Seal śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates lakṣmīṁ tanotu jagatāṁ kāla-galasyāruṇa-divyojvala jāyoṭānta suranadī-kuhara-kambukarāñjala-nikara Iva bhāti.

svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cāḷukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkārkariṣṇos satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā.

śrī-patir vvikramenṇādyao durjjayād balito dharām āhr̥tyāṣṭādaśābdāni kubja-viṣṇur apād imāM.

tad-ātmajo jayasiṁhas trayastriṁśaT. tad-anujendrarāja-nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava. tat-sūnur mmaṅgi-yuvarājaḥ pañcaviṁśati. tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayodaśa. tad-avarajaḥ kokiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN. tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvardhanas tam uccāṭya saptatriṁśaT. tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ’ṣṭādaśa. tat-suto viṣṇuvardhanaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśaT.

tat-sūnur bhānu-bhāso raṇa-vigaṇanayā nīlakaṇṭhālayānāṁ sa-grāmārāmakāṇāṁ sa-lalita-ramaṇī-saṁpadāṁ sat-padānāṁ kr̥tvā prottuṅgam aṣṭottara-śatam abhunag vīra-dhīrāo ’ṣṭa-yuktāś catvāriṁśat samāḥ kṣmāṁ jana-nuta-vijayāditya-nāmā narendraḥ.

tat-putro kali-viṣṇuvardhano ’dhyarddha-varṣaṁ. tat-priya-tanayaḥ.

Aṅgāt saṁgrāma-raṅge nija-lasad-asinā maṅgi-rājottamāṅgaṁ tuṅgādreḥ śr̥ṅgam urvyām aśanir iva mudāpātayat kannarāṅkaṁ niśśaṁkaṁ śaṁkilena pradhthita-janapadād durggamān nirggamayya drāg dāvaṁ yaḥ praveśyaḥ prabhur abhaya-manāṁḥ pratyapād baddhagāṅkaṁ. sa śrīmān vijayāditya -bhūpateir bhrātr̥bhis saha. catvāriṁśat samās sārdhaṁ caturbhir abhunaK bhuvaM. tad-bhrātur vikramāditya -bhūpates sac-camūpateḥ vilasat-kaṇṭhikā-dāma -kaṇṭhasya tanayo nayī. dīnānāthāturāṇāṁ dvija-vara-samiter yyācakānāṁ yatīnāṁ nānā-deśāgatānāṁ paṭu-vara-naṭa-sad-gāyakānāṁ kavīnāṁ bandhūnām andhakānāṁ Abhilaṣita-phala-śrāṇanād rakṣaṇād yo mātāvat triṁśad abdān bhuvam abhunag asau cāru-cālukya-bhīmaḥ. tat-putraḥ sva-bhujāsi-khaṇḍita-ripu-kṣmābhr̥d balād vāsavīṁ jitvāsśāṁ viraje pratiṣṭhita-jaya-staṁbhaḥ prāpaṭiṣṭheo raṇe svarṇṇārūḍha-tulo ’tra bāḍham atulo dhātrī-tale kṣatriyair mmitrābhaḥ parirakṣati sma vijayādityas samārddhaṁ dharāM. tasyātmajaḥ praṇata-vairi-śiro-vilagna -ratna-dvirepha-paricuṁbita-pāda-padmaḥ meruṁ hasaṁs tulita-hāṭaka-rāśi-bhāsā varṣāṇi sapta samapād bhuvam ammarājaḥ. tat-sutaṁ vijayādityaṁ bālam uccāṭya līlayā kotālādhipatir ākramya māsam ekam apād bhuvaṁ. taṁ jitvā yudhi cāḷukya -bhīma-bhūmipates sutaḥ vikramāditya-bhūpo ’pān māsān ekādaśa kṣitiṁ. tatas tālapa-rājasya sūnus sūnr̥ta-vāk prabhuṁḥ yuddhamalla-dharādhīśas sapta varṣāṇy apād bhuvaM. nirjjityārjjuna-sannibho janapadāt tan nirggamayyoddhatān dāyādān ina-bhānu-līna-bha-gaṇākārān vidhāyetarāN. vajrīvorjjita-nākam amma-nr̥pater bhrātā kanīyān bhuvaṁ bhīmo bhīma-parākramas samabhunak saṁvatsarān dvādaśa. tat-sūnur ammarājo pi dharma-paraḥ pañcaviṁśatiṁ ca samāḥ rājyaṁ cakāra tarppita-vipra-jano vijita-vairir ūrjjita-kīrttiḥ. dvaimaāturas tasya ca dānapeśo jyeṣṭho mahad-bhūri-bhujo jitāriḥ śrīmān su-veṅgiī-viṣayādhipo ’bhūt tasmin kṣitiṁ śāsati satya-dhāanyaḥ. sūnor br̥had-bhīma-miahiībhujasya rāptaḥnaptuḥ kalāvit-kali-viṣṇu-nāmnaḥ sūnuḥ kaliṁgeśvara-sat-sutāyāṁ bhīmādhipo ’bhūd vara-m ūrjapāyāM. kavāṭa-vakṣā dr̥ḍha-dīrggha-bāhuḥ kṣātra-svakarmma-kṣama-m āśritovaT dharmmaḥ svayaṁ deha-m ihvoru-kiīrttir vvirājate bhū-jana vatsalo yaḥ. bālye ’dhigamyākhila-rāja-vidyo vidyā-vid-ācāruya-matānuyāyī nyāya y ya vikhyātim upāgato yaḥ. śāke saṁvatsaraughe dvi-nava-vasu ṣṭamyāṁ surānāṁ vara-guru-divase san-muhūrtte mahoaujāḥ devānātiṁ tarppayitvā yatheṣṭaṁ śrīmān cālukya-bhīma-kṣitipati-tanayaḥ nāṁ. tyāgo yasya mahīpater agaṇitāī darppa-mathanaṁ śauryyaṁ sadāryya-stutaṁ bhūpatiḥ śrīmac-cāru-calukya-bhīma-nr̥pateḥ

