Plates
Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra Pulakeśin II was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, 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 younger brotherThis is definitely a scribal error; Jayasiṁha I was the son of Viṣṇuvardhana I and deliberately presenting him as a brother would not have served any purpose. See also the apparatus to line 7. 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 years. His son Vijayāditya I Bhaṭṭāraka, for ten. His son Viṣṇuvardhana IV, for thirty-six.
King bhūpāla Vijayāditya II who was called Narendramr̥garāja and who had the courage of a lion mr̥garāja, had i.e. ruled for forty years with eight more.
His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana V, for a year and a half. His son, also called Paracakrarāma,
Having killed in pitched battle Maṅgi, the king of the populousI construe bhūri- in compound with nodaṁba-rāṣṭra, as Hultzsch does in the [Maliyapūṇḍi grant](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00038.xml), and understand it to mean “large/populous/plentiful/mighty.” It is also possible to construe bhūri as an adverb, as translated by Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty for that inscription, in which case Vijayāditya III defeated Maṅgi summarily or repeatedly. With this latter interpretation, saḍ must be construed in compound to the following word; cf. the next note. Nodamba country, having summarily defeatedI construe saḍ as an adverb with nirjjitya. Hultzsch in the [Maliyapūṇḍi grant](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00038.xml) construes it in compound with the following word, translating, the excellent Ḍāhala
. Both interpretations are plausible grammatically, and the choice matters little ultimately, but I feel that while an enemy country may be described as bhūri cf. the previous note to emphasise the king’s prowess even more, the adjective sat would not be used for the country of a defeated enemy. the Gaṅgas ensconced on the top of Gaṅgakūṭa, and having intimidated Saṁkila, the lord of Ḍāhala together with the vicious Vallabha, he protected rakṣ- the earth as Vijayāditya III for forty-four years.
The son of his younger brother—Vikramāditya, who had attained the rank of heir-apparent yauvarājya—this son Cālukya-Bhīma reigned for thirty years. His elder-born sonThe word agraja, literally “fore-born,” is established in the sense of elder brother, yet Vijayāditya IV was the son of Cālukya-Bhīma. The word may have been used by the composer in an unconventional sense here (compare agra-sūnur in the next item and a possible use of agra-janman in line 32 of the [Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00037.xml)). More probably, °āgraja may be a mistake for °ātmaja. Vijayāditya IV for six months. His firstborn son Ammarāja I, for seven years. After assaulting his underage son, King nr̥pa Tāla—the son of Yuddhamalla, the paternal uncle of Cālukya-Bhīma—for one month.
Thanks to his excessively fierce valour, His Majesty King bhūpa Vikramāditya II—the son of King kṣitipati Cālukya-Bhīma—slew at the front line of rugged battle that King rājan Tāla together with groups of diverse barons sāmanta who possessed a superior force and an army of raging elephants, and then soundly protected rakṣ- the earth—wrapped in her girdle of oceans—for one year.
Then, upon the demise of the Sun of Valour Vikramāditya, collateral dāyāda princes rājaputra—such as Yuddhamalla, Rājamārtaṇḍa and Vijayāditya of the Locket kaṇṭhikā—materialised like demons rākṣasa upon the setting of the sun, yearning for kingship out of egomania and bent on oppressing the subjects. Five years passed in nothing but strife. Then—
he who slew Rājamārtaṇḍa among these pretenders and who through battle banished Vijayāditya of the Locket and Yuddhamalla to a foreign country—
the scimitar graceful like a frond, wielded by his arms like iron bars, has also dispatched to the abode of Death many other kings who were otherwise respectable but, being struck by depravity, were blatantly wrecking the country; and his command, even when it relates to vicious battle, is borne on the head like a wreath even by kings of other lands—See the commentary about the problems with the reading and interpretation of this stanza.
the fire of his anger would never cease unless it has burned the enemy’s family to the root; whose bright reputation would never stand still unless it has ranged all over the world; the cloudbank of his wealth would never fail to rain on the good crop that is the populace, though it be seared day after day by the inexorable sunblaze of poverty —
he, the grandson of Cālukya-Bhīma and son of Vijayāditya IV, King rājan Bhīma II, soundly ruled I translate the expected meaning, but the word avyāt is problematic; see the apparatus to line 31. the surface of the earth for twelve years.
To him Bhīma II, who was like Maheśvara in form, a son named Ammarāja II, who verily resembled Kumāra, was born from none other than his queen Lokamahādevī, who was like Umā in appearance.
