Seal śrī-tribhuvanaāṁkuśa

Plates

oṁ namo nnanārāyaṇāya. svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrānāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ sattyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano ’ṣṭādaśa varṣāṇi. tat-putro jayasiṁgha-vallabhas trayastriṁśard varṣāṇi. tad-anuja-Indra-bhaṭṭārakasya priya-tanayo viṣṇuvarddhana nava saṁvatsarāṇi. tat-putro maṁgi-yuvarāja paṁca-viṁśat saṁvatsarāṇi. tat-putro jayasiṁgha trayodaśa saṁvatsaraḥ. tad-dvaimāturānūujaḥ kokkilī ṣanṇ māsaḥ. tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvarddhana svānujamadam uccāṭya saptatriṁśat samaḥ. tat-tanujo vijayādittya-bhaṭṭārakaḥ Aṣṭādaśa samaḥ.tad-auraso viṣṇurājaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśad abdāni. tat-suto vijayādityaḥ catvāriṁśat samaḥ Aṣṭottaraśata-śrīmāan-narendreśvara-kārakaḥ. tad-ātmajaḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhanas sārddha samaḥ. tan-nandano vijayāditya catuścatvāriṁśad varṣāṇi. tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ putro bhīmaḥ

śrīmān kīrtti-śaśāṁka-raśmi-viśadībhūtākhilāśāvani -vyomā śrī-kusumāyudhena guṇinā vidvaj-janānandanaḥ vīro ’sau nija-paṭṭa-bandha-samaye santuṣṭavāñ śāśvataM grāmaṁ śrī-jayadhāma-bhīma-nr̥patis saṁprārttthito dattavāN

sa sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇya Uttara-kaṇḍerṟvāḍi-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas sarvvān samāhūyettham ājñāpayati|

viditam astu vaḥ kauṇḍinya-gotraḥ Ummarakaṇṭhibol veda-vedāṁga-pāragaḥ revamayya. tat-putro droṇabhaṭṭaḥ. tat-putraḥ potamayya-kramayita-nāmne kḻakipaṟṟu nāma grāma sarvva-kara-parihāram udaka-pūrvvaṁ kr̥tvāsmābhir dattam iti. Asyāvadhayaḥ. pūrvvataḥ potaṟeṁgari-ceṟuvu. Āgneyataḥ paruvula-guṇṭha. dakṣaiṇataḥ cāki-ceṟuvu. nairirr̥tyataḥ sīmaiva sīmaā. paścaimataḥ cintaṟeni-ceṟuvu. vāyavyataḥ juvvi-guṇṭha. Uttarataḥ ĪAiśānataḥ Airiviya-guṇṭha. Asyopari kenacid bādhāṁ karoti yaḥ sa paṁcabhir mmahā-pātakair llīipyate. vyāsa-gītāś ślokaāḥ

bahubhir vvasudhā dattaḥā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasya yadā bhūmiḥ tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ. ṣaṣṭhṭiṁ varṣa-sahaśsrāṇi| svargge modati bhūmidaḥ| Ākṣeptā cāvamantā ca tānny eva narake vaseT||| mapd-vaṁśa-jāḥ para-mahīpati-vaṁśa-jā vā. pāpād apeta-manaso bhuvi bhāvi-bhūpāḥ| ye pālayanti mama dharmmam imāaṁ saṁmastaṁ| teṣāṁ mmayā viracito ’ṁjalir eṣa mūrdhni. sāmānyo ’yan dharmma-setur nr̥pāṇāṁ kāle kāle pālanīyo bhavadbhiḥ sarvvān etān bhāvinaḥ pārttthivendrān bhūyo bhūyo yācate rāmabhadraḥ yānīha dattāni purā narendreaiḥ dānāni dharmmārtttha-yaśass-karāṇi nirmmāllya-varggavānta-praṭimāni tāni ko nāma sāddhuḥ punar ādadītāḥa Ājñāaptir asya dharmmasya| kaḍeya-rājaḥ pratāpavāN| pitāmaho bhavānn yasya pāṇḍaraāṁgaḥ parantapaḥ

