)
>
http://tamilartsacademy.com/articles/article09.xml

'Mahendra's contribution to the development of South Indian culture
is unparalleled in the field of art, music, painting and literature.
He is the pioneer in propagating cave architecture in the Tamil
country. His wrok on music is well-known. Mattavilasa-prahasana
composed by him is one of the best prahasanas in Sanskrit
literature. His love of painting and his proficiency in the art is
attested by his title Chitrakarapuli. Among the monuments he has
left, the upper rock-cut cave at Thiruchirapalli, called Lalitankura-
Pallavesvara-grham, named after one of his titles, is unique and is
a landmark in the study of South Indian art and culture for it is
here that the best representation of sculpture of Mahendra is
noticed in the Gangadhara panel. There is here a unique example of
Mahendra's inscription expressed in ornate poetry. The second verse
of this inscription has been a puzzle to students of history and
art. It is in this he mentios that he embraced Saivism from some
other faith.
A study of the second verse of Mahendra's inscription in this cave
is as much fascinating as it is important for the study of Siva
worship in South India. A re-examination of this verse is all the
more necessary since some recent writers have suggested that the
installation of Sivalinga in the snactum sanctorum as the principal
object of worship was unknown in the time of Mahendra. If the
meaning of the second verse of Thiruchirapalli rock-cut cave is once
properly understood, all doubts regarding the worship of Linga
during the reign of Mahendra will be set at rest.
The verse under discussion reads as follows:
Gunabhara-namani raja- nyanena lingena lingini jnanam Prathatam
ciraya loke vipaksavrtteh paravrttam In the verse under discussion,
that slesha (double entendre) is employed is patent. There are
therefore necessarily two meanings which are to be understood here.
The words Linga, Lingin, Jnana and Vipaksa have two meanings. Linga
seems Sivalinga and Linga means also hetu, reason, middle term or
probans in an Inference. Since the word is employed in slesha, both
the meanings should be taken into account and one of the two viz.,
Sivalinga, should not be rejected as is done by the protogonists of
the view that Linga worship was not prevalent during the time of
Mahendravarman I. It is not only the word Linga that is used here in
slesha but the whole verse is, as stated above, in slesha giving
rise to two meanings. If one meaning alone is accepted and the other
rejected, it would mean that the composition is faulty. When the
second import is quite meaningful, to brand this verse as a faulty
composition will not be proper. Hence in this case both the meanings
have to be accepted.
The first meaning of the verse is as follows: anena lingena: Through
the Sivalinga (established) here. Gunabhara-namani rajani: in the
king named Gunabhara, lingini: who bears the Linga (i.e. constantly
adores Siva) jnanam: the knowledge vipakshavretteh paravrttam: that
he has turned away from the hostile faith loke chiraya prathatam:
let it become well known in the world for long.
There is a clear reference here to Mahendra's conversion, from
Jainism to Saivism in the words Vipakshavrtteh paravrttam. There is
also an unequivocal reference to the worship of Sivalinga in the
terms Linga and Lingin, Lingin meaning one who bears the Linga, i.e.
worships Linga.
The second meaning of the verse will become evident when it is
understood in terms of the process of inference, (1. Inferential
cognition is accepted as a valid cognition by all systems of Indian
philosophy. A syllogism employed in this process of cognition
comprises the following elements:
(1) Hetu or Linga or the probans or the reason or the middle term
e.g. smoke (2) Sadhya or Lingin the probandum or major term which is
to be established, e.g. fire. (3) Paksha the subject in which the
probandum is not known and is to be proved, e.g. a mountain as
having fire when smoke which is noticed is relied upon as the
probans. (4) Sapaksha a similar instance in which the probandum is
known for certain, e.g. hearth where smoke and fire had been seen
together invariably. (5) Vipaksha a counter example in which the non-
existence of the probandum is known for certain e.g., a tank where
neither fire nor its concomittant smoke is known) The elements of
the inference are stated here in the terminology of prachina
(ancient) nyaya and not of modern logic. According to Gautama, the
author of the Nyaya sutras, the first limb of a syllogism, the
statement of the thesis called Pratijna is given as Sadhya-nidresa
and this includes the minor and major term. (1. See also
Mudrarakshasa Nataka, V. 10 Sadhye nischitam etc.) The invariable
relation between the Linga or probans or middle term, in this case
between the Sivalinga established by the King in that temple, and
the Lingin, the major term, viz., the knowledge of Siva as existing
in the King (the paksha or minor term) should be free from any flaw;
one of the flaws which would vitiate the inference is the presence
of this in a counter-example; i.e., it should be vipaksha-vyavrtta;
in the present case, this Sivalinga and knowledge and devotion to
the same are absent from Jainism. (2. I am thankful to my Professor,
Dr. Raghavan, for clarifying the meaning of the verse, on the side
of logic.)
King Mahendravikrama was evidently a lover of logic. Along with the
other well-known titles related to his artistic activities
Chettakari, Sankirnajati and Chitrakarapuli, he assumed a
significant title to commemorate his love for logic, viz., Anumana.
This title is recorded in the middle of the second pillar in the
same cave temple of Tiruchirapalli. The same is also mentioned in
the Pallavaram cave of Mahendra where besides the title Anumana, the
title Upamana is also noticed which again proves his love for logic.
Thus we may say that in the second meaning of the verse, the King
himself is inferred as Anumana.
According to Sekkilar, a 12th century poet, the Saivite saint Appar,
also known as Tirunavukkarasu, was a contemporary of a Pallava
monarch whom he converted to S