The Grandfather Brahmā expanded all ten directions of the universe for the expansion of his, Amma II’s glory. Viṣṇu laid down Śrī, manifest in his form, as well as himself, in his Amma II’s breast, and performed austerities.I do not understand this stanza. Either it presupposes knowledge of a Purāṇic story of which I am not aware, or it has a surreptitious scribal error. The word sva-mūrtitāṁ seems to qualify śriyaṁ and should thus mean “having his i.e. Viṣṇu’s form,” but mūrtita is not an otherwise attested word. Out of context, the stanza would straightforwardly mean that Brahmā created the world for the expansion of his Brahmā’s glory, and that Viṣṇu went off to perform austerities, first depositing his Śrī and his own self whatever that may mean in his Brahmā’s breast. But this does not seem to be a coherent story, nor one known from elsewhere, and it is moreover completely irrelevant to the context, which should be the laudation of Amma II. I therefore provisionally interpret the stanza to be an atiśayokti claiming first, that the sole reason why Brahmā created the world was to have a place that could be filled up with Amma’s glory; and second, unrelatedly to the first, that Viṣṇu deposited his own Śrī on Amma’s bosom and even his original self in Amma’s heart, and then went off to become an ascetic, i.e. retired from worldly affairs.
After the briefest glimpse of him Amma II, the virtues Generosity, Truth and Valour, being aware that they have accomplished their function, forget about other noble kings.The word order is quite haphazard in this stanza, and scribal errors make the syntax uncertain. I am quite sure something much like my translation was in the composer’s mind, except possibly for the awkward phrase santaḥ kr̥ta-vidas The word kr̥ta-vid is not attested, while kr̥ta-jña and kr̥ti-vid mean “grateful”. Still, I see no way for this word to describe anything other than the virtues, and no way for them to be grateful in this context for anything other than that their work has already been done and they can now lie back.
When Amma II the son of Bhīma II had been bound with the turban paṭṭa of royalty, Bādapa the son of His Majesty Yuddhamalla II dethroned him, a child, by force and shone as king.Although there is no explicit indication of immediacy here, the mention of Amma’s coronation strongly implies that Bādapa’s coup happened shortly afterwards. As we know from other grants that Amma was crowned at the age of 12, the statement that he was a child when he was dethroned should also mean that his first reign lasted at most for a few years. However, the fact that Amma is praised in the text, and partly with the same stanzas that are also used in Amma’s own grants, makes it quite certain that Amma II did reign for some time, and issue grants of his own, before Bādapa took over.
Rid of faults, rich in outstanding virtues, crusher of enemy forces, benefactor to friends, bee to the lotus feet of Śiva: he is an immeasurably powerful jewel of aThe reading is problematic here; see the apparatus to line 40. king, the abode of virtue and polity.
While protecting the earth toghether with his royal brother the prudent Tāḻapa, he gave a village to the honourable minister Māveṇaśarman.
The eminent Brahmin Ahiśarman, born in the majestic Kuṇḍina gotra and engaged in sacrifice, fathered on Ānāṁbikā, a woman of the venerable Āyāṇa family, a splendid son named Yakṣa. That banner of his family begat on his own lady Kundamā a glorious son: Māveṇa, whose eminence has been recognised by kings.There are several difficulties with this stanza. See the apparatus for line 45 about the strings ījitan and jjataśrīyaṁ. I understand the text to mean that Māveṇa’s grandfather was called Ahi, i.e. presumably Ahiśarman. There are several Nāgaśarmans mentioned in Eastern Cālukya grants, though no other Ahiśarman that I know of. But dvijāgryāhiṇā is a very strange compound and it may be a scribal error for something else. The word dvijāgryarṣiṇā could have turned into this through quite simple scribal error, but would r̥ṣi be used for a person in recent history? Else, dvijāgryāyiṇā could have been intended, metri causa, for dvijāgrayāyinā; or dvijāgryārhiṇā, with arhin meaning "meritorious". The Āyāṇa (or Ayāṇa) family may be identical to the Ayyaṇa family mentioned in the [Cendalūr Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00050.xml) and/or may be connected to Ayyaṇa Mahādevī, the wife of Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana. But there is also a possibility that jyeṣṭhāyāṇa is a scribal error for jyeṣṭhāyāṁ ca, in which case Yakṣa’s mother is simply the „eldest wife, a well-born woman”.
To this Māveṇaśarman of honest nature, a loyal servant of immeasurable brilliance, who has undertaken great tribulations, King Bādapa has compassionately granted a village across the Tāra river; and moreover itarad, nobility kula henceforth as long as the moon and stars last, that—though it springs also from Māveṇa’s mother and father—shall be an elevation extending to sons and grandsons.The wording of the stanza is a little vague and hard to understand, but I am quite certain that in addition to land, Bādapa is conferring a noble title higher than Māveṇa’s inherited status.
Here follows the genealogy of Māvaśarman’s belovedThe origin story seems to imply that women of this family did not marry. It is perhaps no accident that she is not referred to as his wife. See also the note to the translation of stanza 21. Sabbā.
