Seal śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates

svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrānāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāM svāmi-mahāsena-pādānuddhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁchāanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥ttha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇos satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano ’ṣṭādaśa varṣāṇi. tat-suto jayasiṁhas trayastriṁśataM. tad-anujendrarāja-nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava. tad-ātmajo maṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcaviṁśatin. tat-tanujo jayasiṁhas trayodaśa. tad-anujaḥ kokkili ṣaṇ māsāN. tad-āgrāagrajo viṣṇurājas saptatriṁśataṁ. tat-tanujo vijayāditya Ekānnaviṁśatin. tat-tanujo viṣṇurājaṣ ṣaṭtriṁśataṁ. tat-sūnur vvijayādityaś catvāriṁśataM. tat-tanayaḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ‘ddhyarddha-varṣaM. tad-apatya-mukhyaḥ yas tu

kāliṁga-gaṁga-rūpyādi kośaleṣśa-dvipādi jaca pāṇḍya-pallava-hemādi balāt tyāgārttham āharaT. gaṁgān āropayad gaṁga -kūṭaṁ maṁgi-śiro ’cchinaT kr̥ṣṇaṁ raṇe ’jayad vaktuṁ kas samartttho ’sya sāhasāN

sa vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ veṁgī-deśam anuvarṣam avarddhayaT|

jayasiṁgha-dvaye caivaṁ viṣṇuvarddhana-paṁcake maṁginā kokkilau vijayā ditya-traya Ite tataḥ|

tasya vijayādityasya bhrātur vvikramākrānta-sakala-bhuvana-talasya vijayākramāditya-bhūpater agra-tanayaḥ

Adhyāsta siṁhāsanam ārddidad ripūn apispaśad bhūmim anaṁdayat prajāḥ yaśo vyatānīt sad apūpujad dvijān amaṁsta sādhūn avahad guṇa-jsrajaḥ| mattāditya-prasāda-dvirada-vara-guru-skandham āruhya kopāT cāpād unmukta-bāṇair udaya-girim ito bhānur usrais tamisraṁ yadvat tadvan niraāsthad dhr̥ta-sakala-bhuvo yas tu goḷā-taṭa-sthāN karṇṇāṭān durddurūṭān jhaṭiti paṭu-naṭad-ghoṭakān lāṭakāṁś ca.

sa sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-cālukya-bhīma-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvaraḥ parama-māheśvaraḥ varavara-rāṣṭrakū-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭumbina Ittham ājñāpayati|

sarvvarājasya sāmanta -mukhyasya khyāta-tejasaḥ Umā himālayasyeva tailāmbākhyā sutābhavaT| tāṁ śrī-baladakayyākhyāa- sāmantādhipates sutaḥ Avoḍha śaṁbhuvad yuddha mallaś śūkara-lāṁchanaḥ tat-sutāṁ śrī-mahādevīṁ dhavalāyata-locanām aśoka-pallavākāra -pāṇi-pāda-talāṁguliṁ pīnnonnata-kucānamrāṁ nimna-nābhīṁ guru-kṣitāM pakva-bimbādharān tanvīṁ tapta-hema-prabhāṁ śubhāṁ niravadya-dhavala-putro naptā śrī-pāṇḍarāṁga-sāmanta-pateḥ| nuta-kaṭakarāja-vaṁśa-kramāgatānindya-paṭṭa-baddha-lalāṭaḥ yaś ca| manur iva sa-vicāra-girā harir iva lakṣmyā kr̥tānta Iva śaurryeṇa smara Iva rūpeṇa dhiyā gurur iva dānena kalpatarur iva bhāti| Api ca śaurryaṁ duryyamam aryyama-dyuti vapuś cittaṁ svabhāvottamaṁ satyan nityam anatyayaṁ jaya-paṭaṁ kāśa-prakāśaṁ yaśaḥ sāram bhūri vicāra-cāru caritaṁ dānaṁ cāa dīna-stutaṁ jñānaṁ jñānavatāṁ matan tu vijayādityasya yasya kṣitau so ’yaṁ śrī-vijayādityas satya-vādyaḫ parantapaḥ yāṁ prāpya dharmma-kāmārtthān kr̥tavān lokasāt kr̥tī

tasyai śrī-mahādevyai tat-pati-kr̥ta-pūrvvopakāra-smaraṇa-santuṣṭaḥ kr̥tajñatā-prakhyāpana-nimittaṁ sarvva-kara-parihāreṇa mogābhidhāno grāmo dattaḥ

