Seal śrī-viṣamasiddhi

Plates

svasti. śrīmāatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstuūyamāna-mānavya-sagotraāṇāṁ hariti-putraāṇāṁ mātrir̥-gaṇa-paripālitaṇaānāM svaāmi-mahaāsena-paādaānudhyaātānāM bhagavan-naāraāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥taṇaM śeṣa-maṇḍalānāM maAśvamedhāvabhr̥ttha-snaāna-pavitriīkr̥ta-vapuṣāM caḷukyānaāM kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahaārājyasya Ananya-nr̥pati-sāyadhāraṇa-guṇa-traya-sampādita-samr̥sāmrājyasya pautrāyaaḥ tad-anuśapita-pitr̥guṇavva sampannasya śrī-sarvva-lokāśraya-mahaāraājasya putraḥ yaḥ śakra Ivaāpratihata-śāsano ravir iva tejasviī mataya Iva mano-nandana-karaḥ nārāyaṇaIva śrīmaāN śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahaārājaḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ ājñāpayati

yadhethā viditam astu vo ’smābhiḥ vaṁgīpura-vaāstavyaāya khaṇvakāṇva-dhgotraāya tahitriyataittirīyāya nandiśarmmaṇaḥ putraāya duṇaḥ pauvutrāyapautrāya nandisśarmmaṇae ’smaābheir nnaātavaā ḍhḍhi-viṣaye koṇḍakaṟipḻola naāma ma grāmaAkneyantisiĀgneyyān diśi puūrvvadtaḥ kṟokiyūru kaṟāru panta siīmaā. dakṣiṇataḥ silaśilā sīmaā. pacścaimataḥ silaśilā sīmaā. Uttarataḥkoṇḍakaṟipḻola padakaṁkūru panta sīmaḥā. Eteṣaāṁ madhye tvadvādaśa-kodrava-khaṇḍikaāvaāpa-kṣetraḥ pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsare pañca varṣe pravarddhamāne candra-grahaṇa-nimitte sodaka-pūrvvaṁ mātā-pitror ātmanaś ca śsva-puṇyaāvaāptaye ta dattaḥṁ. Uktañ ca bhagavatā vyāsena

bahubhir vvasudhā bhuktā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasyayadā bhūmiḥ tasya tasya tadā phalaM sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vaā yo haretia vasundharāṁ ṣaṣṭi-varuṣrṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ svaṁ dandādātuṁ sumahaT śac chakyaṁ duḥkkham anyasya pālanaṁ daānaṁ vā pālanaṁ veti daānāT śrc chreyo ’naupaālanaM

Seal

Plates -vaśīkr̥taṇaM śeṣa-maṇḍalānāM NR suggests the emendation -vaśīkr̥tāśeṣārāti-maṇḍalānām. However, this form does not seem to occur in related grants. In later grants of the dynasty, -vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām is standard, while several grants issued by the first few generations of rulers have -vaśīkr̥tāśeṣa-mahībhr̥tām or -vaśīkr̥tāśeṣa-mahīkṣitām. I suspect that one of these had been intended here, and though scribal error may well be present, I believe that at least some characters must have been misread by NR. If the word maṇḍalānām is indeed present, then NR's restoration is plausible. guṇa-traya It may be better to emend this to guṇasya śakti-traya; see note to the translation. -sāyadhāraṇa- I wonder if ya is a typo in the Devanagari edition and the received reading is in fact dha. pautrāyaaḥ pautrāya I cannot tell what combination of scribal error, editorial misreading and typographic error we have here. I emend to the form I expect here, but compare the note on putraya in the next line. tad-anuśapita-pitr̥guṇavva sampannasya Again, I cannot guess the levels of scribal error, editorial misreading and typographic error here. NR tentatively emends to pitr̥guṇaiṣca (sic), but makes no other alteration. anuśapita is probably a Devanagari typo for anuśayita. Several grants (e.g. the Nutulapaṟu grant and London plates of Maṁgi Yuvarāja) describe Maṁgi with the words samatiśayita-pitr̥-guṇa-śakti-sampanna (where I prefer to emend to -guṇaḥ, separating this phrase from the next). It is very likely that something much the same was intended here, and I believe that the received reading is in fact closer to this expected phrase than NR's edition. putraḥ yaḥ putraḥya I do not find ya superfluous; assuming that yaḥ was intended, this is a perfectly normal way to connect to the subsequent string of qualifiers for the reigning king. However, if the received reading is indeed pautraya in the previous line, then it is also possible that the dative forms pautrāya and putrāya had been intended here, incorrectly, to describe the king. mataya NR tentatively emends to manmadha (sic, probably intended as manmatha). I believe that a word meaning "moon" must have been intended here; compare śaśalāñchanasyeva sakala-jagan-mano-nayanānandana-karasya (of Viṣṇuvardhana I in the Niḍupaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha I) and candra Iva sarvva-jana-mano-nayana-nandanaḥ (of Jayasiṁha II in the Cendaṟa grant of Jayasiṁha II). Being immediately subsequent to a comparison to the sun also makes the moon likely here, and the word kara could well have been used punningly if the object of the comparison were indeed the moon. I am, however, unable to suggest a plausible word with this meaning. ājñāpayati The text omitted here may well have been longer. NR only notes that some portion seems to be missing at this point. khaṇvakāṇva- The ARIE reporter reads the gotra as khaṇḍi and emends to kauṇḍinya. putraāya I wonder if in fact pautrāya was intended here. This would result in a more typical formulation of the donee's descent, and would also eliminate the strangeness of father and son bearing the same name. duṇaḥ NR prints four dashes for the lacuna, which I suppose indicates four akṣaras. See also the translation and the commentary. pauvutrāyapautrāya I wonder if putrāya was in fact intended here; see the note to putraya in the previous line. ’smaābheir nnaātavaāḍhḍhi- ’smaai bhpennaātavaā ḍhḍi- The ARIE reporter gives the name of the district as pennatavāḍi. Although my emendation results in two iterations of asmābhiḥ in the sentence, given the typical formulation of related grants I am certain that NR's emendation is inappropriate. The district names Nātavāḍi and Pennātavāḍi are both mentioned in several related grants; NR claims that they are identical, but I do not know whether this has been established. koṇḍakaṟipḻola I am unsure of this village name. NR's accompanying text uses Koṇḍakariplola in transliteration, while his edition in a mixture of Devanagari and Telugu script may have कोण्डक ఱిपो ೞल; in fact I am uncertain in identifying the second Telugu character in this string, as it looks similar (but not identical) to ೞ in this line, but seems to be టి in line 18. I assume that his transliterated text is correct apart from the lack of diacritics. ma This ma may well be superfluous, as judged by NR. It also seems possible that mahā- had been intended. puūrvvadtaḥ While the intended word is straightforward, I am not sure of the received reading here. NR's edition prints literally पु(पू)व्व‘द’(पूर्व्वतः?); I cannot interpret the apostrophes. kṟokiyūru Again, I cannot determine the original spelling of this word. NR's article uses Krokiyuru, while his edition has कु ఱి कियूरु. I assume that the transliteration in the edition is more reliable except for the diacritical marks. kaṟāru This name or word is even less certain than the previous one. NR's article uses Karuru, while his edition has कఱాरु. In this case I prefer to assume that the edition is correct. silaśilā I endorse NR's emendation but the composer's intent may have been something else. koṇḍakaṟipḻola See the note on this word in line 15 above. pravarddhamāne I strongly doubt that this word was correctly read by NR. Perhaps pravarttamāne would be more appropriate, but I do not think this would have been used in conjunction with pravarddhamāne. Could the month have been specified here, for instance śrāvaṇa-māse or kārttika-māse? bhuktā Although this word occurs in grants of Pulakeśin II, all Eastern Cālukya grants except the pre-royal Sātārā plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I use this stanza with dattā. daānāT śrc chreyo I believe that the inscribed text may have been daśreyo as a scribal error for dānāT śreyo, which I normalise to dānāc chreyo. Compare sumaha śakyaṁ in line 26 above. However, the received text may be something else here. NR's edition literally reads, द(दानात्)ध्के यो, where I assume that ध्के is a typographic error for श्रे.

