Kalidiṇḍi grant of the Eastern Cālukya Rājarāja I Encoding Dániel Balogh intellectual authorship of edition Dániel Balogh DHARMA Berlin DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00079

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported Licence. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Copyright (c) 2019-2025 by Dániel Balogh.

2019-2025
DHARMAbase

Halantas. Final T (line 10) seems to be a ta without a headmark, perhaps slightly reduced in size; it may have a tail; the specimen in line 14 (employed to avoid the ligature tkr̥) definitely has one, looking much like a repha, while that in line 64 appears to be full-sized and may or may not have a tail. Final N (line 35) is a slightly reduced na with a short slanting tail in place of (or, in the second instance, perhaps in addition to) a headmark. Final Ṭ, used in line 36 to avoid the conjunct ṭtr, looks rather like ṭa, but the right-hand stroke of the headmark is straighter and longer than normal, so I believe it is a tail rather than part of a headmark.

Original punctuation marks are plain vertical strokes, usually short (sometimes barely more than a dot) and placed at a varying height, but occasionally, and without any apparent system, of the regular length (i.e. as tall, or nearly as tall, as character bodies), especially when doubled. The double bar in line 9 may have some ornamentation.

Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāras are placed after the character to which they belong, often at median height. They can be moved to the next line as at the beginning of line 13. Visarga is also moved to the next line in l52. There may be an editorial deletion mark in line 33, for which see the apparatus. Jihvāmūlīya occurs in line 42, shaped like a figure-8 (not an hourglass) that is placed inline like a separate character (or like a visarga), not conjoined in a ligature to the following character (see also the apparatus). There is a probable initial R̥ in line 89, but the character is indistinct in the estampage and the reading is determined by the context. It may resemble ḻa in shape.

Venkataramanayya observes that plate 3 and onwards may have been written by a different hand, but since the script is identical, this is not certain. I agree that a hand change is probable but. Hand 1 is perhaps slightly neater. In this hand, the upper part of ṇa is a "proper" horizontal figure-8 (e.g. l47 gīrvvāṇa); the marker for dependent au is distinguished from o by the greater height of the second hump (e.g. l6 mahābhaumaḥ); initial A (l11) is close to the classical form resembling sra. Hand 2 is perhaps less neat than Hand 1. In this hand, the upper part of ṇa is an open stroke, resembling the o marker (e.g. l53 guṇa); the marker for dependent au is not clearly distinguished from o, though its tail may descend further than that of o (e.g. l54 ravau, śītagau), or it may have a higher rise in the second hump (two instances in line 63); initial A (l56, l65) is a late, cursively simplified form that is similar to initial E.

The project DHARMA has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no 809994).

Public URIs with the prefix bib to point to a Zotero Group Library named ERC-DHARMA whose data are open to the public.

Internal URIs using the part prefix to point to person elements in the DHARMA_IdListMembers_v01.xml file.

Initial encoding of the file
Seal śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa
Plates śrī-dhāmnaḥ puruṣottamasya mahato nārāyaṇasya prabhor nnābhī-paṁkaruhād babhūva jagatas sraṣṭā svayaṁbhūs tata jajñenasa-sūnur atrir iti yas tasmān muner atritas somo vaṁśa-karas sudhāṁśur uditaś śrīkaṇṭha-cūḍāmaṇiḥ| tasmād abhūt sudhā-suūter bbudho budha-nutas tataḥ jātaḥ purūra nāma cakravarttī sa-vikramaḥ

tasmād āyus. tato nahuṣa. tato yayātiḥ cakravarttī vaṁśa-karttā. tataḥ purur iti cakravarttī. tato janamejayo śvamedha-tritayasya karttā. tataḥ prācīśaḥ. tasmaāt sainyayātiḥ. tato hayapatiḥ. tatas sārvvabhaumaḥ. tato jayasenaḥ. tato mahābhaumaḥ. tasmād aiśānakaḥ. tataḥ krodhānanaḥ. tato devakiḥ. tasmād r̥bhukaḥ. tasmād r̥kṣakaḥ. tato mativaraḥ satra-yāga-yājī sarasvatī-nadī-nāthaḥ. tataḥ kātyāyanaḥ. tato nīlaḥ. tato duṣyantaḥ. tat-sutaḥ.

cakravarttī mahā-tejā bharato yūpa-kānanaṁ. kr̥tvāśvamedhān akarod gaṁgā-yamunayos taṭe.

tato bharatād bhūmanyuḥ. tatas suhotraḥ. tato hastī. tato virocanaḥ. tasmād ajamīlaḥ. tatas saṁvaraṇaḥ. saṁvaraṇasya tapana-sutāyās tapatyāś ca sudhanvā. tataḥ pariīkṣiT. tato bhīmasenaḥ. tataḥ pradīpanaḥ. tataḥ śantanuḥ. tato vicitravīryyaḥ. tataḥ pāṇḍu-rājaḥ..

putrās tasya yudhasthiṣṭhira-bhīmārjuna-nakula-sahadevāḥ. paṁceṁdriyavat paṁca syur vvisaya-grāhiṇas tatra.. jitvā yena pyauraṁdaraṁ hutanvahe havyī-kr̥taṁ kkhāṇḍavaṁ yaś śaṁbhor llabhate sma saṁyati bany astrāṇi divyāni ca. yenādhyāsitam āsanaṁ maghavataś cārddhaṁ sura-dveṣiṇaḥ saṁpiṣyāgamayaT kr̥tānta-nagarīṁ yaḥ kauravān vidviṣaḥ.

tato rjunād abhimanyuḥ. tataḥ pariīkṣiT. tato janamejayaḥ. tataḥ kṣemukaḥ. tato naravāhanaḥ. tataḥ śatānīkaḥ. tasmād udayanaḥ. tataḥ paraṁ tat-prabhr̥tiṣv avicchinna-santāneṣv ayodhyā-siṁhāsanāsīneṣv ekānna-ṣaṣi-cakravarttiṣu gatesu tad-vaṁśyo vijayādityo nāma rājā vijigīṣayā dakṣiṇāpathaṁ gatvā trilocana-pallavam adhaikṣipya kāla-vaśāl lokāntaram agamaT

tasmin saṁkule tasya mahādevī garbhbha-bhārālasāntaḥpurādhikta-vanitā-kaṁcuki.bhis sārddha vr̥ddhāmātyaiḥ purohitena ca nīyamānā kathaṁcin muḍivemu-nāmāgrāhāram upagamya tad-vāstavyena viṣṇubhaṭṭa-somayājinā duhitr̥-nirnvviśeṣam abhigrakṣitā satī naṁdanaṁ viṣṇuvarddhanam asūta. sā tasya ca kumārasya mānavya-sagotra-hārīti-putrādi-sva-kṣatra-gotra-kramocitāni karmmāni kārayitvā tam avarddhayaT.. sa ca mātrā vidita-vr̥ttāntas san nirggatya calukya-girau naṁdāṁ bhagavatiīṁ gauriīm ārādhya kumāra-nārāyaṇa-mātr̥-gaṇāṁś ca saṁtarpya śvetātapatreaika-gśaṁkha-paṁca-mahāśabda-pāliketana-pratiḍhakkā-varāha-lāṁcchana-piṁccha-kuṁta-siṁhāsana-makara-toraṇa-kanaka-daṇḍa-gaṁgā-yamunādīni sva-kula-kramāgatāni nikṣiptāniīva sāmrājya-cihnāni sāamāsādya trilocana-pallavaṁ jitvā tat-sutām uttamadānīm upayamya kadaṁba-gaṁgādi-bhūmipān nirjjitya setu-narmmadā-madhyaṁ sārddha-sapta-lakṣaṁ dakṣiṇāpathaṁ pālayām āsa..

tasyāsīd vijayādityo viṣṇuvarddhana-bhūpateḥ. pallavānvaya-jātāyā mahādevyāś ca naṁdanaḥ.

tat-sūnuḥ pulakeśī vallabhaḥ. tat-putraḥ kīrttivarmmā. tasya tanayaḥ.

śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putraāṇāṁ kauśīikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥ttha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣā cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇos satyāśraya-vallabheṁdrasya bhrātā kujbja-viṣṇauvarddhano ṣṭādaśa varṣāṇi vegī-deśam apālayaT. tat-sūnuḥ jayasiṁha-vallabhas trayastriṁśataṁ. tad-anujeṁdrarājanaṁdanas sapta dināni. tat-putro viṣṇuvarddhano nava varṣāṇi. tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcaviṁśatiṁ. tat-tanayo jayasiṁhas trayodaśa. tad-anujakokiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN. tasya jyeṣṭho sbhrātā viṣṇuvarddhanas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁśatam abdāN. tat-suto vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ṣṭādaśa. tat-putro viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ ṣaṬtriṁśataṁ. tat-sūnur nnareṁdra-mr̥garājo ṣṭācatvāriṁśata tat-sutaḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano dhyarddha-varṣaṁ. tat-tanayo guṇaga-vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ. tad-bhrātur vvikramāditya-bhūpates sutaś cālukya-bhīmas triṁśataṁ. tat-putro vijayāditya ṣaṇ māsāN. tat-sūnur ammarājas sapta varṣāṇi. tat-sutaṁ vijayādityaṁ bālam uccāṭya tāḍapa-rājo māsam ekaṁ. taṁ jitvācālukya-bhīma-tanayo vikramāditya Ekādaśa māsāN. tat-tāḍapa-rāja-suto yuddhamallas sapta varṣāṇi. tataḥ.

Ammarājānujo rāja -bhīmo bhīma-parākramaḥ. vijitya yuddhamallaṁ taṁ dvādaśābdān dham aśāT sat-putrayor ddaśaratha-pratimasya tasya bhīmasya rāma-bharatopamayoẖ kanīyāN. dānārṇṇavāmma-nr̥payoḥ khalu paṁcaviṁśaty abdān arakṣad avanī-talam ammarājaḥ.. tasya jyeṭho nr̥patiṣu catuṣṣaṣṭi-vidyā-pravīṇo yaḥ karṇṇādiīn sura-taru-nibho bhūri-dānena jitvā. loke nvartthaṁ suciram adadhān nāma dānārṇṇavākhyas sa trīn abdān avahad avanīm arṇṇava-kṣauma-kāntāṁ.. tataḥ paraṁ patiṁ labdhum anurūpam anāyia saptaviṁśati varṣāṇi vcacāreva tapaḥ kṣamā.. Atha dānārṇṇavaāj jātaḥ kalāvāN dviṭ-tamo-haraḥ. rāja-cālukya-caṁdro yaḥ kṣamā-tāpam apārokaroT.. balād gr̥hītvā balito dhariśrīḥtrīṁ gīrvvāṇa-śatror iva śatru-varggāT śrī-śadktivarmmā sa samāś calukya -nārāyaṇo dvādaśa rakṣati sma.. tad-anu tad-anujanmā rājamārttaṇḍa-bhūpo viśada-rucir arāti-dhvānta-vidhvaṁsa-dakṣaḥ. sma vahati bhuvam abdān sapta saptāśva-tejās sakala-vasumatī-bhr̥n-mastaka-nyasta-pādaḥ. lakṣmī-bhartr̥i-nibhasya tasya vimalādityasya bhcoḍānvaya -kṣīrāṁbhonidhi-janmanaḥ śriya Iva śrī-rājarājādhipaḥ| devyāś cābjani rājarāja-duhituḥ kuṁdāṁbikāyās suto yaḥ kaṁdarppa Ivāparaḥ prativasaN loka-traye strī-hr̥di. bālye bhūṣaṇam abhavad ratnamayī yasya kaṁṭhikā kaṁṭhe. guṇa-lubddhayeva mālā dharayā dattā patiṁvara.. vedāṁbhodhi-nidhi-pramāṇa-ganite śākābda-saṁghe ravau siṁha-sthe bahula-dvitīya-divase vāre guroś śītagau. yukte bhcottara-bhadrayodyati vaṇijg-yāme tu sarvva-kṣamāṁ trātuṁ paṭṭam adhatta yo guṇa-nidhiḥ śrī-rājarājo nr̥paḥ.. yasyottamāṁgam ābaddham ābhāt vpaṭṭena bhūyasā. bharttuṁ viśvaṁbharā-bhāraṁ janaiśr āropitaṁ yatthā.. Api ca.. khyātas samasta-nara-nātha-rkirīṭa-koṭi -ratna-prabhā-paṭala-pāṭala-pāda-pīṭhaḥ. yas tyāga-varṣa-pariharṣita-sat-samājo rājeṁdra-coḍa Iti coḍa-kulaika-ratnaṁ.. Ekasyāsīd api sa himavān īśvarasyāpatadbhir mmūrddhno gaṁgā-vimala-salilais sicyamānaḥ pavitraḥ. rājeṁdro ya kim uta namatām īśvarāṇā bahūnā ratnāloka-prakaṭita-jagat-prāṁgaṇoebhyaś śirobhyaḥ.. sa-dvīpāṁ catur-aṁbu-śrāśi-parikhāṁ viśvaṁbharāṁ layā daṇḍenaiva vijitya yo diśai diśi prātiṣṭhipat sarvvataḥ. svairodbhrānti-nivāraṇāya vijaya-staṁbhān sva-nāmāṁrkitān ālānān iva baddhum adha-manaso darppeṇa dig-dantinaḥ. sa śrautvā parituṣyāa vaṁśa-vinaya-tyāgābhimānonnati prajñā-vikrama-satya-śauca-paṭutā-śauryya-kṣamādīn guṇāN.. coḍeśo madhuntakaḥ sva-tanayām ammaṁga-nāmāṁ satīṁ ukyābharaṇasya cāgra-mahiṣīṁ snehena yasyākaroT.. yasmin rājani rakṣati bhū-cakram avakram ucita-mārggeṇa| Abhavad abādham akalmaṣam adūṣitam amatsaraṁ prajā-caritaṁ.. rājño rāja-calukya-vaṁśa-latikālaṁbasya yasya svayaṁ śaśvat-kīrttir alaṁkaroti nitarāṁ loka-trayī-kaāminīṁ| hāraālīva sugandhi-candana-ma loleva lālāma lemala-jāti-la-kalitā daula-lakṣmīr iva.. yasya śrī-paragaṇḍa-bhairava-vibhor ddor-ddaṇḍa-kaukṣeyaka -prodbhinnāhita-hasti-mastaka-galan-mastiṣka-khādāśayā gr̥dhrāḥ pakṣa-puṭaān visāryya viyati vyābaddha-cakrāś calat -piṁcchā-patra-caya-śrīiyaṁ vidadhate vīria-śrīiyas saṁyati. Ekenaiva hayī hayena bahuśo vāhās sahasran tathā ko vā vīra-bhaṭo jayeT pratibhaṭa cāstrābhivarais tathā. kas siṁced iti vidrutā raṇa-mukheṣv āścaryya-paryyākulā yasyārātaya Eva śauryyam aniśaṁ stunvanti tanvanti ca..