Asyāvadhayaḥ. pūrvvataḥ puliyeṟu-ṇāma nadī| Āgneyataḥ mūṇṭha-rāvula guṇṭha.dakṣiṇataḥ ceṁbaṟka-narendreśvara-kṣetraM| nairir̥tyāṁ taila-śarvva-kṣetraM| paścimataḥ devula-ceṟuvu| vāyavyataḥ carmmaṇḍi-paścima-taṭākaM| Uttarataḥ peddapūṇḍi-cariya| Īśaānataḥ riṇṭha-mrāṁkulu| na kenacid asyopari bādhā karaṇīyā| tathā ca

ṣaṣṭiṁ varṣa-sahasrāṇi svargge modati bhūmidaḥ Ākṣeptā cānumantā ca tāny eva narake vaseT|

Asyājñaptiḥ kaḍeya-rāja Eva. bhaṭṭa-vāmanena racitam idaM. koṇḍācāryyeṇa likhitaM

Seal śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa SS reports it as śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa, and the reading is of course in all probability correct, but from the published photos, it can only be confirmed as far as I indicate here.

Plates -mahāsena- The first three characters of this word are closely spaced, and hā and se are awkwardly formed (both in body shape and in the unusual positioning of their vowel markers). They thus seem to be a correction (possibly along with the preceding i marker), but there is no clear indication of the pre-correction text. Possibly, svāmihāsena or svāmahāsena was first engraved. -prasāda- The vowel marker goes horizontally from the headmark, but bends downward still on the left of the consonant's leg (rather than, as expected, passing above the leg and then bending down to the right of the consonant). It may have been added subsequently. -lāṁchāanekṣaṇa- -lāṁchanekṣaṇa- -āgrāagrajo -āagrajo Pre-modern correction may be present here. The superfluous ā mātrās may have been deleted, and it is also possible that tadānujo was first engraved and then corrected into the expected text. viṣṇurājaṣ viṣṇurājo ‘ddhyarddha- dhyarddha- ‘dvārddha- The character ddhya is faint but reasonably clear in the photo. NV's v is probably a typo, but his omission of y may not be, as the sbuscript y is indiscernible in his estampage. kośaleṣśa- kośaleṣu I prefer SS's reading even though it requires emendation, because I see no indication of u in either facsimile of the plate. I also find it more likely that a compound was used here, as in the other claims of this stanza. Nonetheless, NV may be correct that the composer's intent had been kośaleṣu, and I cannot fully exclude the possibility that this is in fact engraved. In a footnote, NV emends his text to kosaleṣu, but this is unnecessary. -hemādi -hemādir Possibly a typo in SS's edition. balāt tyāgārttham balātyārtham Probably a typo in NV's edition. -deśam -daeśam The vowel marker (on top of the consonant) is clear in the photo, though not in the rubbing. -dvaye -dvayaṁ The vowel marker (on top of the consonant) is clear in the photo, though not in the rubbing. Adhyāsta Adhyasta Probably only a typo in SS. ārddidad arddayad NV may be right that only a is present here, but if so, then emendation into ā is warranted. SS's reading (which he prints as clear throughout) is definitely superior and mostly confirmed by the facsimiles. apispaśad bhūmim api svava-bhūminm SS's reading is again far superior and, except for the illegible spa, confirmable from the facsimiles. NV's emendation is unmetrical. apīpalat anaṁdayat avarakṣat While NV's reading is again definitely inferior (and unmetrical), in this case SS's reading also seems to be incorrect. I see no indication of a subscript consonant where he reads nda, nor space at the end where ya might fit. My own suggestion is also very tentative; I must note that I see no vestige of ī, but the reading fits the context, and p-s seem probable as the main components of two successive characters. -jsrajaḥ -jvrajaḥ goḷā- godā- goldā- NV's reading l is probably a typo for ḷ. Both editors understand this name to mean the Godāvarī, but given the received spelling, this does not seem so certain. jhaṭiti jhaḍiti lāṭakāṁś The vowel marker in lā is attached to the subscript l. -viṣṇuvarddhana-cālukya- The first of the indicated characters, ṣṇu, may have been engraved only once; the following ones are definitely engraved over erased text, but nothing of the pre-correction text can be read. -baladakayyākhyāa- -baladakayyākhyāaḥ -baladakayyākhya- -talāṁguliṁ -talāṁgulliṁlim The double l is probably a typo in Sankaranarayanan's edition, and the reason he emends is only to normalise anusvāra. pīnnonnata- pīnonnata- Iva The scribe has omitted the two circles that form the lower part of I. jñānavatāṁ matan tu jñānavatāmtamtu -vijayādityas satya- -vijayādityaḥsatya- -vijayādityasatya- -vādyaḫ -vādyaḥ -vādkyaḥ NV's emendation is unnecessary. yāṁ yaṁ yaḥ This character is slightly awkward in shape (but not unique, compare the likewise narrow yaṁ in the previous