Seal śrī-tyāgadhenu

Plates svasti

śrīmatāM sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotraāṇāM hārīti-putrāṇāM svāmi-mahāsena-paādānudhyātānāM kauśīikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyaānāM bhagavan-nārāyanṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkrir̥tāśeṣamahībhr̥tāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkrir̥ta-mānasa-śarīrāṇāM sva-yaśo-viṣayīkrir̥ta-trailokyānāM caḷukyānāM kulam alaṁkrir̥tya nija-janmanaḥā virājamānāḥasya śrī-kīrttivarmma-mahārājasya naptā śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājaḥsya raṇa-mukha-gata-ripu-vijaya-samupalabdha-śrī-vadhū-nivāsāyamāna-vipula-vakṣaaḥ-sthalasya putraḥ śakti-traya-samadhigatao mahā-khyāti-vibhūtiḥ trivargga-sevā-nipuṇaḥ purāṇa-puruṣa Iva bahu-loka-stutaḥ purārātir iva bhūta-gaṇa-priyaḥ dvitīya Iva makaradhvajaḥpañcama Iva lokapālaḥ pridhagrapr̥thāgra-suta Iva satya-sandhaḥ śarāat-kāla Ivakr̥ta-bandhu-jīvotsavaḥ pūrvvācaloendra Iva mitrodayānukūla-mahimāaḥ mahīpati-makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭita-mahā-ratna-marīci-mañjarī-rañjita-caraṇāravinda-yugaḷlaḥ śrīndravarmma-mahārājaḥ tyāga-dhenyāv-apara-nāma-dheyaḥ Udaka-pūrvvakaṁ sarvva-karā!a-parihāropetaMbrahmadaeyīkr̥tya koṇḍaṇagūru-nāma grāmagrāmaM prādāT

tasya grāmasya dig-vibhāgāḥ. Uttarataḥ muṁjuṇūru nāma grāmaḥ. pūrvvataḥ pagunūru nāma grāmaḥ. dakṣiṇa-vibhāgaāvasthitaḥ ceṟupūru nāma grāmaḥ. paścimataḥ Irbuli nāma graāmaḥ. Eteṣāṁ grāmāṇāṁ maddhyeṁ nivaāsī-kr̥taḥ. vājasaneya-caraṇasya durggaśarmmaṇaḥ brahma-vihita-karmma-niratasya Iṟṟaḷūr-boya nāmabrāhmaṇasya pautrāya Abhijana-vīidyā-vrir̥ttavataḥ bhāradvāja-sagotrasya viṣṇuśarmmaṇaḥ putrāya vedavid-vipra-saṁstūyamāna-caritāyaceṇḍiśarmmaṇe mātā-pitror ātmanaś ca puṇyoāvāptaye

Iti ca bhāvino rājarṣīN yathopacāra-purassaraM sammānayati

Āryyāhū-vaṁśa-gagana-tilaka-bhūta-rkoṇḍivarmmaṇo mahārājasyāgra-suta-Ia-Indravarmmaṇa-nāma-dheya-viñjjñāpanayā. tasyāñjājñaptir oevaM Ālapāka-boḶ ppi-boḶ somayājula-veḷḷekki-boḶ māraṭa-boḶ

Api ca mohāl lobhād vā yaẖ kaścid vighna-karttāra sa pañca-mahāpātaka-yukto bhaviṣyati. Iti ca veda-vyāsasya ślokaāś cātra

nighnato bhartrir̥-go-vipra -bāla-yoṣit-tapasvinaḥ yā gatis sā bhavetd vr̥ttiM harataḥ śāsanāṅkitāM ṣaṣṭiṁma varṣa-sahāasrāṇi svargge tiṣṭhati bhūmi-daḥ Ākṣeptā cānumantaā ca tāny eva nararake vaseT bahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasya yadā bhūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaM Iti

