4: Nallur Kandaswami Temple
look at what the books have to say about the rest of the places that were
in Nallur Rajdhani. Historical works offer us a lot of contradictory details
about Nallur Kandaswami temple which was one of the significant features
of Nallur Rajdhani. The song given below which comes in Kailayamaalai
has caused the controversy. "...ilakkiya sagaptha Yenntrezhubhadha......"
cheyul) According to Swami Gnanaprakasar, Va. Kumaraswami and such others
the term 'Yennootrezhubadhu' refers to the year 1248 A.D. And, the
word Yenn In the above given verse refers tothousand(aayiram)
and that which comes by adding one hundred and seventy
with thousand is the saga year 1170 and this points at 1248
A.D., they hold. As per one Dainel John, saga year 'Yennoothrezhubadhu'
means 948 A.D. As per Mudaliar Rasanayaka's contention also saga year 870
means 948 A.D. Bhuvanegubagu who was spoken of in this song was referred
to as the minister of Aryan king and the one who constructed the Nallai
kandan temple in such works as Kailayamaalai, Yaazhpaana Vaibhava maalai
etc. But, none can hide the fact that in Nallur temple panegyric, 'Sirisangabodhi
Bhuvanegubagu was referred to as the one who brought the temple into being.
It is the king called SirisangabodhiBhuvanegubagu who made Nallur the Rajdhani
and ruled from there from 1450 A.D. to 1467 A.D. under the name Sappumal
Kumaraya. Going by the contention of Kandhaiah Gunarasa we
understand that holding as facts these two Bhuvanesgabagus an illustration
to that effect had also been brought forth.He firmly concludes the first
Bhuvanegubagu as but a tamil name.
"..here are two other
proofs to claim that Nallur Kandhaswami temple was built by Bhuvanegavagu
(as like the tamil name Veeravagu)..." (Veera Kesari 15.8.93).
After arriving at this conclusion K.Gunarasa
had no alternative except bringing about a compromise between the two Bhuvanegavagu.
In the end he could only arrive at the conclusion that the Nallur Kandhan
temple which was built in two different times by two different Bhuvanegavagu
was destroyed by the porthugese and rebuilt for the third time. The historical
books referred by him were in fact such works as Yaazhpaana Vaibhava
Maalai, Kailayamaalai only. Many eminent analysts and researchers
of history firmly believe that the historical
"..Whatever be the case we can
take it as that the Nallur Kandhaswami temple built for the first time
by one Bhuvanegavaagu in the year 948 A.D. As some historical books refer
to him as a minister there is nothing wrong in taking him to have been
the state representative of the king or the minister..". (Veerakesari
details given in these works have
no historical basis or ethics at all.
And, in this issue, Mudaliar
Rasanayagam's conclusion stands out as the only
conclusion that is logically acceptable.
say that Bhuvanegavaagu was the minister of the first king segarasan and
the Vaibhavamaalai would say that it was he who built the Nallur Kandhaswami
temple. But, the contention that Bhuvanegavaagu built the Nallur Kandhaswami
temple could hold good only as a legend. And, KailayaMalaiyar who had heard
of it, either unable to find out the identify of Bhuvanegavaagu who had
lived within a span of three hundred years or in order to hide the fact
that he was a Sinhalese, for some reason or other, decorated him as the
minister of Segarasan. As thereis the mention in the panegyric of Nallur
Kandaswami temple which hails and glorifies
Hence, it would indeed be a surprise
if the fact were to be that the
nothing and none can hide it, and none can hide it for sure..' (Yaazhpaana
NallurKandaswami temple was built
by two different Bhuvanegavaagus in two
different times. For, it is very
unusual that the two had the same name
Bhuvanegavaagu. The possibility
of such a thing is indeed next to nil, to
say the least.