sa sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvaraḥ parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyo mātā-pitr̥-pādānudhyātaḥ maṁtri-purohita-senāpati-yuvarājapottepināṇḍu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakuūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinaḥ

mudugoṇḍa-caḻukya-vaṁśajo yaḥ prathito malla- jiti prāpta-vasundharāyāṁḥ. tadātmajo dhīmān dhanur-nnirjjita-bhūrai-śatruḥ pātra-pradaḥ kṣatra-guṇaiḥ prapannaḥ perakāṁbā bhāryyāryyāmara-hita-kāriṇī surūpā dharmmārttham ma ta-bahu-mukheśvarasya putraḥ. tayor udārāḥ para-dāra-dūrāḥ sutā ba dhikau malyana-guṇḍiyākhyau jagaty amuṣmin priathitau ca teṣu yau dvāv anīcā bhadrāṇāṁ tāpanīm ujvala-yuta-rucira-cchatra-yugmoru-vastraṁ bherīṁ ca staṁbha-bandhaṁ sita-paṭa-vr̥ta-sad-bhūri-vistārakādīny āptau tau dvau samasta-kṣitipa-gadita-cihnāni cāsmābhir eva.

tābhyāṁ malliyarāja-goṇḍiyarājabhyāṁ bhavad-viṣaye pottepināṇḍu-tri-śataṁ śāsanīkr̥tya sarva-kara-parihāraṁ tat-kleśa-parituṣṭair asmābhir ddattam iti viditam astu vaḥ.

Asyāvadhayaḥ. pūrvvataḥ paṁpavādi nāma nadī. dakṣiṇataḥ Uttaravarusa. paścimataḥ minuṁbākanāṇḍū.Uttarataḥ vedeguna ḍebhbhadi.

hastipaka-dvi-sahasra-dvātriṁśad-vīra-nikara-gaṇa-yuvarājaḥ. paripālanīyam etat śc chāsanam ā-candra-tāra-bhū-kulaśailaM. Asyopari na kenacid bādhā karttavyā. yaḥ karoti sa paṁca-mahāpātako bhavati. tathoktaṁvyāsena.

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupālitā. yasya yasya yadā bhūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ. sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā yo haretia vasundharāṁ. ṣaṣṭi-varṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ. mad-vaṁśa-jāḫ para-mahīpati-vaṁśa-jā vā pāpād apeta-manaso bhuvi bhāvi-bhūpā ye pāleayanti mama dharmmam imaṁ samastan teṣām mayā viracito ’ṁjalir eṣa mūrddhni.. Anyeṣāṁ ccharddiṣotaṁ bhoktā śvā sva-vaāntaṁ na kakhādati śunaḥ kaṣṭataraḥ pāpaḥ sva-dattasyāpahārakaḥ.

Ājñaptiḥ kaṭaka-rājaḥ. jontācāryya-likhitaṁ. nāgamabhaṭṭa-kāvyaṁ.