svasti. sarvalokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājaādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-māheśvaraḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ mātoā-pitr̥-pādānudhyātaḥ tyāga-siṁhāsanāsīnaḥ gāḍevalu-nāma-viṣaya-sahita-pallapu-gudravāra-viṣayam adhivasataḥ rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinasarvvān samāhuūya mantri-purohita-senāpati-yuvarāja-dauvārika-pravdhānādi-sameakṣam ittham ājñāpahayati| yadhthā|

khyāto sti rājarāja-brahma-mahārāja Iti mahā-daṇḍa-patiḥ yo madhuntaka-bhūbhr̥t-karuṇā-rasa-sikta-varddhita-yaśo-latikaḥ. rājendra-coḍa-bhūpāla -rājya-lakṣmī-ma-nidhe rakṣaṇa-kṣama-dakṣogra -mahā-bhuja-bhujagamaḥ dikto dakṣiṇataḥ puraskr̥ta-br̥had-daṇḍaḥ pracaṇḍas sa yo vidvinchoṭ-śoṇita-pāna-gr̥dhnur aparaḥ kālo na vetīkṣitaḥ rājendra-kṣitipālakasya mahato man-tulasyātulasy ādeśa pratipadya taT-kṣaṇata Evāṁdhra-kṣamāṁ prāgamaT.. Anyo pi daṇḍa-nātho bhakti-kleśa-praruhr̥ṭa-nija-nādhthaḥ Amunaivāgatavān uttama-śoḍa-ccoḍagon iti vyeapadiṣṭaḥ| Uttama-coḍa-milāḍuḍan ity anyo pi coāgataḥ puruṣaḥ yaḥ patir atha senāyāḥ pati-vratāyāḥ parekṣaṇāsahanāyāḥ. karnnṇṇāṭika-balāraṇyāa tādagdhu-kāmam aśeṣataḥ| daṇḍa-nātha-trayeaṁ dr̥ṣṭam agni-trayam ivojvalaM.. karnnṇṇāṭa-dramilādhīśa -daṇḍeśām acbhavad raṇa paraspara-caturddanta -pratighaṭṭana-bhīkaraṁ. muṣṭāmuṣṭi kvacid dr̥ṣṭaṁ keśākeśy abhavat kṣaṇaṁ daṇḍādaṇḍi kvacit proktaṁ kuntākunti-nirantara jaghnire nija-śarair api kecid dhanvino yudhi samarddhita-śauryyā senayor api paraspara-bāṇā pāta-ta-java-vāta-vivr̥ttaiḥ khaḍgi-khaḍga-dr̥ḍha-ghaṭṭana-jāte visphuliṁga-nivahe suśalabhā syuḥ. sad-bhaṭaā bhaya-bhr̥taḥ lacaś cala-cīittāḥ paṁca-ṣa-padātyoḥ. nr̥tyanti gaja-kabandhās turaga-kabandhāś ca nara-kabandha-pramukhā. ṇam adyaiva viymukta nija-nāthāvaṁdhya-poṣaṇasyeti mudā. gajair ggajā vājibhir eva vājino narair nnarās tatra samaṁ vinākr̥śitāḥ dvi-pakṣayoḥ kāla-vaśena saṁyuge samāna-yuddhaṁ samam eva naśyatioḥ| bhr̥śam avasara Eṣa naḥ pragantuṁ divam anuciṁtya padāti-yugma-mukhyāḥ divija-yuvati-saṁga-kāṁkṣayeyuḥ ssamam atha daiva-durīhayā ca bhūme

Etad-dramila-daṇḍanāthānāṁ rājarājarāja-brahma-mahārāja-nāmadheyo me mātulasya madhurāntaka-devasyātulāasyādeśa prāpya karvnṇṇāṭaka-daṇḍanādhthair yyuddhvā tair eva sārddhaṁ divaṁ gatavān aāśvikena haāstikena ca balena pādāta-balena ca sama-balatvāc ca. tam uddiśya kalidiṇḍi-grāme rājarājeśvaram iti śivāyatanam akaravaṁ. Uttama-śoḍa-ccoḍagon ity uttama-coḍa-milāḍuḍayān iti prasiddhāv anyāv api coddiśya śivāyatana-dvayaṁ karomi yeṣā maṁgalottuṁgga-saṁgītaka-khaṇḍa-sphuṭita-navakarmma-baly-upahārādy-artthapaṁcāśac-chātrāṇāṁ śāstrasya śrotr̥̄ṇāṁ satrārtthaṁ ca dvayādhika-paṁcāśad-veśyābhi brāhmaṇa-śatena brahma-vedinā huta-jātavedasaā vaiśya-śatena ca dhanadopamena śūdra-śatena brahma-pāda-kamala-saṁbhūtena ca sārddhaṁ madhurāntaka-nallūri-nāmnā prasiddhaḥ kalidiṇḍi-nāma grāmeaḥ gaḍavaṟu-grāmaṭika dattaḥ

tasyāvadhaya. pūrvvataḥ konneki-sīmaiva sī. Āgneyataḥ lidoṟṟu-sīmaiva sīmā. dakṣiṇataḥ koṇṭhama sīmā. nairr̥tyataḥ vevāka-sīmaiva . paścimatakaḍapaṟṟu-sīmaiva sīmā.yavyataḥ dāḍināṇṭi sīmaiva sīmā. Uttarataḥ| potuṁbaṟti-sīmaiva . ĪAiśānata potuṁbaṟti-siīmaiva sīmā.

pallapu-gudravāre kaḍapaṟu nāma grāmaḥ duggiyapūṇḍi ceti. grāmasyāsya pūrvvataḥ. kaludiṇḍi-sīmaiva sī. Āgneyataḥ. veEṣaiva. dakṣina.ta. vevāka-sīmaiva sīmā. naairr̥tyataḥ Eṣaiva. paścimataḥ. Āvakūri sīmaiva sīmā. vāyavyataḥ tāmara-kolani krovviṇḍḍeṭaṁbāsina tallikroyya nāma nadī. Uttarataḥ. kalvasaṇḍa-sīmaiva sīmā. ĪAiśānataḥ.ināṇṭi sīmaiva sīmā.

pallapu-gudravāre Āvakū pūrvvataḥ kaḍapaṟti sīmaiva sīmā. Āgneyyāṁ paścimataḥ koṇḍika-muṁjalūra-sīmaiva sīmā ṟti-sīmeaiva sīmā. Īśānataḥ kaḍasa paṁca-mahāpātakair yyukto bhavati

sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ yo hareta vasundharāṁ ṣaṣṭi-varṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ bahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupāli yasya yasya yadā bhūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ sāmānyo yaṁ dharmma-setur nr̥pāṇāṁ kāle kāle pālanīyo bhavadbhiḥ sarvvān etān bhāvinaḥ pārtthivendrān bhūyo bhūyo yācate rāmabhadra mad-vaṁśa-jāḥ para-mahīpati-vaṁśa-jā vāpāpād apeta-manaso bhuvi bhāvi-bhūpā ye pālayanti mama dharmmam imaṁ samastaṁ teṣāṁ mayā viracito ṁjalir eṣa mūrdhni pamo dhikatva-vidhinā śrī-rājarāja Astādrer aparāt sadāsta-vidhinā Ājñaptiḥ kaṭakeśo rāciya-pedderi-bhībhīmana-nāma-tanūjaḥ
Seal
Plates suūter sūter tasmaāt tasmāt tasmaād tasmād r̥bhukaḥ bhcukaḥ In the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya, its first editor V. Venkayya emends r̥cuka to r̥bhuka, while here V emends the other way round. I cannot yet form an opinion as to which variant is more correct or typical. pāṇḍurājaḥ pāṇḍaurājaḥ syur sūr- V's editor in EI suggests that the intent may have been svar-. This is a very plausible suggestion, but the character on the plate is definitely syu, and not sva or . Although the loop of the ostensible subscript y (as e.g. in line 15, nyu) is not visible here, compare vyā in the next line, where the subscript y is clear and hardly loops at all to the left. (And with that in turn, compare pyara for pura at the end of the present line: the engraver clearly had an issue with subscript y and dependent u.) The reading is confirmed by the parallel stanza IV of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya and stanza IV of the Korumelli grant of Rājarāja I. Nonetheless, syur viṣaya-grāhiṇas is quite awkward and insipid, so the stanza as originally composed may well have had svar-viṣaya-grāhiṇas. pyauraṁdaraṁ puraṁdaraṁ sura- As also observed by V, the body of ra is bisected by a horizontal line. It does not look like ka, but may perhaps have been corrected from śa. pariīkṣiT parīkṣiT garbhbha- garbha- -kaṁcuki.bhis -kaṁcukibhis ca nīyamānā cānīyamānā naṁdanaṁ nandanaṁ asūta was probably corrected from . -hārīti- -hāriti- -putrādi-sva-kṣatra- The reading is clear, but the same locus reads -putra-dvipakṣa- in line 21 of the Kolāṟu grant (49-6239) and line 24 of the Korumelli grant. The Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya has the same reading as the present text. calukya- cālukya- bhagavatiīṁ gauriīm bhagavatīṁ gaurīm °ātapatreaika- °ātapatraika- nikṣiptāniīva nikṣiptānīva -putraāṇāṁ kauśīikī- -putrāṇāṁ kauśikī- mātr̥ mātr̥ -pādānudhyātānāṁ -pādānuddhyātānāṁ vegī- veṅgī- apālayaT. tat-sūnuḥ apālayat tat-sūnuḥ V prints nuḥ in round parentheses, which is used in EI for emendation (and is used appropriately in the name kujja-viṣṇavarddhano earlier in this line), while printing siṁ at the end of the line in square brackets. The plate is badly corroded after ya, but I feel quite certain that this is followed by a final T and a punctuation mark, not by the conjunct tta. After that, two characters are wholly indistinct. I find V's tat-sūnuḥ doubtful and believe that tad-anu may be more likely, but accept his reading since he had the actual estampage in hand. -anujeṁdrarājanaṁdanas -anujendrarāja-naṁdanas V's discussion explicitly notes that the text, like in the Korumelli grant, has indrarāja-nandana instead of the expected indrarāja. It seems to me that the sign V read here as a superfluous visarga must have indicated in some way, perhaps paired with another sign that is not visible in the estampage, that naṁdana is to be deleted. The sign, in the estampage, resembles a Latin capital G with a gap in the middle of the semicircle on the left, or perhaps a capital C with a gap in the middle and a dot inside it. sbhrātā bhrātā Throughout the plates, bh looks very similar to sa, but in this case the scribe definitely used the latter instead of the former. triṁśataṁ triṁśataM rāja- rājaā Since the name is often used in the form rāja-bhīma, I think the same was intended here, with enjambement into the next line and an anceps at the end of the first quarter. dham aśāT dha The restoration dharām aśāT was suggested by V's editor in a footnote. It is very plausible in the context, and is possible. However, there seem to be only two illegible characters after it. I also have some doubts about dh. Since V prints it as clear, I accept it, but the subscript attached to the previous word's final n appears to be more complex (restore ksamā here?). -bharatopamayoẖ -bharatopamayoḥ The final glyph is a figure-8, definitely not a regular visarga. I interpret it to be a jihvāmūlīya that is written inline rather than in a conjunct with the following character. V may have had the same interpretation in mind. Theoretically, the glyph might represent ri, but that would be out of place here, and ri is normally narrower at the neck. °ādiīn °ādīn adadhān nāma The reading adadhān, which V too prints as unclear, is rather doubtful, but I cannot offer a better one. -kāntāṁ -kāntāM dānārṇṇavaāj dānārṇṇavāj rāja- rājaā As in line 41 above, V's emendation does not seem necessary; it may nonetheless correspond to the composer's intent, compare stanza 10 of the Korumelli grant. dhariśrīḥtrīṁ I accept V's emendation, since the reading (which he prints as clear throughout) is quite secure. -bhartr̥i- The deleted character probably had a subscript y or . The following rtr̥ also has an i marker and mnay have been corrected from rtri. -lubddhayeva -lubdhayeva bhcottara-bhadrayodyati bhottara-bhadrayādpy ati- sarvva- V may have supplied this word on the basis of a parallel stanza of which I am not yet aware. Even without a parallel, the word omitted here must have been similarly generic. vpaṭṭena paṭṭena janaiśr āropita V's reading, which he prints as clear throughout, is rather awkward. Nothing is visible in the estampage of the characters shown here as tentatively read. Having no better suggestion, I assume that V could make this out better and accept his reading and emendation. -rkirīṭa- -kirīṭa- -paṭala-pāṭala-pāda-pīṭhaḥ. In the facsimile, the first ṭa of this sequence does not appear to be a correction, but I accept V's opinion that it is one. The remainder of the string has clearly been re-inscribed, and the pre-correction text must have been one or two characters shorter. None of the latter can be made out with any certainty, but the ṭa of pāṭala may have been struck over a ba or perhaps ja. īśvarasyāpatadbhir īśvaśrasyāpatadbhir V's edition actually reads īśvasasyā°, but he must have meant śa, which the character in question does resemble. ratnāloka-prakaṭita-jagat-prāṁgaṇoebhyaś See the note to the translation of stanza XIX for a possible further emendation of this phrase. diśai diśi diaśa-diśi V's emendation is also plausible, but mine is perhaps a little more likely in the context. -nāmāṁrkitān -nāmāṁkitān baddhum adha-manaso As far as I can tell from the facsimile, this sequence is probably a correction written over slightly shorter struck-out text; but V does not mention correction here, as he does in line 57 above. guṇāN.. guṇāN. It seems to me that two very short punctuation bars have been added below the vowel marker of ṇā, and perhaps also a very small final N squeezed in above the bars, to the right of the vowel marker. prajā-caritaṁ prajā-bharitaṁ I adopt the reading suggested by V's editor in a footnote, since it fits the context better and is just as possible from the unclear estampage. loleva lālāma lālāmakī- My reading of the characters not read by V is a rather desperate guess. The reading lālāmakī is quite plausible from the estampage but difficult to interpret. I do not know why V connects this word with a hyphen to the next one. -la- -jaāla- -mastaka- -mastiaka- I see no discernible i marker; if one is present as read by V, then it may be accepted as a legitimate variant of the word. -puṭaān -puṭān -piṁcchā- -picchā- -śrīiyaṁ -śriyaṁ vīria- vīra- -śrīiyas -śriyas vāhās sahasran vāhā-sahasran -mukheṣv -mukhāsv V's reading seems uninterpretable. His editor notes that the sense requires -mukhād. I see no e, but appears plausible from the estampage. -mahārājaādhirāja- -mahārājādhirāja- mātoā- mātoā- An o and an ā marker are both present without apparent deletion, but the former must have been corrected to the latter. -siṁhāsanāsīnaḥ -siṁhaāsanāsīnaḥ An ā marker is definitely present here, but instead of bending downward on the right of the body, it bends down right next to the head, into the cavity of the body. This suggests it may be a subsequent addition. gāḍevalu-nā V prints only the last as unclear. In the estampage, the second character is indiscernible, the next two look rather like vula than valu to me, and the last is again indiscernible but could well be ga. -sahita- -sahitāṁ There is no clear ā and I would not expect one. A large dot above ta is probably not an anusvāra, since that would be placed to the right of the character. kuṭuṁbina kuṭuṁbinaḥ I accept V's reading, which he prints as clear throughout. To my eye, the second character could well be ṭi, as is quite common in related inscriptions. °āhuūya °āhūya sameakṣam samakṣam -mahārāja Iti The characters ja I are small and crowded together. They may be a correction. vidvinchoṭ-śoṇita- vidviṭ-chooṇita- The subscript component of the problematic conjunct is quite certainly a slightly damaged ch. Although would be expected for the upper component, the facsimile does not indicate this; compare ṭo in