line). I am quite certain that its right extremity is a downward-bending hook for ā rather than the upwar d arm of y. This is clearer in the rubbing, but also discernible in the photo. kr̥tavān lokasāt kr̥tī krir̥tavān loka-sat-kr̥tiṁ kr̥cchravat-kr̥tī SS's kri is probably a typo for kr̥, since this character is clear. The next character is almost certainly vā, definitely without an intervening ta, so SS probably intended to supply an omitted ta here. After this point, the plate is badly effaced, with only vestiges visible in the rubbing and less than that in the photo. Nonetheless, these vestiges give some confirmation for most of SS's reading, which he offers as a tentative restoration. After vā, nlo (especially a subscript l and the vocalisation o, the whole character being lowered because of the overhanging subscript y) is very plausible. Conversely, NV's kr̥cchra is impossible; what he apparently saw as the subscript part of cchra is in fact the vowel marker of rvvo in the following line (which he misreads as rvva, see the apparatus there). NV's reading is, moreover, hypometrical. Since there are probably only two characters after vā (though a very narrow additional character right after vā cannot be ruled out), I agree that one more syllable needs to be supplied and accept SS's restoration with minor changes. I endorse NV's reading of kr̥tī at the end of this segment. I construe the text very differently from how SS must have understood it, since I feel certain of the reading yāṁ earlier in the stanza, and to obtain a coherent sentence, read lokasāt instead of loka-sat. I remain far from certain in this reconstruction and my interpretation of the stanza. A scrutiny of the original may be helpful here. tasyai śrī- tasyaiva ca Although SS prints a single dot for this lacuna, in a footnote he proposes to restore two characters into it, which definitely cannot fit here. The vestiges indicate śrī, which may thus be an integral part of the lady's name rather than just an honorific. -kr̥ta- There are some additional strokes here, including a circle that is almost certainly an i marker. It may be that kr̥ was engraved with a superfluous i; most likely, this character is a correction from a previously engraved ti. -pūrvvopakāra- -pūrva-dāna-karmma NV's failure to read rvvo is because he mistook the vowel marker for a subscript component belonging to the line above. The rest of his reading is impossible to fit in the damaged part (he may have read the last character of the line first as rmma, then changed his reading to sma in light of the next line, but neglected to discard the initial rmma), while SS's reading is fully in line with the vestiges. nadī taṭī mūṇṭha- muṇṭha- guṇṭha guṭṭa ceṁbaṟka ceṁbaṟu veṁbaṟku The first character looks more like ce than ve, but these characters are too similar to tell apart for certain in an unfamiliar word. The last character, as engraved, is definitely ṟka. taila-śarvva-kṣetraM tai kṣetraṁ NV apparently disregards the badly legible characters and even the fairly distinct rvva in the next line. In his discussion he speaks about taila-kṣetra, so he probably did read la here. SS prints only śa as unclear, and indeed, no decisive vestiges of this character are present. He assumes that this is the name of a Śiva temple connected to Tailāmbā. I accept the reading on his authority, but this needs confirmation from the original. Lacking such confirmation, it may be possible instead to restore taila-pūrvva-kṣetram, meaning a field that was already in the possession of the family of Tailāmbā. devula-ceṟuvu devula-ceṟuva devuḍu-ceṟuvu The final a is probably a typo in SS. NV's devuḍu can be ruled out. SS further notes that this term is engraved over an erasure. This is not obvious in the available facsimiles, but may well be the case, at least for the characters la-ceṟu. carmmaṇḍi- cavaṇḍi- SS's reading (which he prints as clear) is quite certain; the subscript m is clear and a superscript repha is likely in the last character of line 51. NV prints the name as cāvanṭi (sic) in his discussion. riṇṭha-mrāṁkulu reṇṭhamrākulu renṭha-mrānkulu The anusvāra in the second term is quite clear and is probably what NV had intended to indicate here. The vowel of the first character is distorted and damaged due to being on the edge of the hole. Reading it as e is possible, but I am more inclined to read i, encouraged by the fact that NV uses riṇṭha in his discussion. Asyājñaptiḥ Ājñaptiḥ kaḍeya-rāja kaḍiya-rāja Eva Evaṁ The plate is badly weathered here, so an anusvāra cannot be ruled out, but I see no indication of one, and find the reading better without.