Seal

Plates -divyojvala jāyoṭānta The invocatory stanza was probably a gīti, possibly a different member of the āryā family. I cannot reconstruct a meaningful and metrical reading. MN shows divyojva and ṭā in round parentheses, which elsewhere he uses for emendation. But in the present case I see no reason why he would have wanted to emend the preceding syllables to these strings; also, the number of akṣaras in this line would be very small compared to adjacent lines if the parenthetical text were not present on the plate. Scribal errors may well be present in addition to misreading and misprinting. The composer's intent probably included the words jaṭā and karāñjali, and I would expect also to see yatra or some other relative pronoun. See the translation for an attempt at interpretation. cāḷukyānāṁ MN prints ḷ in several places where the estampage has l, so it is likely that here too, though no estampage is available, the actual reading is with l. -patir -pati Since MN prints a double v after this word, but does not supply r, I assume r is present in the original. vvikramenṇādyao vvikramenādya I emend on the basis of the parallel stanza in the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II. dharām darām Since MN does not emend, I assume the original text has the correct dh. imāM imam Again, I merely assume that the original is correct. trayastriṁśaT Here and in lines 12 and 13 below, MN of course prints °triṁśat without explicit indication that a final consonant is present. The actual reading is perhaps °triṁśata, intended for °triṁśataṁ. ’ṣṭādaśa Aṣṭādaśa viṣṇuvardhanaḥ viṣṇuvardhana sa-lalita-ramaṇī-saṁpadāṁ sat-padānāṁ salilata-ramaṇīm saṁpadānā I overrule MN on the basis of the parallels in the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. Given the length of the line, the missing sequence is probably omitted in the original, not a typo in MN's edition. -dhīrāo ’ṣṭa- dhīr=aāṣṭa- MN's edition is uninterpretable for this locus, and there is no visual documentation available. Parallel attestations of this stanza read -dhīraṣṭa- in the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II, -dhīroṣṭa- in the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman, and -dhīrāṣṭa- in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant of Śaktivarman. While both -dhīr aṣṭa- and -dhīro ’ṣṭa- are interpretable, I find the latter more elegant and choose to emend the uninterpretable -dhīrāṣṭa- to that. -yuktāś -yuktas Aṅgāt Abdāt I overrule MN on the basis of the parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. aśanir asanir durggamān Parallels of this stanza are found in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. The former very clearly reads durggaman here, while the latter is unclear, but was read as durggamān by its editor. dāvaṁ dhāvaṁ Of the two parallels, Amma's grant clearly reads dāvaṁ here (misread or misprinted by its original editor as dhāvaṁ, perhaps under the influence of the present grant's published edition), while Śaktivarman's plates are wholly illegible at this locus (but their original editor supplies dhāvaṁ). In my opinion dāvaṁ is the only sensible choice, but this does not exclude the possibility that MN's reading is correct here, in which case the present text needs emendation. baddhagāṅkaṁ The word is baddegāṁkaṁ in both parallels, and that is the correct form of the name. I assume that the plates are erroneous here, but this may also be a typo in MN's edition. -bhūpateir MN does not emend this word and may have read or printed it incorrectly. The original editor of the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II also prints bhūpate, probably on the basis of the present grant, though the reading there is clearly bhūpati (with or without r). tad- tat- -vara- Both known parallels read vaṭu here, which is superior. MN may have misread the plate. mātāvat Both known parallels read māteva here. As mātāvat is morphologically incorrect, I tend to believe MN misread the plate here. abdān abdhān -putraḥ -putro balād I am tempted to emend to -balo, but the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman have the same reading. jitvāsśāṁ The s may be a typo in MN, but since the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman read the same, I assume it is an original mistake. prāpaṭiṣṭheo prādiṣṭhe Lacking a visual representation of the current plate, I can only guess at the received reading, but suspect that it may have ṭi rather than di. I emend on the basis of stanza I of the Pulivaṟṟu (spurious?) grant of Amma I, which is possibly the earliest attestation of this stanza, and certainly provides the best reading for this locus. Compare also stanza VII of the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. bāḍham baddham The parallel is quite clear here. dharāM varāM kotālādhipatir I understand MN's edition to mean that he emends an inscribed ko to tā. The emendation is vindicated by the parallel stanza in the Pāṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. The spelling of the name is tāḻā° in the latter and reportedly (but unverifiably) tālā° in the latter. cāḷukya- MN prints ḷ in several places where the estampage has l, so it is likely that here too, though no estampage is available, the actual reading is with l. prabhuṁḥ prabhuṁ I emend on the basis of parallels in several other grants. -gaṇākārān -gaṇākārām pi pi I emend with some hesitation. MN may have perceived this as a prose passage, but its prosody is too close to a gaṇacchandas structure to be accidental. The visarga in samāḥ also suggests a hemistich boundary. Removing this pi, coupled with some improvements of MN's reading (confirmed by the facsimile), results in a perfect specimen of the rare metre lalitā. Perhaps pi was added because the drafter of the grant too, while adopting a pre-existing text, believed this to be prose and thus permissive of small changes. pañcaviṁśatiṁ pañcaviṁśati tarppita tarpite ūrjjita- ajita- -bhujo -bhujair ’bhūt tasmin bhūd api kṣitiṁ śāsati kṣitiṁ śāsati satya-dhāanyaḥ For this locus, MN shows dhanyaḥ(vān). He may have intended to emend to satyavān yaḥ, or to indicate the latter as a possible alternative reading. The vowel of dh does seem to be ā, but by my perception a relative pronoun would be out of the syntax here, so I prefer to read dhanyaḥ. sūnor sūno It seems from MN's discussion that he interpreted suno as a nominative. See my commentary on this stanza. -miahiībhujasya -mahībhujasya The reading is quite certain, but out of context the fourth character would more likely be read as ca or ṣa, and the entire sequence bhujasya may be a correction engraved over something else. rāptaḥnaptuḥ Āptaḥ The reading, though unintelligible, is unambiguous in the estampage. It would perhaps be more straightforward to emend to rājñaḥ, since the engraver could easily have mistaken a slightly smudged pre-drawn jña for pta. But since interpreting the stanza would be problematic that way, I tentatively emend as indicated. The retroflex and dental nasal are often mixed up, and rā may well be a scribal misrecognition of a smudged ṇa. See