kanakarāma-likhite śāśsane catuḥṣaṣṭhṭy-āaṁśaāḥ. Eteṣāṁ nāmānāM Ekaikāṁśaḥ

pājñā kuṁḷḷ ekāṁśaṁ cvoḍa-boḶ trir̥tiīyāśaṁṁśaḥ

Seal

Plates -nārāyanṇa- -nārāyaṇa- mahībhr̥tāṁ mahībhr̥tāM Hultzsch's edition prints literally mahībhr̥itām[=*], which I interpret to mean that he reads a final M here and normalises to m (in an akṣara with the following a). In the facsimile the text seems to have an anusvāra. -śarīrā° I accept Huntzsch's reading, shown as unclear in his edition, but cannot confirm it from the facsimile, in which nothing can be made out here. It seems possible that four rather than three characters were engraved here. -janmanaḥā virājamānāḥasya -janmanaḥā virājamānāḥaḥ Hultzsch offers both of his emendations tentatively. I agree with the first (though it is also possible that the composer's intent had been alaṁkr̥ta-nija-janmanaḥ), but disagree with the second, which I prefer to emend so that it agrees with kīrttivarmma-mahārājasya. -gata- -gśata- I consider Hultzsch's emendation unnecessary. -samadhigatao -samadhigata- I prefer to see the end of a compound here, since being equipped with the three śaktis is listed as a separate item in numerous grants of the dynasty. -jīvotsavaḥ I accept Hultzsch's reading (which he prints as clear), but the last character looks in the estampage rather like a vertical bar. -vibhāgāḥ. -vibhāgāḥ| Hultzsch may be correct in reading the sign as a punctuation mark, but it looks more like a visarga to me; compare the note on line 14 above. muṁjuṇūru- mujuṁṇūru- The anusvāra is on top of ju, but I assume it is to be read after mu. Irbuli- Irbbali- In the estampage, the last character in line 20 is almost certainly rbu, not rbba. The village Irbuli is mentioned in line 11 of the Kopparam plates of Pulakeśin II as being in proximity to the village Koṇḍaceṟupūr, which I believe is identical to the Ceṟupūru of the present grant. Iṟṟaḷūr- Iṟṟalūr- The l in EH's edition is probably a typo, since the consonant is clear in the estampage. The subscript of that consonant may perhaps be a second consonant, but it is most likely the vocalisation ū as read by Hultzsch. brāhmaṇasya Here too I accept EH's reading, but cannot confirm it from the estampage. There may have been only two characters engraved here. -vīidyā- vidyā- Iti ca Hultzsch construes these words with the preceding sentence, but to me the lack of sandhi before them, as well as the context, suggest that they go with the following one. See my translation and commentary for details. Āryyāhū- Could āryyāhva have been intended here? The vowel at the end of line 23 may also be o instead of ā. -rkoṇḍivarmmaṇo -koṇḍivarmmaṇā I think the ṇ at the end of this word has a quite clear second vowel stroke attached at the bottom left. See my translation and commentary about how my interpetation differs from that of Hultzsch here. The first character of the name looks like ro in the estampage; if it was indended for ko, then it has no headmark. The second character may have been corrected from something else. Its consonants are probably intended to be ṇḍ, but ḍ is attached to the right of ṇ rather than to the bottom (as e.g. in l25, ceṇḍiśarmmaṇe). The vowel marker includes a second curved stroke to the left of a recognisable i. āgra-suta-Ia-Indravarmmaṇa-nāma-dheya- āgra-suta Indravarmmaṇa-naāmadheyao I feel quite sure that all of this sequence describes the petitioner, so the words are technically in compound (in fact simply being used without case endings). See my translation and commentary about how my interpetation differs from that of Hultzsch here. Hultzsch's nama may be a typo in the edition, since the ā is the clearest part of the character nā; his emendation concerns the locus as a whole, not this particular character. In the facsimile, I see nothing of Hultzsch's ṇa. The damaged space is slightly wider than expected for ṇa, but I assume that Hultzsch read this character correctly. If so, this genitive ending, though syntactically incorrect here, is nonetheless in my opinion an indication that I am correct to interpret all of this stretch as a description of the petitioner. -viñjjñāpanayā. tasyāñjājñaptir oevaM -viñjjñāpanayā tasyāñjājñaptirḥ. oEvaM See my translation and commentary about how my interpetation differs from that of Hultzsch here. There is in fact a dot at median height after this word, which may be a punctuation mark or the remnant of one. bhaviṣyati. Iti ca bhaviṣyati Iīti ca. Hultzsch construes Iti ca with the preceding sentence, but to me the lack of sandhi before these words, as well as the context, suggest that they go with the following one. See the translation for my interpretation. nighnato After this word, there is a thick, roughly horizontal line at about median height, occupying about one character width. This may be a pre-existing defect in the copper surface that the engraver skipped, or it may be an aborted character. bhūmi-daḥ bhūmi-daḥ| If Hultzsch is correct in reading a punctuation mark here, then this may be the only punctuation mark in the charter. It thus seems more likely to me that we have a visarga here, similar to the apparent vertical bar read by Hultzsch as a visarga in line 14. nararake In line 34 above the hole (slightly to the left of its centreline) there is a mark that resembles a capital T. It does not appear to be a numeral for foliation, and thus I take it to be part of an aborted ra that the scribe commenced here, then decided not to squeeze it in above the binding hole and re-engraved to the right of the hole. cānupālitā The intended nu looks very much like ka. nāmānāM Hultzsch tentatively suggests emending this word to brāhmaṇānāṁ. Ekaikāṁśaḥ It is also possible that Ekaikaśaḥ was intended here. This symbol may have been intended for the very end of the text, but it is clearly at the end of line 37. pājñā pālvā The lacuna at the beginning may be only one character in extent; if it is two characters, then the first is rather narrow. The second (or only) illegible character seems to have a roundish body. The first tentatively read character seems to be pā, but may perhaps be dā instead. The second looks to me like jñā with the vowel ā attached twice, once to the middle prong and curling over the top as occasionally done with j, and a second time in the standard way, attached to the top right. It is also possible that Hultzsch is correct in interpreting the curled upper part (which I see as the first ā) as l, but in that case the subscript component seems to me to be too large and complex for v, looking more like a consonant+r combination. cvoḍa- coḍa- The vowel marker on the first character looks like that for ā, but is connected to the body with a double-humped line resembling the single-stroke cursive form of o. The humps are, however, to the right of and in line with the head of the character instead of being above it. Given that this inscription does not use the cursive o, I am not sure what vowel was intended here. -boḶ As Hultzsch also observes, there is a dot (or short dash) at median height after bo. This is probably irrelevant to the text even if it is not a product of later damage. trir̥tiīyā° trir̥tīyā°