Seal

Plates

The grandson of His Majesty King mahārāja Viṣṇuvardhana II, who attained sovereignty through his triad of virtues in which he was quite beyond other kingsI do not know what triad of virtues guṇa-traya may have been intended here. Finding no similar phrase in related grants, I suspect that this may be a scribal omission (see the apparatus to line 7). With the emendation I suggest there, the meaning would be “whose virtues were quite beyond other kings and who attained sovereignty through the triad of his powers.” and who was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hariti,The phrase “who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon” is practically universal at this point and was probably omitted here out of neglect. who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, to whom all kingsSee the apparatus to line 4 for the tentative restoration that I translate here. 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; the son of His Majesty King mahārāja Vijayasiddhi Maṅgi Yuvarāja, who surpasses the virtues of his father, and who is endowed with the three powers:See the apparatus to line 8 for the tentative restoration that I translate here. His Majesty the supremely pious King mahārāja Viṣṇuvardhana III—whose command is as incontrovertible as that of Śakra, who blazes like the sun, who gladdens the mind like the moonSee the apparatus to line 10. and who is as majestic as Nārāyaṇa possesses Śrī—commands as follows

To wit: let it be known to you that to Nandiśarman, a resident of Vaṁgīpura of the KāṇvaSee the apparatus to line 13. gotra and the Taittirīya school, son of Nandiśarman and grandson of Dun,The name partly lost here may have been Durganandiśarman, and father and grandfather may have been mixed up by the scribe. See also the commentary and the apparatus to lines 13 and 14. we have given in the southeastern direction of the village named Koṇḍakaṟipḻola in Nātavāḍi district viṣaya—To the east, the border is the road between Kṟokiyūru and Kaṟāru.Here and below in connection to Koṇḍakaṟipḻola and Padakaṁkūru, I assume without complete confidence that panta is a form of Sanskrit patha or pathin. The same form occurs in the Nutulapaṟu grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja in association of a (probable) village name. The form panthaḥ is used with a village name (explicitly specified as a village) in the Pamiḍimukkala plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II and the Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 3) of Viṣṇuvardhana II, where it is distinguished from a rathyā-mārgaḥ. To the south, the border is a cliff. To the west, the border is a cliff. To the north, the border is the road between Koṇḍakaṟipḻola and Padakaṁkūru—in the midst of these boundaries, a field sufficient for sowing twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed in order to acquire merit puṇya for our mother and father and ourselves, in the year that is the fifth year of our progressive victorious reign, on the occasion of an eclipse of the moon being in progress,See the apparatus to line 20 for my doubts concerning the reading of this phrase. the donation being sanctified by a libation of water. The reverend Vyāsa too has said:

Many kings have enjoyed the 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 thousand years.

It is possible i.e. easy to give away what is yours, even if it is a great thing; but it is hard to preserve that given away by another. When it comes to the question, “donation or preservation of previous grants?”—the answer is that preservation is superior to donation.