the commentary for my interpretation. kalāvit- kalāvit The text works with a nominative (in which case this word describes the son), but because of proximity and the word-play in kalā/kali, I prefer to understand this word as describing Kali Viṣṇuvardhana in spite of the slightly more awkward syntax involved. -nāmnaḥ -nāmnā sūnuḥ sūnoḥ kaliṁgeśvara- kaḷiṅgeśvara- -sutāyāṁ -sutāyaḥ Only the left edge of y is visible in the estampage, and this is far from unambiguous. I accept that MN could make out y more clearly, in the original. Depending on the ending of the word ūrjapā (see note below), the stanza would also be intelligible and mean the same with sutāyāṁ. vara-m ūrjapāyāM. varam urjapāyāṁ. Much of the sequence mūrjapāyāM is probably a correction written over something else. I read mū in accordance with secondary literature citing this name as Ūrjapā, assuming that the u marker is entirely below the body of m, and the hook that changes it to ū is at baseline to the right of the body. This character seems to have been changed from ra, and there would have been no room to insert a regular-shaped ū between this character and the next. Nonetheless, MN's reading mu is also definitely possible, as is plain ma. The next one appears to have been ja even before correction. No repha is discernible in the estampage, but on MN's statement I accept that one is present; the faint vertical line above and to the right of the j's initial circle may be a vestige of that. The following pa also seems to be pre-correction, but the barely distinct ā marker, if it is one, is probably a subsequent addition. The final y is, however, heavily corrected. The ending may be yāḥ instead of yāM (see also the note on sutāyāṁ above), but does not seem to be simply yāṁ. The string varam is probably not a neuter accusative but a masculine nominative with an epenthetic m to avoid hiatus with the following ū; see also the apparatus to -kṣama-m in line 39 and deha-m in line 40. dr̥ḍha- This is clearly the word intended, but the first consonant may in fact be dh or ḍh, and the second looks like ḍ. kṣātra- kṣatra- -kṣama-m āśritovaT -kṣamām āsritovaT MN's kṣamā is definitely kṣama, and his sri is probably a typo for śri, which is a plausible but not fully certain reading of the the last character in line 39, partly obscured by the rim of the plate. The sequence is hard to make sense of, but I think kṣama-m is probably non-standard sandhi for kṣama (epenthetic m inserted to avoid hiatus); scribal error for kṣama Āśrito is also a possibility. The string āśritovat was perhaps intended to be āśritoddhr̥t, one who uplifts. The v may have a very faint i attached to it, but I see no plausible reading involving -viT. dharmmaḥ svayaṁ deha-m ihvoru-kiīrttir dharmasyāyam deham ihor kīrttir The m in MN's reading was presumably meant to be ṁ; it is shown in round parentheses, which may mean that it is supplied rather than unclear. His ihor must have been intended for ihoru. As indicated in my markup, much of the last line is unclear, and this applies in particular to any character components below the baseline. Nonetheless, I am certain that MN's sya must be read as sva. Reading ihoru and ivoru both seem possible, and both are fairly appropriate in the context. The problematic character does resemble the one in deham, but but is narrower and does not have a distinct tail like the h of the latter. The final r may be indicated by the squiggliness of the lower outline of the i marker on the next character, or it may be absent and need to be supplied; see also the next note. I am far from certain of my reading and restoration as a whole, much less of my understanding of the text. Nonetheless, if an epenthetic m is assumed (as perhaps twice in line 39, see the notes above), then dharmmaḥ svayaṁ deha-m ivoru-kīrttir (for deha Ivoru-) is intelligible and fits the context. vvirājate virājate The subscript v is clearly visible. This in turn confirms that the preceding word was meant to in r, even though a repha is not clearly present here. bhū-jana bhūjana The heavy noise below ja implies a subscript consonant, but even though bhū-jana is a little awkward, any alternative reading (e.g. ’bhūj jana) would be inappropriate in the context. vatsalo yaḥ. vatsalāya. In the character I read as lo, a vowel marker on the right-hand (the tail of l) is indeed clear, but a second vowel stroke seems to be attached to the bottom left of the body. The visarga before the punctuation mark is faint but fairly certain. bālye ’dhigamyākhila- bālyādhi vīra-dharmm-akhila The vowel marker of lye is clear, attached on the left to the subscript y. MN's vīra-dharmm-a seems to be a reading of the characters I read as dhigamyā, but something is clearly wrong with his edition, since he als reads dhi before this. I cannot guess why a space, the width of one regular character, was skipped by the scribe here, but if a character (such as MN's ra) is present in that space, it is very faint and must have been beaten out by the engraver. After that, ga is almost closed at the bottom, but it is definitely not dha. The subscript component of the last character is partly obscured by damage (or by the rubbing's inability to fit into the inner corner of the rim), but it is quite certainly y, not m. vidyo vidyā The second stroke for o is indistinct and may not be present. I would prefer a bahuvrīhi in the masculine nominative here, though it is also possible to wring meaning out of the text if we read vidyā- in compound here. -ācāruya- -ācāra- The composer's intent may also have been ācāra, but the plate definitely has ru. Either of these words may also be interpreted so that they are not compounded to the preceding, but in that case vidyā-vid would be largely tautological. nyāya nyāye I see no indication of an e marker, but MN may be correct. vara- vāre yatheṣṭaṁ yadheṣṭaṁ -kṣitipati-tanayaḥ -kṣiti In the estampage, the plate breaks off right after (and partly through) kṣi, so if MN could read ti, then the edge of the plate suffered further damage by the time the estampage was made. It is also possible that he too supplied ti for restoration. agaṇitā agaṇita -mathanaṁ -madhanaṁ śauryyaṁ sadāryya-stutaṁ śauryaudārya stuta bhūpatiḥ bhūpatis Or perhaps construe bhūpati-, with the compound going on into the last quarter, but that would be redundant with nr̥pateḥ. Possibly supply dānārṇavo before this word. -calukya- -cāḷukya- sa sarvva-lokāśraya The lacuna should be about two characters shorter than in the line above, i.e. 14 characters in total, of which 7 belong to the end of the preceding stanza. The āśraya-epithet is expected here, and sa sarvva-lokāśraya is exactly 7 characters long. In his Māṁgallu grant, Dānārṇava's epithet is samasta-bhuvanāśraya, but he calls himself Vijayāditya there, presumably because he is reigning in Amma II's stead. In the present grant, when Dānārṇava has been properly crowned, he bears the regnal name Viṣṇuvardhana. Since all Viṣṇuvardhanas are sarva-lokāśraya and all Vijayādityas are samasta-bhuvanāśraya, it is very probable that Dānārṇava too used the former epithet when he took