Seal

Plates

Greetings! Satyāśraya Vallabhendra Pulakeśin II was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon,Or, alternatively, by the grace of Kauśikī’s bridegroom, i.e. Śiva. In spite of its slight awkwardness, I prefer the former interpretation because the Bādāmi Cālukyas refer to themselves as nourished saṁvardhita by Kauśikī. who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, to whom the realms of adversaries instantaneously submit at the mere sight of the superior Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions avabhr̥tha of the Aśvamedha sacrifice. His brother Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana reigned for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha I, for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja’s son Viṣṇuvardhana II, for nine. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha II, for thirteen. His younger brother Kokkili, for six months. His elder brother Viṣṇurāja Viṣṇuvardhana III, for thirty-seven. His son Vijayāditya I, for nineteen. His son Viṣṇurāja Viṣṇuvardhana IV, for thirty-six years. His son Vijayāditya II, for forty. His son Kali Viṣṇuvardhana V, for a year and a half. His firstborn progeny, the one who—

forcibly seized, in order to donate it, the silver and other goods of the Kāliṅgas and the Gaṅgas, the elephants and other goods of the Lords of Kośala, and the gold and other goods of the Pāṇdyas and the Pallavas;

pressed the Gaṅgas up to the Gaṅga peak, struck off the head of Maṅgi, defeated Kr̥ṣṇa in battle—who would be capable of recounting his daring deeds?

—that Vijayāditya III strengthened the land of Veṅgī year after year for forty-four years.

