The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

145 - Other Views on the Philosophical Systems
finality which, perhaps in the first instance, was expected of it both by
Professor Jacobi and by myself. If I could go by this investigation
alone I should not have any great difficulty in accepting the position
arrived at by the eminent scholar. But once that position is accepted,
it is incumbent upon me, as a student of history, to test the [106]
position by other lines of enquiry.
Without repeating the details of history, I may merely draw attention
here to two facts which stand out. The first is that the author is
demonstrably a contemporary of Śenguṭṭuvaṉ Cēra, and of his
younger brother, Iḷangō, the author of the Śilappadhikāram. That is
one fact of history which it would be difficult to call in question. The
second is that at the time to which the work refers which is
undoubtedly the time of the author, Kāñcī was not under the Pallavas,
nor under the Toṇḍamāṉ chieftain, Iḷaṁ Tiraiyaṉ, but under the
princely viceroys of the Cōḻa family.
The history of the Pallavas as such certainly goes back to the age of
Samudragupta in the middle of the fourth century as we take it at
present. That is a date not far removed from that of Dignāga. The
Toṇḍamāṉ chieftains, particularly Toṇḍamāṉ Iḷaṁ Tiraiyaṉ of
Śangam fame, must have ruled earlier. The Cōḻa ascendency in the
Toṇḍamāṉmaṇḍalam (the country round Kāñcī) must be referred to
an age anterior to this. This position had been sought to be got round
by the Epigraphists by the assumption of a Cōḻa interregnum previous
to the Pallava king Kumāraviṣṇu II who in one of his records is said to
have retaken Kāñcī. Leaving aside for the moment criticism of details
in connection with this particular statement, it may be said at once
that the Cōḻa interregnum such as is postulated must be an