line 71. ātulasyādeśa It seems likely that this entire sequence is a correction. At the beginning, la is awkwardly formed, small, and has a horizontal line below it. Next, the s of syā is also malformed. The following de is faint, while śa is very small and is lowered so that its headmark is at median height. Probably, ādeśaṁ was first engraved (eyeskip), then de was changed into la, utilising the head, shoulder and perhaps part of the vowel mark to create the new character (the horizontal stroke below la being the bottom of the original de). The shape of the original śa is perhaps discernible in the following malformed s, and the original anusvāra may be there after syā. I have no suggestion for the text previously engraved where we now see deśa, and do not see the still-missing tu added anywhere. pratipadya taT-kṣaṇa° This segment too may be a correction over deleted earlier text; there appear to be several strokes not belonging to the intended characters. tādagdhu- The incorrect character may perhaps be dhā instead of . -daṇḍeśām -daṇḍeśāmair I find V's emendation unnecessary, assuming that īś, not īśa is used here. acbhavad abhavad -nirantara ja° This string, perhaps including the preceding nti or kunti, appears to be a correction written over shorter text. I wonder if perhaps kuntākuntirantaraṁ was originally inscribed dhanvino There may be a dot, used as a space filler, at the end of the line here. -vivr̥ttaiḥ I accept V's reading, which he prints as clear. To me, the estampage does not look like ttaiḥ; perhaps tyā (for ttyā) is more likely. suśalabhā V's ingenious emendation is probably spot on. -bhr̥taḥ lacaś cala-cīittāḥ bhr̥taḥāś cala-cittāḥ There is no ca before la, but a small ca is inserted above and to the right of la, probably with a corresponding insertion mark (though perhaps just a spot of damage) below and to the right of la. bhr̥taḥ needs no emendation to bhr̥tāḥ. -ṣa I accept V's reading of the last character in line 88, which he prints as clear. Howeve, I'm inclined to think that what seems to be a vertical stroke on the right is rather the crease at the raised edge, and if so, then the character is probably not ṣa. Most likely, it might be ra, but dha and ka also seem possible, and an ā may be attached. In the next line, the plate is cracked from the hole to the edge. The lower parts of characters can to some extent be made out below the crack. The first character in line 89 seems to have a smaller tight curve and a large semicircle below it, the combination suggestive of kṣa, but far from decisive. (Something with a subscript r may also be possible, but I would expect a more angular stroke there.) I recognise nothing in the next two characters, but what remains of the fourth looks much like the body of sa, possibly na or ṇa. The remnants of the fifth character strongly imply a subscript t. Given the dual ending of padātyoḥ, I expect a word meaning "horseman" or "cavalry" before that. Thus, sapti is a feasible restoration; alternatively, the fifth character may perhaps be śva or śvi. If V is correct to read ṣa at the end of line 88, then pañcaṣaṣṭi is the most plausible restoration from that end, but the vestiges counterindicate this, and such a precise (and small) number would be strange in the context. The lost chunk may have included a unit (such as "regiments") which the numeral and the compound with -padātyoḥ would have qualified, but if sapti is correct, then no plural nominal ending would fit the metre. All in all, I cannot venture any restoration other than something meaning "cavalry" in the lacuna. nr̥tyanti gaja- nr̥tyamnti vagaja The two characters after nr̥tya are illegible in the estampage; the many strokes here are probably not all damage, so I assume that the text has been corrected here. The third is plausibly ja, damaged but perhaps not written over earlier text. The chaos after nr̥tya does have a plausible m at the beginning, but I do not think mti would have been inscribed; more likely is that something with m was corrected to nti. I certainly see nothing recognisable as a va, and the number of unclear characters is definitely three, not four. The va may be a typo in V's edition, since the footnote that says it is superfluous is editorial. viymukta The emendation I adopt from V is not strictly necessary, but since r̥ṇa typically goes with vi-muc, this was probably the composer's intent. vājino There seems to be both o and i attached to j; perhaps the former has been corrected to the latter. vinākr̥śitāḥ vinākr̥tāḥ I emend with some hesitation, not being able to produce a coherent interpretation of the stanza without emending here and at the next locus. The character kr̥ is unambiguous, but it is raised higher than the surrounding characters, and there is a slight chance that it has been corrected from śi, but correction the other way round certainly did not take place. naśyatioḥ naśyati Here too I emend with some hesitation, not being able to produce a coherent interpretation of the stanza without emending here and at the previous locus. The vowel mark in the character ti is incomplete or damaged; just possibly, it might be a malformed o. rājarājarāja- I agree with V that one iteration of rāja is superfluous here. Compare the name in line 77. me mātulasya sva-mātulasya There seems to be some damage above me that looks vaguely like the strokes for s, so I am not certain sva- is a typo in V's edition. ādeśa ādeśa pādāta- - °uḍayān °uḍaiyān yeṣā I restore conjecturally based on very uncertain vestiges. °ottuṁgga- °ottuṁga- grāmeaḥ grāma The intent was probably grāmaḥ, which agrees well with the rest of the sentence. The inscribed text, however, certainly seems to be grāme. See also the next note. -grāmaṭika Given grāme earlier in the sentence (see the previous note), I wonder if the composer's intent here was grāmaṭikā mayā or grāmaṭikeyaṁ. But if so, then dattaḥ needs emendation to dattā. konneki- konnekī- lidoṟṟu- I accept V's reading. In the estampage, the first character of the name (as well as the preceding taḥ) is only a blotch with nothing discernible whatsoever, and li is only the merest hint. According to V's editor, the name may be Ālidoṟṟu or pulidoṟṟu. I do not know if this is based on anything positive that he could discern in the physical estampage, or merely conjecture based on the fact that the illegible character consists only of a compact body (nothing ascending or descending), and informed by a knowledge of what words may make sense in the name. kaḍapaṟṟu kaḍa V's edition seems to imply that there are four illegible characters, but there are definitely two. Given that in line 107 below, Kaludiṇḍi (sic) is said to form the eastern border of Kaḍapaṟṟu, it seems likely that here, Kaḍapaṟṟu was said to form the western border of Kalidiṇḍi. potuṁbaṟti siīmaiva potūṁbaṟti sīmaiva ceti. grāmasyā grāma I do not see how the last two characters in this line could be grāma, but the third from the end may well be grā. My own reading is very uncertain. The text may be Iti instead of ceti, and something quite different cannot be excluded. veEṣaiva. Eṣaiva Compare the proper Eṣaiva in the next line. dakṣina.ta. dakṣiṇataḥ. Āvakūri Āvakūru- krovviṇḍḍeṭaṁbāsina krovviṇḍleṭaṁbāsina I cannot offer a certain reading of the problematic conjunct. There may be damage to the body, or correction may be involved. There is certainly no l in it. It looks most like ṇḍḍe, with some damage in the body of . The first is attached to the bottom of the body as well as to the descending right wing of , and the second is attached at the bottom left of the first. It is possible that V read the lowest component as (misprinted as l in his edition), but for this to be possible, we must read °nāṇṭa instead of °nāṇṭi in the next line, taking the curved stroke above that ṇṭ to be the distinctive end of here, rather than an i marker. ināṇṭi V prints this word as clear, and he is in all probability correct. Still, looks much like bh, and what looks like a partly effaced i above ṇṭ may perhaps belong the the line above (see the previous note). pūrvvataḥ Throughout this last, broken plate, V does not restore the words that are partially extant or implied by the context. pamo dhikatva- pāmādhikatva- Given the extant fragments, I am reasonably certain that we have a śārdūlavikrīḍita stanza here, but I cannot establish this beyond doubt. The required number of syllables is only a hair more than that required in the preceding lines for the known anuṣṭubh stanzas, and the last five lines of the plate do appear to be written in smaller and tighter script than the rest. The first character in line 120 does not seem to be . It may perhaps be pe or po, but if I am correct that the text is metrical, then these are inappropriate. The next one does look like marker, but there may be a second stroke to the left of the headmark, making the vowel o. The reading is feasible and plausible, but I believe mo is slightly more likely, because I cannot think of a relevant word with °pamādhikatva. Ājñaptiḥ kaṭakeśo rāciya-pedderi-bhībhīmana-nāma-tanūjaḥ śo rāciya-pedderi bhī I restore conjecturally on the basis of the concluding stanza of the Korumelli grant. The present one may have been composed in a different moraic metre, but the meaning was quite certainly identical to that restored here. Compare also stanza XXXVII, also āryāgīti, of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya, where the composer is the same person. See also the note to the translation.
Seal
Plates