Seal

Plates

Greetings. The grandson of His Majesty King mahārāja Kīrtivarman, who by the mere fact of his birth shone like an ornament adorning the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, to whom all kings instantaneously submit at the mere sight of the Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, whose minds and bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions avabhr̥tha of the Aśvamedha sacrifice, and who have subjected the triple world to themselves by their inherent glory—; the son of His Majesty King mahārāja Viṣṇuvardhana I, the wide face of whose chest became the dwelling-place of Lady Majesty acquired by defeating enemies who had positioned themselves at the battlefront: His Majesty King mahārāja Indravarman Indra Bhaṭṭāraka—whose other name is Milchcow of Liberality tyāga-dhenu, who is endowed with the three powers śakti-traya, whose fame and might are great, who is adept in serving the three goals trivarga,I assume that trivarga refers here to the three puruṣārthas: dharma, artha and kāma. Compare verse 14 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II. However, some other group of three may have been meant, e.g. the three higher orders of society. who is praised by many people as the Primeval Man purāṇa-puruṣa, i.e. probably Viṣṇu is praised by many worlds, who is the beloved of hosts of creatures as the Enemy of Pura Śiva is the beloved of troops of ghosts bhūta, who is like a second Crocodile-Bannered Kāma, like a fifth Guardian of the World lokapāla, who is true to his word like the firstborn son of Pr̥thā Yudhiṣṭhira, who creates a feast for his kinsmen and for living beings in general like the autumn season which creates a feast of bandhujīva flowers, whose power is inclined toward the elevation of his friends, like the Lordly Mountain of the East whose bulk is inclined toward the rising of the sun, whose pair of lotus feet are tinted by clusters of rays from great gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of kings—this King Indravarman has donated the village named Koṇḍaṇagūru, converted into a Brahmanic gift brahma-deya and with a remission of all taxes, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water.