the regnal name Viṣṇuvardhana. parameśvaraḥ parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyo mā parameśvara Again, we expect the lacuna to be about two characters shorter than in the previous line, probably around 12 to 14 characters. My restoration of 14 characters is thus feasible, and the epithet parama-brahmaṇya is confirmed by the Māṁgallu grant. -senāpati-yuvarāja -senāpati The whole lacuna should be about the same length as the last line on 4r (the back side of this line), i.e. roughly 14 characters. Parallel loci (emended and restored) are -senāpati-yuvarājādy-aṣṭādaśa-tīrtthādhyakṣam ittham ājñāpayati in the Māṁgallu grant of Dānārṇava, and -senāpati-yuvarāja-dauvārikādhyakṣam ittham ājñāpayati in the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. I restore yuvarāja with some confidence, since it is common to all three parallels, and the circular stroke at the edge of the crack makes y likely. However, all three parallels have this phrase after the words rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas samāhūya, while in the present grant that phrase comes subsequently, so ājñāpayati is unlikely here. The lost text may perhaps have been yuvarāja-dauvārikādhyakṣān samāhūya. pottepināṇḍu- pottapināṇḍu- The name is unclear here but seems to be pottepi, which is very clear in line 59. -nivāsino -nivāsino From the estampage, I would read just vāsino without hesitation. But since the formula is nivāsino in almost all related grants, and MN prints this reading, I assume that the faint strokes to the right of ya and the clearer semicircular stroke above that are remnants of a small-size ni that was added subsequently in the space between two characters. -pramukhān kuṭuṁbinaḥ pra A lacuna of about 15 characters is expected. Since the phrases are not in the usual order (see the note to line 49), no straightforward restoration is possible. The missing text beyond kuṭuṁbinaḥ may be sarvvān ittham ājñāpayati yathā, perhaps without sarvvān or without yathā. -caḻukya- -cāḷukya- The second consonant of this name is quite certainly neither ḷ nor l, though ḻ is also less than certain. prathito malla- pradhitāmala jiti jita- The first character is indistinct; ji is possible assuming an i marker distorted because of the descender of mu above. Although MN explicitly refers to jita-prāpta-vasundharā, conquered land, this reading can be ruled out given the clear ti. See also my commentary about this stanza. -vasundharāyāṁḥ -vasuṁdharāyāṁ dhanur-nnirjjita- vasūn nirjjitā -pradaḥ -padaḥ Possibly a typo in MN. kṣatra- This is quite certainly the intended word, but the inscribed text may be kṣitra-. -guṇaiḥ prapannaḥ -gu Only the bottom left corner of the last character is extant, but it was quite certainly n or ṇ with e or ai. My subsequent restoration is conjectural. perakāṁbā MN shows the first character as clear. I accept his reading assuming he could make it out more clearly in the original, but it is completely indistinct in the estampage. bhāryyāryyāmara- bhāryyāmara- Probably a typo in MN. surūpā MN shows this word as clear, but it is completely indistinct in the estampage. dharmmārttham ma dharmmād dharmya Probably a typo in MN. ta-bahu-mukheśvarasya putraḥ. ta-bahu-śuro śsmara-puttraḥ. MN's śu is impossible. His śmara (which, emended to smara, he equates to Kusumāyudha) cannot be excluded, but does not seem to make sense in the context. My supplied sya is entirely conjectural, but the metre requires an extra syllable here and the preceding syllable needs to be long. The ending may be putrāḥ or putrā; I see no way of fitting any of the three forms into the context unless putrā has been used for putrī. udārāḥ udāraḥ -dūrāḥ -ddhdharaḥ sutā ba śutādi dhikau dhiko The first character of the line is wholly indistinct in the estampage. I have some doubts about MN's reading. If it is correct, perhaps the beginning of the verse quarter could be restored as tatrādhikau, but if teṣu at the end of the stanza is clear, then this seems redundant. malyana-guṇḍiyākhyau mallana-goṇḍiyākhyo See also line 59 for a different spelling of these names. priathitau pr̥dhito ca teṣu I have some doubts about MN's reading, especially about ca, but cannot improve it on the basis of the estampage. Could this word be caturṣu? yau yo The lacuna ought to be about 10-12 characters long, but since the metre is certain, either 16 characters were fitted into this space, or some were omitted by the scribe. dvāv anīcā dve vanīṁ cā The estampage or its reproduction for printing is defective at the top left; only a possible subscript v is visible of the first character. After that, bodies are largely clear, but anything above head height is invisible in the facsimile. The final vowel is quite certainly ā, though au would be easier in the context. I assume that MN's reading from the original cannot be very far off the mark, but my own suggestion is tentative. MN probably saw the word avanī here, but that does not result in a meaningful reading. bhadrāṇāṁ bhadrāṇī My reading is tentative and I cannot securely interpret it in context. tāpanīm ujvala- tāpanīyojvala- MN's reading of yo does not seem possible from the estampage, since this unclear character is much narrower than a y ought to be. A regular-width character corrected to a tiny y cannot be ruled out, but does not seem likely. The body looks like v, c or m, and my tentative reading is the best I can think of in the context, but very possibly also wrong. staṁbha-bandhaṁ MN prints this word as clear. The reading is very plausible but difficult to interpret. sita śita °ādīny āptau tau dvau °ādīnyaptaḥ to dveprāptaḥ prodyat pottepināṇḍu- pottapināṇḍu- -kleśa- -kośa- Asyāvadhayaḥ Asyādhyāyaḥ paṁpavādi paṁpāvaditī MN's editor in a footnote agrees that The reading of the name of the river Paṁpāvatī seems to be probable. That name may have been intended, but the first paṁ is indistinct in the facsimile; the following p almost certainly has a short a, and the following v almost certainly has a long ā. See also the note to the translation of lines 60-62. Uttaravarusa Uttaras-varusa minuṁbākanāṇḍū. MN prints this word as clear, and the punctuation mark as supplied. To me, ṇḍū doesn't seem very likely from the facsimile, but I have no better reading. ḍebhbhadi ḍebbadi -vīra- -dhīra- -tāra- -tārārka- -manaso -manase bhuvi bhūmi -bhūpā ye -bhūpo yaṁ imaṁ imāṁ viracito ’ṁjalir eṣa viracitāñjali Eva Anyeṣāṁ ccharddiṣotaṁ bhoktā sarveṣāṁ ca ddiṣo bhoktava The first two characters are indistinct in the estampage. I restore on the basis of 178214, but the parallel is very loose, so MN may be right about sarveṣāṁ. śvā sva-vaāntaṁ na kakhādati śvāsrvanti na kadāti śunaḥ kaṣṭataraḥ pāpaḥ śunakodvitara pāpa nāgamabhaṭṭa- I accept MN's reading, but wonder if the name is perhaps rather Mādhavabhaṭṭa, the composer of several grants of Amma II that were likewise written by Jontācārya. The second character is, however, definitely ga and not dha in the plate. -kāvyaṁ. There may be up to 4 illegible characters after this word, but MN does not report any reading here, so more likely there is only noise.