From the lotus in the navel of the great Lord Nārāyaṇa, the supreme person and the abode of Śrī, there arose Brahmā, the self-born creator of the world. From him was born a son of the mind called Atri, and from that sage Atri was born the founder of a dynasty: the Moon soma whose rays are nectar and who is the turban jewel of Śrīkaṇṭha Śiva.

From that nectar-yielding one there came into being Mercury budha, praised by the wise budha, and from him was born the valiant universal sovereign cakravartin named Purūravas.

From him was born Āyus. From him, Nahuṣa. From him, the universal sovereign and dynastic father Yayāti. From him, the universal sovereign called Puru. From him, Janamejaya, performer of three Aśvamedha sacrifices. From him, Prācīśa. From him, Sainyayāti. From him, Hayapati. From him, Sārvabhauma. From him, Jayasena. From him, Mahābhauma. From him, Aiśānaka. From him, Krodhānana. From him, Devaki. From him, R̥bhuka. From him, R̥kṣaka. From him, Mativara, performer of a Sattra sacrifice and Lord of the River Sarasvatī. From him, Kātyāyana. From him, Nīla. From him, Duṣyanta. His son—

the immensely powerful universal sovereign Bharata erected a forest of sacrificial posts yūpa and performed Aśvamedha sacrifices on the banks of the Gaṅgā and the Yamunā.

From that Bharata was born Bhūmanyu. From him, Suhotra. From him, Hastin. From him, Virocana. From him, Ajamīla. From him, Saṁvaraṇa. The son of Saṁvaraṇa and of Tapatī, the daughter of Tapana, was Sudhanvan. From him was born Parikṣit. From him, Bhīmasena. From him, Pradīpana. From him, Śantanu. From him, Vicitravīrya. From him, King Pāṇḍu.

He had five sons—Yudhiṣṭhira, Bhīma, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva—who were to obtain the kingdom viṣaya like the five senses which grasp the sense-objects viṣaya.

That one who, after defeating Indra the Crusher of Forts, made an offering of the Khāṇḍava forest to fire; who also obtained many divine weapons from Śambhu Śiva in combat; who seated himself on half the throne of Maghavat Indra when he had pulverised the enemies of the gods; who sent his own enemies, the Kauravas, to the city of Death—

—from that Arjuna was born Abhimanyu. From him, Parikṣit. From him, Janamejaya. From him, Kṣemuka. From him, Naravāhana. From him, Śatānīka. From him, Udayana. Thereafter, when sixty-less-one universal sovereigns beginning with him Udayana had passed in uninterrupted succession, each seated on the throne of Ayodhyā, a king of their dynasty named Vijayāditya marched to Dakṣiṇāpatha driven by a desire to conquer. He challenged Trilocana Pallava and, by the power of fate, passed to the otherworld.

In the midst of that tribulation, his chief queen, heavy with the burden of a foetus, went together with the overseer of the harem, the women and the chamberlain, guided by the aged ministers and the chaplain purohita, at long last came to a Brahmanical settlement agrahāra named Muḍivemu, and there gave birth to a son named Viṣṇuvardhana while under the protection of its resident the soma-sacrificer Viṣṇubhaṭṭa, who cherished her as if she were his own daughter. She raised that boy, arranging for the performance of the ceremonies traditionally applicable to his particular kṣatriya gotra, namely being of the Mānavya gotra, a son of Hārīti, and so on.In some parallel versions (see the apparatus to line 21), the ceremonies are described as being applicable to a member of a double gotra, namely Mānavya and Hārītaputra. He in turn, when her mother had told him the story, went forth to Mount Calukya and worshipped Nandā, who is the goddess Gaurī, and also appeased Kumāra, Nārāyaṇa and the band of Mothers. Having thereby obtained the hereditary paraphernalia of sovereignty belonging to his family, as though they had been deposited with these deities for safekeepingnamely, the white parasol, the one conch shell, the five great soundsThe expression pañca-mahāśabda probably refers to being honoured by the sound of five musical instruments, but may also mean five titles beginning with “great”. See 296-2989 for a discussion., the pennant garland pāli-ketana, the inverted drum pratiḍhakkāSome Cālukya grants use the words paḍa-ḍhakkā and daḍakkā in similar contexts. See the Ceruvu Mādhavaram plates of Kali Viṣṇuvardhana V and the commentary thereto., the Boar emblem, the peacock fan piṁcha, the lance kunta, the lion throne, the makara archway, the golden sceptre, the Gaṅgā and Yamunā and so forth—having vanquished Trilocana Pallava and taken his daughter Uttamadāni for his wife, and having conquered the kings of the Kadambas, Gaṅgas and so on, he reigned over Dakṣiṇāpatha extending from Rāma’s bridge to the Narmadā and comprising seven and a half lakhs of villages.

The son of that King Viṣṇuvardhana and his chief queen born of the Pallava dynasty was Vijayāditya.

His son was Pulakeśī Vallabha. His son was Kīrtivarman. His son—

Satyāśraya Vallabhendra Pulakeśin II was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—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, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, to whom enemy territories 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 protected pāl- the country of Veṅgī for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha I, for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja Indra Bhaṭṭāraka,See the apparatus to line 33 about an error in the text that has, in my opinion, been corrected in the original. for seven days. His son Viṣṇuvardhana II, for nine years. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha II, for thirteen. His younger brother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana III, for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya I Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen. His son Viṣṇuvardhana IV, for thirty-six. His son Vijayāditya II Narendramr̥garāja, for eight and forty. His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana V, for a year and a half. His son Guṇaga Vijayāditya III, for forty-four. The son of his younger brother King bhūpati Vikramāditya, Cālukya-Bhīma, for thirty. His son Vijayāditya IV Kollabigaṇḍa, for six months. His son Ammarāja I, for seven years. After dethroning his son the child Vijayāditya V, King rājan Tāḍapa, for one month. After defeating him, Cālukya-Bhīma’s son Vikramāditya II, for eleven months. Then that King rājan Tāḍapa’s son Yuddhamalla, for seven years. Then—

Having defeated that Yuddhamalla, Ammarāja’s younger brother, Rāja-Bhīma II of fearsome bhīma prowess ruled the earth for twelve years.