Those who were energised pratāpita by Umā through her ascetic power tapas—Jayā and Vijayā, Ajitā and Aparājitā, who are indeed the causes of the degeneration and generation kṣaya-vr̥ddhi of the world—did not serve her Umā any longer once the Lord Śiva became her husband.
Rejecting Umā because she was not any more a maiden, they took recourse to the goddess Durgā. Durgā at another time acceded, saying “om,” to the prayers of the Cālukya king who was performing penance.This is a clear reference to the Purāṇic genealogy of the Eastern Cālukyas, which is to my knowledge first attested in the [Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00049.xml). In that story, the progenitor or restorer of family glory Viṣṇuvardhana worships Nandā = Gaurī in order to obtain the paraphernalia of royalty.
Thereby Durgā became the family deity of the Cālukya dynasty, while her handmaidens Jayā and so on became four couturières paṭṭa-vardhikā.We thus have an origin story for the Paṭṭavardhika or Paṭṭavardhinī family here. The interpretation of that name is uncertain and may be connected to the royal turban paṭṭa.
Of the four there arose four families of attendants dāsī. There, in the lineage of Jayā, was born one distinguished as “Miṇḍ with the name Ambā after.”That is to say, her name was Miṇḍambā. See the apparatus to line 55 about this awkward expression, and to line 54 about other textual problems with the stanza.
Her daughter’s daughter was Cāvvī, and Kumārī was the daughter of Cavvikā. Kumārī’s daughter is Samṟī, renowned as Sabbākavvā.
As Śrī to Viṣṇu, as Urvaśī to Indra, as Jāhnavī Gaṅgā to Īśa Śiva, so unwaveringly beloved is Sabbakā to Māvaśarman.It is perhaps no accident that two of the three similes involve women who were definitely not the wedded wives of the men named, and Lakṣmī is often depicted as becoming Viṣṇu’s wife out of her own choice. See also the note to the translation of line 49.
Of these two was born a champion malla named the majestic Yuddhamalla. He Māveṇaśarman gave a copper charter to this Malla, his own son.
The king Bādapa in turn graciously caused that charter of his parents to be granted, dispatching Sabbākā and Māvaśarman.The text is again quite awkward, and it uses the plural twice where the dual would be expected. Nonetheless, I believe it means that the grant was initiated by Māveṇa and endorsed officially by Bādapa. This may in fact be an endorsement of inheritance by a son born out of wedlock. “Dispatching” saṁpreṣya may mean that Sabbākā and Māvaśarman were named as its executors, though the present charter names the executor explicitly at the end.
Greetings. In order to augment his majesty, vitality, health and dominion, His Majesty the supremely pious Supreme Lord parameśvara of Emperors mahārājādhirāja, the Sovereign bhaṭṭāraka Vijayāditya Bādapa, shelter of the entire universe samasta-bhuvanāśraya, convokes all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Velānāṇḍu district viṣaya and commands them as follows. To our minister Māvaśarman, who has undertaken pains for our sake, we have given the village named Īnteṟu, exempt from all taxes. Let this be known to you gentlemen.The closing phrase has been garbled by the scribe, but was certainly meant to convey this message.
The eastern boundary of this village is the Kavala pond guṇṭha and the high road. To the southeast its boundary is a columnar rock staṁbha-śilā, the temple’s fields gūḍi-polamu and the great reservoir peṁjeṟuvu. To the south, Īreṟū. To the southwest, Īreṟa.The names Īreṟū and Īreṟa clearly denote the same place, probably a village, probably not identical to Īnteṟu, the object of the grant. To the west, Īreṟa. To the northwest, the pond called Ocean. To the north, the Avuṟu stream koḍu. To the northeast, the triple boundary juncture trisaṁpāta and the Avuṟu tank kuṇṭha.
The executor ājñapti of this provision dharma is Pāṇḍarāṁga, the storehouse of glory, son of the castellan kaṭaka-rāja and the sole principal of the domestic staff mūla-varga.I am not aware of any other occurrence of the term mūla-varga, but varga can mean “a group or cadre of officers” (Sircar IEG s.v.), so I assume the term means the officers in charge of the administration of the capital or the royal palace. This is to my knowledge the only attestation of a Pāṇḍarāṅga in the 10th century. He must be, or at least claim to be, a descendant of the great Pāṇḍarāṅga, possibly a great-great-grandson. It is also possible that the grant is spurious and claims an anachronistic authority here, but I would expect a spurious grant not to include so many unusual details as the present one.
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 thousand years.
There has never been and will never be a gift surpassing the gift of land, nor has there ever been or will ever be a sin surpassing the seizing of the same.
“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.
This poetry is Divākara’s. The decree is the writing lekhya of Vīra. Its owner svāmin, for as long as the moon and stars last, is Malla the son of Māvaśarman.