Seal

Plates

May the ruddy, divinely glowing dreadlocks of the dark-necked Śiva, in which the conches in the pools of the divine river Gaṅgā appear like so many hands folded in homage, bring prosperity to all the worlds.The text as read by MN is unintelligible and I am unable to propose a plausible reconstruction; see also the apparatus to line 1. I believe the composer probably intended to express something similar to my translation here. The river goddess Gaṅgā resides in Śiva’s hair.

Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra Pulakeśin II was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cāḷukyas—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, the dynasty’s first lord of royal majesty śrī, having seized this earth by means of his valour from the powerful Durjaya,Either, neither or both of the words balin and durjaya may be names here. Compare line 8 of the Kākamrāṇu grant of Bhīma I, where it is claimed that Viṣṇuvardhana uprooted a Durjaya (if this is a name) to obtain the country of Veṅgī. The slightly different parallel stanza in the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II is likewise ambiguous. just as the grotesque Viṣṇu (Vāmana), the primeval husband of Śrī, seized by means of his stride the earth from Bali, who was hard to overcome, and protected pā- it for eighteen years.

His son Jayasiṁha I, for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja’s Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s son Viṣṇuvardhana II, for nine. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha II, for thirteen. His brother of inferior birth, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana III, for thirty-seven. His son Vijayāditya I Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen. His son Viṣṇuvardhana IV, for thirty-six.

His son, brilliant as the sun, constructed—according to the count of his battles—a staggering one hundred and eight temples of the blue-necked Śiva, abodes of virtuous men complete with villages and parks and replete with graceful dancing ladies. Steadfast as a hero, he ruled bhuj- the earth for forty years and eight as king narendra, renowned among the populace by the name Vijayāditya II, Narendramr̥garāja.