Then, after two Jayasiṁhas and likewise five Viṣṇuvardhanas, Kokkili along with Maṅgi, and three Vijayādityas had thus passed—

that Vijayāditya’s III brother was King bhūpati Vikramāditya who conquered the entire surface of the earth by his valour vikrama. His firstborn son—

ascended the throne, pulverised his foes, held the earth in his fetters, protected his subjects, displayed his glory, duly worshipped Brahmins, honoured the worthy, bore garlands of virtue;

the one who, wrathfully mounting the heavy shoulder of his excellent elephant the raging Ādityaprasāda, with the arrows released from his bow at once dispersed—just as the sun ascending Mount Sunrise disperses the darkness with its rays—the dastardly Karṇāṭas stationed on the bank of the Godā, who had occupied the entire earth, and the Lāṭakas with their smartly prancing horses—

that shelter of all the world sarva-lokāśraya, His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana Cālukya-Bhīma I, Supreme Lord parameśvara of Emperors mahārājādhirāja and supreme devotee of Maheśvara, commands all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Varavara district viṣaya as follows:

The foremost baron sāmanta Sarvarāja of renowned valour had a daughter named Tailāmbā, as the Himalaya had the daughter Umā.

Yuddhamalla of the boar ensign, son of the foremost baron sāmanta named His Highness Baladakayya, married her as Śambhu married Umā.

Their resplendent daughter Śrī-Mahādevī was slender but bent with the weight of her plump and firm breasts; her eyes were bright and wide, her fingers, toes, soles and palms resembled tender aśoka sprigs, her navel was recessed and her hipsThe word kṣitā or kṣita is not known from other sources, but must mean hips or buttocks here. heavy, her lips were like a ripe bimba fruit, and her complexion was like heated gold.

Vijayāditya was the son of Niravadya Dhavala, grandson of the lordly baron sāmanta His Highness Pāṇḍarāṅga and one whose head was wrapped in the impeccable turban duly inherited in the celebrated lineage of castellans kaṭaka-rāja,

and who—

appeared like Manu in his considerate speech, like Hari in his majesty with Lakṣmī, like Death in his valour, like Love in his physical beauty, like Guru Br̥haspati in his intellect, like a wish-fulfilling tree in his generosity;

moreover,

the valour of this Vijayāditya was indomitable, his figure bright as the sun, his mind innately excellent, his truthfulness constant, his banner of victory unbroken, his reputation brilliant like tufts of kāśa grass, his wealth great, his demeanour thoughtfully pleasant, his generosity lauded by the needy, his wisdom esteemed by the wise on earth.

He, His Highness the above Vijayāditya, truthful of speech and a scorcher of foes, accomplished his goals in having acquired her the above Śrī-Mahādevī, as his wife, and thereupon distributed objects of the three human objectives religious duty dharma, pleasure kāma and wealth artha to the populace.The reading of this stanza is problematic and may be incorrect in one or more spots. My tentative understanding of its meaning differs significantly from that of previous editors. See the apparatus to line 45 and the commentary.

To that Śrī-Mahādevī, we, Cālukya-Bhīma,See the commentary for my understanding of this elliptical passage. fondly recalling the previous service done by her husband, have granted the village named Moga with an exemption from all taxes, in order to proclaim our gratitude.

Its boundaries are as follows. To the east, the river named Puliyeṟu. To the southeast, the Mūṇṭha-Rāvula pond guṇṭha.Venkataramanayya, who reads muṇṭha-rāvula-guṭṭa, translates, the hill with three(?) pipal trees To the south, the field of the Ceṁbaṟka-Narendreśvara temple. To the southwest, the field of the Taila-Śarva temple. My translation is based on Sankaranarayanan’s reading, but see the apparatus to line 50 for my doubts concerning this. To the west, the Devula reservoir ceṟuvu. To the northwest, the western tank taṭāka of the village Carmaṇḍi. To the north, peddapūṇḍi-cariya. According to Sankaranarayanan, this means a precipice or valley belonging to Peddapūṇḍi village. Venkataramanayya elaborates this to a hollow between hills in which stood the village. To the northeast, riṇṭha-mrāṁkulu.According to Sankaranarayanan, who reads reṇṭha-mrākulu, this means some two trees (?). Venkataramanayya's gloss of the term is soap-nut trees. Let no-one pose an obstacle to her enjoyment of her rights over it. Moreover,

A donor of land rejoices in heaven for sixty millennia, while a seizer of granted land and a condoner of such seizure shall reside in hell for just as many.

