Hi, The upper cave, of the two cave temples at Trichy, was excavated by Mahendravarman I. This is the farthest cave temple, from his capital, excavated by him. few things of interest are specified below:
1. A magnificent bas-relief panel of Gangadhara which is assumed unparalleled in its class. 2. Inscription suggesting the conversion of Mahendra towards Shaivism from some other hostile faith, most probably Jainism. 3. Many inscriptions giving his various birudas (titles). 4. Praising power of the Cholas in his inscription, quite interesting isn't it? 5. Various other medallions than traditional lotus medallion over pillar faces. 6. Median patta over the rolled corbel.
Mention of Cholas - If there was chola king at that time - he must be the father or Grand father of Mangayarkkarasi.
Mahendra - appar - we will discuss later.
Now i am reading inscriptions - district wise, temple wise. Theygive lot of info.
The Hindu religion of that period - even end of Chola period - gave equal importance to Siva and Vishnu.
Initially brahma also had equal importance.
There are lot of Siva Brahmanas with typical visnu names and lot of Vasihnava followers with names like Parameswara etc.
I will touch upon that during the Ramayanam series. But only when one read all the inscriptions of TN - anything can be conclusively said. ( requires 2 or 3 life with a continued memory of the previous births)
Hi vj, Yes there are two sockets inside the shrine. Earlier scholars, A H Longhurts, E Hultzsch, thought that one, large one, socket was for Shivalingam and smaller one was for an image of Mahendravarman. However later scholars, K R Srinivasan, on careful study of the inscription proposed that the smaller socket was for an image of Parvati. Also whether it was a shivalingam or a stone image of shiva is not very clear. As per KR Srinivasan, we do not find lingas in that time of Pallava temples so it might be that linga was not in worship at that time. This might be very specific to Pallavas as reference of shivalinga was quite older than Mahendra's time. One such shivalinga is at Gudimallam which is assigned to 1st-2nd century BC. Need to find more on this. What do you think about the Shivalingam during Mahendra's time?
I don't know if I agree with the idea that shivalingas weren't worshipped at that time, given Mahendra's inscription right there: "...Lingena Lingini..."
It may be that full images were worshiped alongside Lingas, but I don't know how you can categorically state that they weren't.
mahendra clearly states he came back to worship the linga - so it was defn a linga. but what intrigues me - is the two sockets. we never get to see umai anywhere in any of later pallava caves incl mallai - a late cave like the mahishasuramardhini has a single slot. the same applies to the malaiayadiaptti cave as well - but then in malaiyadipatti - you would have seen the later carving to allow for the ablution water to come out - so could be the addnl slot was carved out later
http://www.poetryinstone.in “*Here the language of stone surpasses the language of man*” – Nobel laureate, Rabindranath Tagore
Hi Shash, Quoting from 'The Cave Temples of the Pallavas' by K R Srinivasan-
"In the light of the above, while the implication is that the sakala or anthropomorphic forms (tanu) of Siva and Parvati were installed in the shrine, the words lingena lingini jnanam of the next verse may not perhaps indicate a linga or the symbolic form of Siva as has been taken by some. Linga also means the image of a god or an idol (sakala). If it was nishakla linga, its description as saili tanu (stone form or body) should also mean a symbol and not a bodily form and particularly the adjective saili (of stone) would indicate a stone form only. But the terms tanu, Harasya tanu, etc, are clearly used in the other verses. Hultzsch, aware of this apparent contradiction, says: 'The whole verse has a double entendre. It contains allusions to Indian logic (Tarkasastra), in which lingin means the subject of a proportion, linga the predicate of a proportion and vipaksha as instance on the opposite side', suggesting the possibility of alternate meaning to the term linga. The contemporary Saiva saints do not mention a stone linga in any of their hymns and we have not also any rock-cut linga in any of the Pallava cave temples, particularly of the time of Mahendra."
There are two sockets inside the shrine. There can be few combination as written below: 1- It may be assumed that one was to house an image of Shiva and another for an image of Parvati. 2 - One socket for Sivalinga and another for an image of Parvati 3 - One socket for Sivalinga and another for an image of Mahendravarman 4 - One socket for Shiva image and another for an image of Mahendravarman
Now we can discuss with evidences over this quotation, if there are any contradictory evidence.
Given the tradition of our land and the dharma, no one will have that kind of ego to have his own statue/image on the same level/platform as that of the god, in this case, Shiva's image or Lingam.
I dont think anywhere in the country, we have the god's image and a humans image on the same level...do we?
The inscription does say so ! The speciality is you see shiva with all royal embelishments.
Reg equating god with king, god king concept was very much there : resembling so n so god in splendor, carrying the signs of ....., why take the merikeerthi of rjc : first two lines ??
King is always equated to the God. Even a son in law in treated at par to 'Vishnu' and the father in law washes his foot with water (padabishekam) during marriage.
But never in our tradition, God has been equated to King/Man. Both can never be on the same pedestal...