That Bhīma, comparable to Daśaratha, had two worthy sons like Rāma and Bharata, specifically Kings nr̥pa Dānārṇava and Amma. The younger of these two, Ammarāja II, protected rakṣ- the surface of the earth for twenty-five years.

Learned in the sixty-four sciences prescribed for kings, his eldest brother called Dānārṇava, being comparable to a wish-granting divine tree, surpassed Karṇa and his like with his copious giving and thereby made his name “Ocean of Gifts” forever literally true among the populace. He married the earth, gorgeous in her dress of forests, for a span of three years.Since the earth is spoken of as a woman here and in the next stanza, I assume that the verb vah-, literally “carry,” means “take for wife” in this sentence. However, related inscriptions do not normally speak of the king as married to the land, so perhaps the composer’s intent was simply that he “bore” the earth. The same verb is apparently used in this latter sense in stanza XIII below.

Thereafter the earth, left without a leader, seemed for twenty-seven years to be performing austerities to obtain a suitable husband.

Then there was a king rājan, a veritable Moon of the Cālukyas cālukya-candra—born of Dānārṇava, endowed with the arts possessing digits, a disperser of the darkness of enemies—who dispelled the suffering of the earth.

He, His Majesty Śaktivarman, seizing the earth by force from the forceful host of his enemies as if seizing it from Bali, the enemy of the gods, ruled it for twelve years as Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa.

After him, the one born after him i.e. his younger brother, King bhūpa Rājamārtaṇḍa Vimalāditya, a Sun among kings blazingly brilliant and adept at dispersing the darkness of foes, bore the burden of the earth for seven years, glorious as the seven-horsed sun, with his foot planted on the heads of all rulers of the earth.

Of that Vimalāditya, comparable to Viṣṇu the husband of Lakṣmī, and of Rājarāja’s daughter born of the Milk Ocean of the Coḍa Dynasty, Queen Kuṁdāṁbikā herself comparable to Śrī i.e. Lakṣmī, born of the Milk Ocean, was born a son, His Majesty King adhipa Rājarāja, who dweltThe participle prativasan is evidently used in place of a finite verb here. in the hearts of women all over the three worlds, like another Kandarpa Kāma.

Already in childhood, the jewelled locket of the heir-apparent became the ornament of his neck, like a garland conferred on him by the earth itself in her choice of a husband, smitten with his virtues.

He, King nr̥pa Rājarāja, the repository of virtue, donned the royal turban in order to save the entire earth upon a multitude of Śaka years enumerated by the measure of the Vedas 4, oceans 4, treasures 9 i.e. Śaka 944, when the Sun was positioned in Leo siṁha, on the dark bahula fortnight’s second day, a Thursday, when the moon was conjoined with the asterism Uttara-Bhadrā, and the watch yāma of Libra vaṇij was ascendant.

His head, bound with the turban of royalty, shone all the more, as if it had been raised by the populace in order to bear the burden of the earth.The simile in this stanza is opaque to me. The reading may be incorrect; see the apparatus to line 56 and compare the slightly different version in stanza 22 of the Korumelli grant. Could the point of both (or at least of a hypothetical model from which both are distorted) be a comparison of the royal turban to the head padding worn by labourers who carry loads on their heads?

On the other hand,

The sole jewel of the Coḍa family, called Rājendra Coḍa, who delights the company of the truthful by a rain of generosity, is renowned as one whose footstool is tinted with a halo of luminescence cast by the gems atop the diadems of all lords of men.

That Mount Himavat was rendered holy, sprinkled by the pure waters of the Gaṅgā dripping onto him from the head of just one Lord Śiva. How much more so is this Rājendra, with light spilling on him from the heads of many bowing lords, which illumine the expanse of the world with the brilliance of gems?I find this stanza awkward. The text is quite clear and requires only minor and straightforward emendation, but instead of the irrelevant and repetitive mention of illumining the expanse of the world, I would expect something in the second part of the simile to correspond to the water of the Gaṅges in the first part. Perhaps the composer had intended ratnālokaiḥ instead of ratnāloka-, which would eliminate the need to supply “with light”, but in that case it would be the heads themselves that illumine the world. Going further with emendation, -prāṁgaṇair yaś would solve this new problem, but would still result in rather awkward syntax, so I refrain from emending so far. Venkataramanayya (60) sees in this stanza a reference to Rājendra Coḻa’s Gangetic campaign, but since the Ganges does not seem to be involved in the second part of the simile, the reference, if intended, is just a slight hint.

He who, after effortlessly conquering, with a mere stick with no other means than his army, the all-supporting earth whose moats are the four oceans, along with the islands,Venkataramanayya (60) opines that this stanza refers to Rājendra Coḻa’s overseas conquests. This is probably indeed correct. erected, all over every quarter, victory pillars marked with his name to dispel the illusion of independent supremacy of other rulers, as if erecting pickets to bind the elephants of the quarters, their minds blinded by pride.

Having learned to his satisfaction of the Cālukyan Jewel’s Rājarāja’s excellence in birth, discipline, generosity and renown, and his virtues such as intelligence, bravery, honesty, purity, craftiness, valour and forbearance, that Coḍa Lord Madhurāntaka Rājendra gave his own chaste daughter named Ammaṁga to be his prime queen.

While this king RājarājaThe stanza does not make the subject change entirely clear, but the relative pronouns in stanzas 18 to 20 correspond to a demonstrative pronoun in stanza 21, and the relative pronouns in stanzas 22 to 25 are logically picked up by the demonstrative in line 72. has been protecting the circle of the earth impartially and in the proper way, the conduct of the subjects has become rid of obstacles, free from sin, unspoiled and without envy.

The eternal fame of this king—who is himself dependent on the liana that is the royal Calukya lineage—decorates the fair lady who is the trinity of worlds as conspicuously as a row of necklaces of scented sandalwood, as a swaying brow ornament,The text is uncertainly read here, see the apparatus to line 67. I assume that lālāmakī, not attested to my knowledge but derivable from lalāma, means a flower or jewel worn on the forehead or in the parting of the hair (as a modern-day māṁg tīkā), but this word may have been misread. The preceding loleva is a conjectural reading; if it is wrong, then it is also possible that lālāmakī qualifies the garland in the next quarter, making it a head wreath. as a garland laced with strands of immaculate jasmine, as the allure of a gossamer shawl.Here too, I am uncertain of the interpretation, though the reading is quite secure. The other object of comparison are all physical, but in this case I see no other way but to understand lakṣmī, “beauty” as the object, and daukūla as “of something made of dukūla cloth.”

For this lord, His Majesty Paragaṇḍa Bhairava, whose majesty is heroism, it is the vultures—weaving circles in the firmament with pinions spread wide as they hanker to devour the brains spilling from the skulls of his foes’ elephants split asunder by the sword in his massive arms—that provide the splendour of a mass of waving feather fans piṁcchā.

His very enemies extol and propagate his valour unceasingly as they run from the battle fronts willy-nilly with perplexity, saying, “what martial hero could, mounted on just a single horse, again and again overcome a thousand steeds,Here too the reading is uncertain (see the apparatus to line 70), but the meaning must be something much like that translated here. and who could rain showers of arrows on the soldiers facing him?”