The executor ājñapti of this grant is the castellan kaḍeya-rājaThe term kaḍeya-rāja, equivalent to kaḍa-eṟeya and kaṭaka-rāja, is normally understood to mean a chief officer of the royal camp (cf. 183-185 and kaṭaka-rāja). However, as it seems to denote a very high hereditary office in the Cālukyan court, I believe it had in this case no direct association with any army camps. himself. This grant was composed racita by Bhaṭṭa Vāmana. Written likhita by Koṇḍācārya.

Seal

Plates

Prospérité ! Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, frère de Satyāśraya Vallabhendra, ornement de la lignée des Calukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, honorés dans l’univers entier, fils de Hāritī, qui obtinrent leur royaume grâce à l’excellente faveur de Kauśikī, protégés par la troupes des Mères, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, dont le cercle des ennemis fut soumis en un instant à la vue du signe illustre de l’excellent sanglier, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, dont les corps furent purifiés par le bain purificatoire de l’aśvamedha, régna pendant dix-huit années ; son fils, Jayasiṁha, pendant trente-trois années ; le cher fils de son frère cadet Indrarāja, Viṣṇuvardhana, pendant neuf années ; le fils de celui-ci, Maṁgi-Yuvarāja, pendant vingt-cinq années ; son fils, Jayasiṁha, pendant treize année ; son frère cadet, Kokkili, pendant six mois ; le frère de celui-ci, Viṣṇurāja, pendant trente-sept années ; son fils Vijayāditya pendant dix-neuf années ;Toutes les autres inscriptions de notre corpus attestent une durée de règne de 18 années. le fils de celui-ci, Viṣṇurāja, pendant trente-six années ; son fils Vijayāditya pendant quarante années, le fils de ce dernier, Kali-Viṣṇuvarddhana, une année et demi ; Le prince de cette lignée,

qui, rapporta, par la force, l’argent des Kāliṁga et des Gaṁga, etc., les éléphants des Kośala, etc., maître de l’or des Pāṇḍya et des Pallava , etc., dans le but de les donner ;

contraignit les Gaṁga à monter sur le Gaṁgakūṭa, coupa la tête de Maṁgi,Il est aussi question de ce personnage dans les insc. nos 32, str.5 ; 37, str. 10, 41. vainquit au combat Kr̥ṣṇa, - qui pourrait décrire les exploits que produisit sa fougue?-

Lui, Vijayāditya, fit prospérer à chaque saison le royaume de Veṅgī, pendant quarante-quatre années.

Lorsque les deux Jayasiṁha, les cinq Viṣṇuvardhana avec Maṁgi, Kokkili, les trois Vijayāditya, s’en furent allés,

le fils aîné du roi Vikramāditya, dont la vaillance avait conquis toute la surface de la terre, le frère de ce dernier Vijayāditya.

Il s’assit sur le trône, tourmenta ses ennemis, veilla sur la terre, fit la joie de ses sujets, étendit sa gloire vertueuse, honora les deux-fois-nés, respecta les saints hommes, porta des guirlandes de vertus.

Monté sur les épaules d’un excellent maître éléphant ivre de fureur, faveur octroyée par Aditya,Le nom Aditya désigne à la fois le dieu et son oncle Vijayāditya qui lui a légué le royaume. dans sa colère, des flèches décochées de son arc - tel le soleil parvenu Mont du Levant, chasse la nuit en dardant les rayons de la lumière matinale, il délogea les Karṇaṭa qui, tenant la terre entière, occupaient les rives de la Godāvarī, ainsi que, soudainement, les Laṭaka mécréants, dont les chevaux dansaient avec adresse.

Lui, refuge du monde entier, l’illustre Viṣṇuvardhana Cālukya Bhīma, roi suprême des grands rois, seigneur suprême, dévôt de Māheśvara, ordonne ceci aux chefs de familles, habitant le rāṣṭra de Varavara, rāṣṭrakūṭa en tête :

Ce roi universel, éminent feudataire, au tejas renommé, telle Umā née d’Himalaya, avait une fille nommée Tailāmbā.

