with regards to clarification raised by me: 1. Mahendravarman I returned back to worshiping lingam from some hostile faith. This is visible from upper cave inscription at Trichy. I am little surprised that the same king excavated Mangadapattu cave, which is the earliest excavation, in honor of Trinity, but he did not mention that he returned back to Shaivism from some other hostile faith. Isn't it surprising? @Vj & others - would you please put some light on this. 2. Simhavishnu conquering Kanchi - we will talk about this in details later on 3. Relation of Mahabalipuram with Mahendravarman I - This we will deal when we will talk about Pallava architecture, just after we finish with dynasty
Now, what we have about the next king in line, son of Mahendravarman I.
Narasimhavarman I – In AD 640, Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang stayed at Kanchi and it should be the period of this king. As per Chalukya inscription, in AD 642 Narasimhavarman I took possession of Vatapi (Badami). Kuram plates (SII Vol 1, p 152) states that Narasimhavarman I vanquished Pulakesin in battle of Pariyala, Manimangla, Suramara etc. Manimangla is identified as Manimangalam, near Kanchi, which suggests that Chalukyas invaded second time and were repulsed by Narasimhavarman. This event is stated in Kuram, Kasakudi and Udayendiram plates. Verlupalaiyam plates add that he took the pillar of victory standing in the center of Vatapi. Kasakudi plates also talks about the Lanka conquest which is confirmed by Mahavamsa which discloses that the Singhalese prince Manavamma aided Narasimha in repulsing Vallabha (Pulakesin II) and the two expeditions to Ceylon took place after that. It is probable that during these conquests, he vanquished Pandyas, Keralas, Cholas and Kalabharas. As per Mahavamsa, Manavamma went to Ceylon in a ship, which could be from Mahabalipuram. Dubreuil suggests that Mahabalipuram exists only during Narasinhavarman’s time and he named this place on his name, Mahamalla. As per him, the art activities in this town started in about 650 AD. Dubreuil put the second successful Ceylon conquest in about 660 AD, though Mahavamsa states it was in 691 AD when coronation of Manavamma was done. But Dubreuil says that we need to at least advance these dates in Mahavamsa by a quarter of century to get correct results.
Clarifications -
1. Existence of Mahabalipuram before Narasimhavarman I - As per Dubreuil, its Narasimhavarman I who gave importance to this village and made a port there. Can we accept this or there are proofs that this place was in existence with ample importance from Pallava kings or other kings before Narasimhavarman I time. 2. Conquest over Chola,Pandya,Kalabhara etc etc in the reign of Narasimhavarman I supports that almost all of the south India was under his sway. Agreed? or this is exaggeration of the statement?