His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana V, for a year and a half. His dear son—

The fearless-hearted lord who with his own flashing sword gleefully caused the uppermost member head of King rājan Maṅgi to topple from his body to the field of battle as lightning causes the summit to topple from a towering mountain to the earth; and who, by intrepidly driving the one named the Kannara along with Śaṁkila from the spacious inhabited land into the badlands durgama and pressing them swiftly into a forest fire dāva, protected the one named Baddega.

That majestic King Vijayāditya III, Guṇaga enjoyed bhuj- the earth for forty and four years together with his brothers.

His brother Prince bhūpati Vikramāditya, the good general of the army whose neck was garlanded with the flashing locket of the heir-apparent, had a judicious son:

He, the dear Cālukya-Bhīma—who was like a mother to the destitute, the helpless and the sick, to the congregation of excellent Brahmins, to supplicants, to ascetics, as well as to skilled and excellent actors,Or, if MN’s edition is incorrect here, “to clever Brahmin pupils, actors.” See the apparatus to line 22. good singers and poets arriving from various lands, because he presented them with the objects of their desires and protected them—ruled bhuj- the earth for thirty years.

His son—who with the sword held in his arm crushed enemy rulers; who, having forcibly conquered the eastern vāsavī region, established a victory pillar in Viraja; the craftiest one in battle who ascended a balance scale with gold; who is surely incomparable to any other kṣatriyas on the surface of this earth—protected rakṣ- the earth for half a year as Vijayāditya IV, Kollabigaṇḍa, brilliant as the sun mitra.See the apparatus to line 25 for textual problems with this stanza. Vijayāditya IV's ascension of a balance scale is also mentioned in close proximity to his erection of a victory pillar in Viraja in stanza 32 of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II.

His son—the lotus of whose feet was kissed all over by bees that were the jewels dangling from the heads of prostrate enemies, and who mocked Mount Meru with the brilliance of a heap of gold that was on a par with MeruOr perhaps: with the brilliance of the heap of gold that had been weighed in the balance against him.—protected pā- the earth for seven years as Ammarāja I.

After assaulting and effortlessly dethroning his son the child Vijayāditya V, Lord adhipati Tāla protected pā- the earth for one month.

After defeating him in battle, King bhūmipati Cālukya-Bhīma’s son, King bhūpa Vikramāditya II, protected the earth for eleven months.

Then, King rājan Tāḻapa’s son King dharādhīśa Yuddhamalla, a lord of kindly speech, protected the land for seven years.

Having vanquished him and expelled him from the country, having made other haughty rivals dāyāda resemble clusters of stars vanishing in the rays of the sun, the younger brother of King nr̥pati Amma I—Bhīma II of fearsome bhīma prowess, who took after Arjuna—ruled bhuj- the earth for twelve years, as the Thunderbolt-wielder Indra rules the high heaven.

And his son Ammarāja II ruled the kingdom for twenty-five years. Dedicated to righteousness dharma, he gratified the Brahmins, defeated his enemies and had a great reputation.

And his elder brother by a different mother—the majestic Lord īśa Dānapa, rich in truthfulness, with great and powerful arms, victorious over enemies—became the governor adhipa of the good country of Veṅgī while he Amma II was still reigning over the earth.

Lord adhipa Bhīma II was the son—by Ūrjapā, the virtuous daughter of the Lord of Kaliṅga—of Vijayāditya IV the son of the great King Bhīma I who in turn was the grandson of the connoisseur of arts named Kali Viṣṇuvardhana V.According to MN, and the prevailing opinion in secondary literature, this stanza describes the birth of Dānārṇava as the son of Bhīma II and Ūrjapā. I see no way to obtain this meaning; see the commentary for details.

His Dānārṇava’sI believe that a stanza about Dānārṇava’s birth must have been omitted before this one. See also the commentary to stanza XVI. chest is wide like a gate, his arms are strong and long; he is capable in the duties of a warrior kṣātra; he raises up those who seek shelter. Cherishing the populace of the earth, he is widely famed and resplendent like Dharma himself embodied.See the apparatus to lines 39 and 40 for textual problems that make the interpretation of this stanza difficult.

Already as a child, he had all royal education that one could acquire; he follows the counsel of preceptors learned in the sciences; logic he has attained fame

The majestic and powerful Dānārṇava, son of King Cālukya-Bhīma II ascended to the throne at a multitude of Śaka years marked by two, nine and the Vasus 8 i.e. Śaka 892 expired, on the eighth tithi , a good Thursday, at an auspicious moment muhūrta, having propitiated the gods to their pleasure.

The liberality of this king innumerable crushing the pride of valour ever praised by the noble King Dānārṇava, son of the majestic and beloved King Calukya-Bhīma.

That shelter of all the world sarva-lokāśraya, His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana, the supremely pious Supreme Lord parameśvara of Emperors mahārājādhirāja, the Supreme Sovereign parama-bhaṭṭāraka, deliberately appointed to kingship by his mother and father, convokes all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Pottepināṇḍu district viṣaya, and, witnessed by the minister mantrin, the chaplain purohita, the general senāpati, the crown prince yuvarāja and the gate guard dauvārika, and commands them as follows.See the apparatus notes to lines 47 to 50 about the restorations in this passage.

