Kaladi and Sankara

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa at AOL.COM> wrote:

>The interesting aspect of this inscription is that it does not refer to
>Sankara directly. Instead, it refers to a Pandiyan official/chieftain who
had
>a linga installed at the temple in the following words:
>
>"kAlaTiccaGkaran azakiyaperumALAn2a mazavarAyar pUcittu ikkOyilil
>AzrayalimgamAka ezuntaruLuvitta cokkan2Arkku.."
>
>Here a person has been named kAlaTiccaGkaran (Sankara of Kaladi). If we
take
>this person to be the father of azakiyaperumAL, the mazavarAyar, then the
>father should have received the name probably towards the end of the 12th
>century.

This is fascinating information. However, I am unclear on the reason behind
the interpretation you propose. I presume the rest of the inscription
provides the details.

>All these make one wonder if the veLLALas in the 12th century knew what
>Sankara and Manu thought of the zUdras? Or was it just syncretism on the
part
>of kALaTiccaGkaran2's parents to name their son after Sankara of Kaladi? Or
>was there a compromise between advaita and zaivasiddhAnta? Or had the idea
of
>Sankara as an avatAra of dakSiNAmUrti become so popular as to lead to his
>acceptance even by devout zaivite veLLALas who would otherwise be opposed
to
>advaita? Coincidentally, western tirunelvEli region is also where we find
>potiyil, the original locus of the dakSiNAmUrti cult.

All interesting questions, no doubt, but the only one that can be explored
based on proper evidence is the issue of the relationship between advaita
and zaivasiddhAnta. This would be the mAnasollAsa attributed to Surezvara.
The other questions would call for too many suppositions to be answered well
one way or the other.

Vidyasankar