Le fils du seigneur des feudataires, - illustre, nommé Baladakayya -, l’épousa, comme Śaṁbhu, Yuddhamalla, porteur de la marque du sanglier ;La strophe 7 poursuit peut-être la comparaison diagrammatique entre la lignée divine śivaïte et la lignée du héros. La relation bimba-pratibimba est fondée sur l’analogie entre la relation filiale de Tailāṁbā et Sarvarāja et celle d’Umā et Himālaya. La comparaison de Baladakayya à Śaṁbhu incite à penser que cette figure se poursuit sur la strophe 7 : la relation conjugale de ce dernier et Tailāṁbā correspondant à celle de Śiva et Umā. Mais le composé sūkara-lāṁchanaḥ, « porteur de la marque du sanglier », dans le pāda d, ne peut désigner que Viṣṇu, lui aussi qualifié souvent de « Śaṁbhu ». Cette expression est une allusion au sceau des Cālukya de Veṅgī.

sa fille fut l’illustre Mahādevī, aux resplendissants yeux en amande, dont la peau des doigts des mains et des pieds étaient un massif de bourgeons d’aśoka,

qui ployait sous le poids de ses seins charnus et proéminents, au nombril profond, à la démarche grave, aux lèvres couleur du bimba mûr, menue, éclatante comme l’or en fusion, resplendissante.

Le seigneur des feudataires, l’illustre Pāṇḍarāṁga, eut un descendant exempt de blâme et splendide, dont le front s’ornait du bandeau irréprochable hérité du lignage célèbre des kaṭakarāja ;

et,

il ressemble à Manu par ses paroles réfléchies, à Hari par sa Fortune, à Kr̥tānta par sa vaillance, à Smara par sa beauté, par son intelligence, au guru,Br̥haspati. par sa libéralité à l’arbre à vœux .

Et,

Il possédait une vaillance invincible, une beauté resplendissante, un esprit naturellement éminent, toujours sincère, exempt de méchanceté, il possédait une gloire à la forme éclatante telle un dais de ses victoires, la puissance, une conduite charmante fondée sur une abondante réflexion, lui dont les dons étaient loués par les nécessiteux, doué d’une sagesse estimée par les sages sur terre, lui Vijayāditya.

L’illustre Vijayāditya, aux paroles sincères, destructeur des ennemis, atteignit la réalisation du dharma, du kāma et de l’artha,Il manque cinq syllabes. On attend, après l’énumération des trois buts, l’évocation du quatrième but, mokṣa. Le fait que le roi fasse un don de village à Mahādevī corrobore l’hypothèse que ce personnage soit mort.

Vijayāditya, qui éprouvait de la reconnaissance au souvenir des services rendus par l’époux de celle-ci, donne à cette Mahādevī le village nommé Moga, exempté de toute taxe, à l’occasion d’une annonce portée à la connaissance de tous,

Les limites de ce dernier sont : à l’est le rivage nommé Puliyeṟu, au sud-est l’étang de Muṇṭha-Rāvula, au sud le terrain de Narendreśvara, Ceṁbaṟu, au sud-ouest tout le terrain de Taila, à l’ouest Devulaceṟuva, au nord-ouest un étang à l’ouest Carmmaṇḍi , au nord Peddapūṇḍi-Cariya, au nord-est Ṟeṇṭhamrākulu. Aucune charge ne doit lui être imposée. Ainsi Vyāsa a-t-il dit :

le donateur d’une terre se réjouit pendant soixante mille années dans le ciel ; celui qui abroge cette donation ou l’approuve réside tout aussi longtemps en enfer.

L’exécuteur de ce don est précisément le kaḍeyarāja. Cet édit a été composé par Bhaṭṭavāmana et gravé par Koṇḍacārya.