He who was born in the Mudugoṇḍa Caḻukya lineage, renowned Malla enjoys , having attained property on earth.Most of this stanza is lost, and the extant last quarter is metrically problematic. My tentative translation is along the lines suggested in my commentary to this stanza. Malla may be the name (or the beginning of the name) of the progenitor introduced here, or it may be a simple epithet, “champion,” to a name in the lost part. The reading Malli- (for Malliya, as in line 59) is also possible.

His son intelligent, victorious with his bow over many enemies, donating to the worthy, endowed with warriorly kṣatra qualities.

His wife was Perakāmbā, noble, acting to the advantage of the gods, shapely for the sake of morality dharma the son of the Lord Bahumukha.MN interprets this stanza to mean that the a member of the lineage had a son named Smara. This seems very unlikely, but my own reading of the last quarter is also uncertain and not readily interpretable. See also the apparatus to line 54.

These two had many sons, distinguished and staying away from the wives of others most prominent among whom were the two named Malyana and Guṇḍiya, renowned in this world.Again, my interpretation and semantic restoration of this highly lacunose verse is quite uncertain.

These two , ranking high among good men, being trustworthy, they have been granted, by none other than us Dānārṇava, all insignia stipulated for kings kṣitipa, such as gold, a pair of bright parasols fitted with brilliant ornaments, excellent clothing, the kettledrum, staṁbha-bandhaṁ and many good vistāraka covered by white cloth.Much of this stanza is uncertainly read and difficult to interpret. MN’s summary of the context renders it this way: To these two princes, Mallana and Goṇḍiya, who have enriched my Treasury and thereby pleased Us, We have bestowed in our royal pleasure two sparkling white large parasals(sic), royal robes, the war drum, the stambha, the fillet, large white silken tents with poles, elephants and all the insignia of feudatory chieftains (sāmanta). Here, “fillet” must correspond to bandha, which is not very convincing. “Tents” are an intriguing idea, but I am not certain if vistāraka can mean a tent pole. I do not know where he finds “elephants” in the text, unless this is the word bhadra. A grant of Amma II (CP 7 of 1937-38) is reported (82) to list the privilege of tying plantain trees to pillars (before his residence) in a list of insignia and prerogatives conferred on a mahāsāmanta. The original phrase is not cited, but I wonder if staṁbha-bandha may mean the same.

To these two, Malliyarāja and Goṇḍiyarāja, being pleased with their tribulations undertaken on our behalf, we have granted the Pottepināṇḍu three-hundred in your district, substantiated as a copperplate charter with a remission of all taxes. Let this be known to you.

Its boundaries are as follows. To the east, the river named Paṁpavādi.MN suggests that this is the Pampāvatī river near modern Hampi, but this seems far from certain. The name is less than identical (see also the apparatus to line 60), and the region is too far outside the Eastern Cālukya domain. The donated land is bounded on the west by Minuṁbākanāṇḍū. A Mīnuṁbāka viṣaya is featured in the Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II, with a capital (rāja-dhānī) at Kasimi or Kisimi. The first editor of these plates (47-48) identifies this place as Kasimkoṭa in the Pithapuram taluk of East Godavari District. Even if that identification is incorrect, a district where Viṣṇuvardhana II (or a contemporary of his) granted land could not have been to the west of the Pampāvatī. To the south, Uttaravarusa. To the west, Minuṁbāka-nāṇḍū. To the north, the Vedeguna seventy.MN silently normalises the word ḍebhbhadi to ḍebbadi, Telugu for seventy. I assume that the interpretation is correct.

The prince yuvarāja who controls an elephant force and whose troops are a host of two thousand and thirty-two warriors.These words are not linked in any way to the surrounding text. MN and his editor are probably correct in assuming that the person mentioned here is charged with enforcing and protecting the grant as per the next sentence. MN believes that this yuvarāja is the Eastern Cālukya crown prince. His editor objects, noting that this is probably a different dignitary, and points to the yuvarāja Ballaladeva velā-bhaṭa in the Pāṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II for a parallel, whom he equates to velā-bhaṭa in the Guṇḍugolanu grant of Amma II, where he seems to be charged with the protection of the grant and is said to possess a force of elephants and (or four) two thousand warriors. The relevant passages of both these grants are problematic, but at any rate, the yuvarāja mentioned here is indeed probably not a Cālukya crown prince. This decree is to be protected as long as the moon, the stars, the earth and the noble mountains kula-śaila remain. Let no-one pose an obstacle over it. He who does so shall have the five great sins. So Vyāsa has said:

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.

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

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 provision dharma of mine in its integrity.

Even a dog, though a consumer of the vomit of others, does not eat its own puke. The villain who revokes his own gift is more miserable than a dog.

The executor ājñapti is the castellan kaṭaka-rāja. Written likhita by Jontācārya. The poetry is Nāgamabhaṭṭa’s.