Vol. VIII, No. 4.}: Simhachelam Temple. 179 
[NV.8.] 
nava image. But when I considered the question deeper, I 
came to the conclusion that Ramanuja could not be the man 
who effected the change for the following reasons. 
imhachelam was a Vaishnava temple for a very long 
time. The temple is full of inscriptions. I examined some 
105 of them which range from 1186 to 1526 Saka. Even at 
the time of the earliest of thése inscriptions, the god seems to 
have commanded such awe and reverence as would be done by 
a temple of long standing. Moreover, it is said, in the Vizaga- 
patam Gazetteer, that there is an inscription of Kulottunga I; 
in the temple, dated 1089-90 a.p. So it must have been 
a place frequently visited by people even then. Ramanuja 
flourished in the 11th century, and the inscriptions belong to 
the same and the 13th century. It seems to me that a temple 
itself{—in the lapse of about 30 years. I therefore conclude 
that it was a Vaishnava temple at or even before the time of 
Ramanuja. 
There was Vaishnava influence at Tirupati even before 
Ramanuja but he established that influence firmly there. And 
Srikirmam, originally a Saiva temple, he transformed into a 
Vaishnava one. This fact is stated in the Sthalamahatmya of 
Stikirmam. Now Ramanuja was a very orthodox Vaishnava. 
He would not interfere with a god unless there is precedent for 
him. When he came to these parts, he saw that Simhachelam 
was the only Vaishnava temple in the country, and it is 
probable that there was current a tradition—now lost—that 
Simhachelam was formerly a Saiva temple and that somebody 
afterwards transformed it into a Vaishnava temple. Rama- 
nuja might have heard the rumour, and seeing that there was 
only one Vaishnava temple to support his cause, thought. of 
transforming the other two also into Vaishnava ones. 
This seems to me to be the real history of Simhachelam 
. 
Firstly. —The position of the image. Usually in all Vaish- 
