purimaviḍālapādamūlavāsaṁ puphagirimahāvihārapatiṭhāpakasa vasudevasirīdāmasa mahāvītarāgasa madā piṁḍapātikadāmadharasa paraṁparāgatasa bamhadevaṭhevirasa sisena bhadaṁtasaṁghadevena govidaṁrājavihārasa gaṁdhakuṭivārikena Ima tasela .saṁvāsavaraṁ patiṭhāpitaṁ

purimaviḍālapādamūlavāsaṁ purimaviḍāla pādaṁhulavāsaṁ purimaviḍāla pāṁḍahulāvāsaṁ puphagiri- puḍhagiri patiṭhāpakasa patithāpakasa vasudevasirīdāmasa vasudevasiridāmasa It is tempting to see in dā both in this line and in the following a mistake for dha. madā madāja mahā This last reading ignores the third akṣara, which could be read as ku.-dāmadharasa-vāmadharasa The reading vāmadharasa is indeed possible, but it is not less difficult to make sense of. The epithet dha[ṁ]madhara (Skt. dharmadhara) would fit well within a compound having pi[ṁ]ḍapātika as first element, and we suggest to emend accordingly. paraṁparāgatasa paraṁaparāgatasaPrinting error. bamhadevaṭhevirasa bamradeva thevirasa bahmadevathīvirasaThe reading of the first akṣara as ṭhe is tentative and this could also be read kha. The context however invites us to see in the second part of the compound a monastic title corresponding to Skt. sthavira, P. thera, Pkt. ṭhavira/ṭhera. The form ṭhevira, unattested so far, may be considered a hybrid comparable to the one leading to BHS sthera. Cf. CDIAL, s.v. sthavira. govidaṁrājavihārasa goviddaṁrāja - vihārasa Emend goviṁdarāja-. gaṁdhakuṭivārikena Imagaṁdhaka civarikagaṁdhakuṭi vārikena Ima ignored the last three akṣaras on the line.tasela .ṁ üdita selaThis part of the inscription is almost invisible. The second akṣara, though, looks like a da rather than a ta. Several printing errors make it difficult to understand what Ed. actually meant.saṁvāsavaraṁsaṁvāsa dharaṁ suggests emending gharaṁ. Ed. suggests instead reading varaṁ, which is not altogether impossible, in light of the unusual shape of the preceding vā.patiṭhāpitaṁThe reading of the second akṣara is unclear, but ti is possible. Still, there is enough space for an additional akṣara before ṭhā, and it is possible that an irregularity in the stone has caused the engraver to introduce a space, although he does not otherwise use spacing between words or part of words.

First described and edited by Parabrahma Sastry 1982 (Bharati) and (with alternative readings supplied by the editor of the journal, marked Ed. in the apparatus). Re-edited here from published documentation. Autopsy of the boulder was unfortunately not very helpful. First digital edition made by École française d'Extrême-Orient (Paris, France), realized in collaboration with the HiSoMA Research Centre (Lyon, France) and hosted by TGIR Huma-Num (France) as Early Inscriptions of Āndhradeśa, in 2015-2017.

1983-84: no. B.41982-83 (1988): 50-51 1986-87 (1990): 33 : 268, 283 n. 47: 196-7: 120-1