Identification
- Declaration by kings can be direct - eg, AmuktamAlya-dA by kRShNadevarAya.
- Particular shrines - “When Chola kings built shrines for Sharabha and Lingodbhava (latter in the place of Vishnu in Shiva temples), they were very much showing that they held Vishnu to be inferior.” - RL
Misidentification
- Donation to or patronizing shaivas or jainas does not make one a shaiva or jaina.
- mangala-shloka in stray inscriptions are not conclusive - especially if it contradicts other evidence.
- Eg. viShNu praying to gaNapati in some kRShNadevarAya inscription. Such mangala-shlokas were obviously inserted by the officer who was assigned to make the edict (the rAya likely had greater concerns to care for). Otherwise can’t square it with AmuktamAlyada etc..
- Auxiliary initiations
- Contrary to popular perception, being a viShNu-supremacist does not necessarily perclude taking dIxa-s pertaining to other deities
Tolerance and support
- Hindu kings were not iconoclasts.
- “And even if they did belong to one sampradaya, they did not have any issue in supporting other sampradayas or even getting rituals done through the priests/acharyas of the other sampradayas.”
- “Saiva Cholas had rituals to Vishnu done for their welfare. But that doesn’t make them non-Saiva or syncretic or Smarta. There were sandhis (pujas) done in the name of Chola and Pandyan kings even in Jain temples for which these royals gave special endowments. They were certainly not Jainas either.”
vaiShNava kings
kRShNadeva was not only a vaiShNava but a shrIvaiShNava - if one bothers to read his own words in Amukta-mAlyadA.
gupta-s were similarly traditionally vaiShNava - their emblem itself indicates that.