Greetings. That shelter of all the world sarva-lokāśraya, the supremely pious Supreme Lord parameśvara of Emperors mahārājādhirāja, Supreme Sovereign parama-bhaṭṭāraka and supreme devotee of Maheśvara, His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana Rājarāja I, who was deliberately appointed as heir by his mother and father, seated on his throne of generosity, convokes all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Pallapu-Gudravāra district viṣaya together with the district named Gāḍevalu and, in the presence of the counsellor mantrin, the chaplain purohita, the general senāpati, the crown prince yuvarāja, the commander of the guard dauvārika, the chief minister pradhāna and so on, commands them as follows. To wit:

There is a great general renowned as Rājarāja Brahma-mahārāja, the liana of whose reputation has been watered and nourished by the liquor that is the sympathy of King Madhurāntaka Rājendra Coḻa.

With his mighty, adroit and terrible arms, he is a serpent capable of protecting the great treasure that is the royal majesty of King Rājendra Coḍa.

When he received the command of the great King Rājendra, my Rājarāja’s incomparable maternal uncle, he forthwith proceeded from the southern direction to the land of Āndhra, accompanied by a great army, so fearsome that people looked on wondering, “Is this perchance another Death, greedy to drink the blood of enemies?”

Right along with him came another general, called Uttama-Śoḍa Coḍagon, who had pleased his lord with his devotion and efforts.

And there came yet another man, Uttama-Coḍa Milāḍuḍayān, the lord husband of an army devoted to its commander faithful to her husband, whose sight could not be borne by enemies who could not bear the sight of another man.

The three generals looked like three blazing fires lusting to burn to cinders the forest that was the army of Karṇāṭa.

Between the generals of Karṇāṭa and the Tamil lords there ensued a battle, frightful with the clash of elephants into one another.

Now it came to fisticuffs, then in a moment to hair-tearing; now staff upon staff, it is said, then immediately spear upon spear.

Some valiant bowmen, their wrath burgeoning in battle, were even slain by their own arrows, turned around by a wind whose force was generated by the volleys sent by both armies against one another.

Stalwart soldiers, as if they were moths to the torrent of sparks struck by the mighty clash of the swords of swordsmen, became filled with fear, their minds wavering, five cavalry and infantry.See the apparatus to line 88–89 about the lacuna here.

Headless torsos of elephants and torsos of horses led by torsos of men dance with joy: “on this day we have paid our debt, so our lord has not been feeding us in vain.”

Elephants by elephants, horses by horses and men by men alike were annihilated as the two forces, matched in combat, perished simultaneously in that battle at the compulsion of fate.See the apparatus to lines 91 and 92 for two emendations that may be unwarranted, but without which I cannot interpret this stanza in a coherent way.

“Surely this is our opportunity to go to heaven,” reflected the finest footmen and riders and, longing for union with the divine damsels, they departed all together from the earth because of fate’s ill will.I assume that yugma (normally, “pair”) is used in this stanza for yugya, “draught animal,” which in turn is used metonymically for elephant and horse soldiery.

Of these Tamil generals, the one named Rājarāja Brahma-mahārāja, having received the command of my maternal uncle the incomparable Madhurāntaka-deva and engaged in battle with the generals of Karṇāṭa, went to heaven together with those same generals, because the strength of their cavalry, elephant and infantry troops was matched. I the Cālukya Rājarāja I have founded at the village Kalidiṇḍi a Śiva temple āyatana dedicated to him, named Rājarājeśvara. I shall also found two further Śiva temples dedicated to the other two generals known as Uttama-śoḍa Coḍagon and Uttama-coḍa Milāḍuḍayān. In order to provide for auspicious and exalted music, for the renovation of what is broken and cracked khaṇḍa-sphuṭita, and for sacrifices bali, offerings upahāra and so forth at these See the apparatus to line 98 about a conjectural restoration here. three temples, and to provide for the feeding of fifty pupils chātra studying the treatises śāstra, I have granted the village named Kalidiṇḍi, henceforth to be renowned by the name Madhurāntaka-nallūru, along with the hamlet Māgaḍavaṟu,The syntax is a little problematic here; see the apparatus to lines 102 and 103. It is possible that the donation is only the hamlet Māgaḍavaṟu, located near the village Kalidiṇḍi. together with fifty and two courtesans veśyā, a hundred Brahmins knowledgeable of the Brahman and offering oblations in fire, a hundred Vaiśyas comparable to Dhanada Kubera, and a hundred Śūdras arisen from the lotus foot of Brahman.

Its boundaries are as follows. To the east, the border is none other than the border of Konneki. To the southeast, the border is none other than the border of lidoṟṟu. To the south, the border is Koṇṭhama.Koṇṭhama is probably another village name, in which case there is probably a scribal omission here, and the intended text was “the border is none other than the border of Koṇṭhama.” To the southwest, the border is none other than the border of Vevāka. To the west, the border is none other than the border of Kaḍapaṟṟu. To the northwest, the border is none other than the border of Dāḍināṇḍu. To the north, the border is none other than the border of Potuṁbaṟṟu. To the northeast, the border is none other than the border of Potuṁbaṟṟu.

Also, in Pallapu-Gudravāra district, the village named Kaḍapaṟṟu and the hamlet Duggiyapūṇḍi. Of this village, the border on the east is none other than the border of Kaludiṇḍi. To the southest, the same. To the south, the border is none other than the border of Vevāka. To the southwest, the same. To the west, the border is none other than the border of Āvakūru. To the northwest, the river named Tallikroyya tāmara-kolani krovviṇḍḍeṭaṁbāsina. To the north, the border is none other than the border of Kalvasaṇḍa. To the northeast the border is none other than the border of Tāḍināṇḍu.

Also, in Pallapu-Gudravāra district, the village named Āvakūru. The border on the east is none other than the border of Kaḍapaṟṟu. To the southeast, To the west, the border is none other than the border of Koṇḍika-Muṁjalūra. the border is none other than the border of ṟṟu. To the northeast, the border is none other than the border of Kaḍapaṟṟu. shall be conjoined with the five great sins.

He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.

Many kings have granted land, and many have preserved it as formerly granted. Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit reward accrued of granting it belongs to him at that time.

Each in your own time, you shall respect this bulwark of legality that is universally applicable to kings!”—thus Rāmabhadra begs all these future rulers over and over again.

Hereby I offer my respectful obeisance añjali to all future kings on earth, whether born in my lineage or a different royal lineage, who with minds averted from sin observe this ruling dharma of mine in its integrity.

His Majesty Rājarāja, comparable to , by the convention of superiority from the western Sunset Mountain, always by the convention of settingThis stanza is too fragmentarily preserved for any coherent interpretation, and I know of no parallels. The translations of the surviving fragments are offered as suggestions, but depending on the context, their meaning may have been quite different.

The executor ājñapti is the Castellan kaṭakeśa, Rāciya Pedderi’s son named Bhīmana. Most of this stanza is lost, and my restoration is conjectural; see also the apparatus to line 121.

Reported in 6A/1937-385 with description at 8214. Edited from inked impressions by N. Venkataramanayya (), withot translation, with facsimiles. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Venkataramanayya's edition with his facsimiles.Venkataramanayya shows much of the text as clear even though it cannot be made out in the published estampage, and some of what he shows in unclear is much clearer than some of what he shows as clear. I accept his readings unless otherwise noted, but indicate unclear readings according to the published estampage.

6A/1937-385 8214