The demarcations of directions for that village are as follows. To the north, the village named Muṁjuṇūru. To the east, the village named Pagunūru. The village named Ceṟupūru is established as the southern demarcation. To the west, the village named Irbuli. The donee has been allocated a residence amidst these villages. The donation has been made to the grandson of the Brāhmin Durgaśarman also named Iṟṟaḷūr-boya, who belonged to the Vājasaneya caraṇa and was dedicated to the rituals karma ordained for Brahmins; the son of Viṣṇuśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, who possessed a high birth, knowledge and virtuous conduct; namely, to Ceṇḍiśarman, whose demeanour is praised by Brahmins knowledgeable in the Vedas. The donation has been made in order to acquire merit for my Indravarman’s mother and father as well as for myself Indravarman.

He Indravarman further respects i.e. respectfully informs future kingly sages rājarṣi with all due courtesy as follows:I construe iti at the beginning of this passage to refer to the following text. See also the apparatus to line 25.

The donation has been made at the petition of the firstborn son, named Indravarman, of King mahārāja KoṇḍivarmanOr Roṇḍivarman., who was an ornament of the skyAlthough tilaka, “ornament” and gagana, “sky” are not normally associated, I believe the composer’s intent was to say that this ruler was a moon (“sky-ornament”) to the sky that was his dynasty. of the Āryāhū lineage.Or possibly the lineage named Ārya. The executor ājñapti of that decree is thus Ālapāka-boḷ, ppi-boḷ, Somayājula-veḷḷekki-boḷ and Māraṭa-boḷ.The word boḷ probably means either a village officer or the landlord of a village. It is thus likely that four persons are listed here not by name but by their titles (except probably for Somayājula, who seems to have both a name and a title); but since ājñapti appears in the singular, it is also possible that a single unnamed person was boḷ of four villages. See the commentary for my interpretation and how it differs from that of Hultzsch.

Moreover, whosoever would pose an obstacle to the donee’s rights out of a lack of discernment moha or out of greed shall be conjoined with the five great sins. In addition, there are also the following verses of Veda-vyāsa on this matter.

It is the fate of a killer of his lord, a cow, a Brahmin, a woman or an ascetic that meets one who takes away revenues vr̥tti allotted aṅkita by royal charter śāsana.

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.

With regard to this decree written likhita by Kanakarāma, there are sixty-four shares. One share each for these names. This passage is again obscure. Hultzsch tentatively emends the text to mean “One share each for these Brahmins” and believes that the Brahmins referred to may include the four boḷs mentioned in lines 28-29 above, in addition to the principal donee Ceṇḍiśarman. He further assumes that the pronoun eteṣām, “these”, implies that the Brahmins in question would have been assembled in the king’s presence when he made the grant. I have no opinion pro or contra, except that the required emendation is a major one (not the rectification of a scribal error), and that is the assumption that the donees were assembled is correct, this gathering would probably have taken place at the village in question and not in the king’s presence. I wonder if the donees were in fact listed on an additional plate that is now lost.

one share. Coḍa-boḷ, one third share.See the commentary.