koṇḍaācāryya-likhitam

Seal

Plates -lāṁñchanekṣaṇa- According to Kielhorn's note, the superfluous anusvāra may have been struck out in the original. -maṇḍalānāṁ Kielhorn notes that originally -maṁṇḍalānāṁ may have been inscribed. svānujamadam Again, I accept Kielhorn's judgement but wonder: the extra mada seems to be a very unusual scribal mistake. Could svānujam adam be a solecism for svānujam amum, or a scribal mistake for svānujam aḷam (i.e. svānujam alam)? Compare also line 4 of the Nūtimaḍugu plates of Vikramāditya II, which reads (with some doubt) svānujam ājāv uccāṭya. -śrīmāan- I follow Kielhorn in emending here, though I interpret the compound differently (see note to translation). The emendation is not strictly necessary, as the text would also be intelligible with -śrīmān in apposition to vijayādityaḥ, but I believe it was more likely intended to qualify the temple. See also the commentary on the possibility that this is part of a stanza. śāśvataM śāśvataṁ| According to Kielhorn, a superfluous punctuation mark was struck out here. As far as I can see in the estampage, a slightly damaged final M is likewise possible and is slightly more likely in the context, though both an omitted anusvāra and a punctuation mark after the third pāda are entirely plausible. -kaṇḍerṟuvāḍi- Kielhorn suggests emending to kaṇḍeṟuvāḍi. While this is clearly the same name, I prefer not to alter the spelling used here. revamayya Kielhorn notes that what looks like an ā mātrā attached to ma is in fact the vestige of an earlier character ki, hammered out. In the published estampage, the visible remnant is clearly a headmark and not a vowel marker, but nothing else is visible. -kramayita- Kielhorn suggests that this word is a mistake for kramayuta, a word used to describe a Brahmin as conversant with kramapāṭha recitation (see Sircar IEG s.v.). It is very plausible to assume that this was the intended meaning, but I prefer not to make the emendation in the text itself, especially since this is said to be part of the name. kḻakipaṟṟu- kūkipaṟṟu- The character which Kielhorn confidently reads as kū is conspicuously different from that in rāṣṭrakūṭa (l. 24) and does not resemble any specimen of kū in Indoskript from a comparable region of space and time. It is most probably kḻa, though with some stretch it could perhaps be kva or another combination. I feel certain that kū can be ruled out. potaṟeṁgari- potaṟyaṁgari- I feel confident that the stroke attached to ṟ, starting at the left-hand side of the body, curling underneath, then bending up to slightly above headline height on the right is not a subscript y (which in my judgement would bulge slightly to the left and pass at a greater depth below the primary consonant) but an ornamentally extended e marker. What seems to be an extension of the tail of this stroke to the right and down is quite certainly a headmark left over from the deleted earlier inscription on the plate. -guṇṭha Kielhorn emends to -guṇṭa. sīmaiva As Kielhorn observes, a toponym is missing before this word. There is a conspicuous dot between the top of s and the upper dot of the preceding visarga, which may be a remnant of the previous inscription on the plate (but which does not look like a headmark), or may be an editorial mark indicating that something needs to be inserted here. -guṇṭha Kielhorn emends to -guṇṭa. Airiviya- Kielhorn prints this reading without doubt, and it is definitely plausible. However, I have doubts about the presence of ai in what must be a toponym in a local language. What looks like Ai could well be ba, and the small stroke inside the hook at the top may be a remnant from the previous inscription. -guṇṭha Kielhorn emends to -guṇṭa. kenacid bādhāṁ karoti yaḥ sa Kielhorn suggests emending to yaḥ kaścid bādhāṁ karoti sa, which essentially takes over the composer's job. I believe a scribal mistake is more likely, and the composer's intent had been kenacid bādhā na karttavyā bādhāṁ karoti yaḥ sa, from which the received text was produced by eyeskip omission. cāvamantā Kielhorn emends to cānumantā. While that is certainly the standard text of this stanza, the received reading is meaningful and unlikely to have been produced from the expected text by scribal error, so I assume it to have been intended so by the composer. tānny CHECK when a facsimile is available: is this the actual spelling or is this a typo in Kielhorn? narendreaiḥ Not noted by Kielhorn, re seems to have been corrected from ri or rī. -varggavānta- I emend here, as Kielhorn does, to the expected text of this stanza (cf. cāvamantā in line 36 above), since the received reading is plausibly obtained from the expected one by scribal error. However, it is possible that vargga was actually intended, in the sense of a dharmaśāstric category of things that are impure to reuse. kaḍeya-rājaḥ I assume that this term, which makes the line hypermetrical, was pronounced with a short e, and thus the poet seems to have availed of licence permitting the use of three short syllables where two syllables are expected. bhavānn yasya Kielhorn emends to ’bhavad yasya, which I find overly invasive.

Seal

Plates

Om! Obeisance to Nārāyaṇa! 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 the realms of adversaries 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 reigned for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha I, for thirty-three years. His younger brother Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s dear son Viṣṇuvardhana II, for nine years. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five years. His son Jayasiṁha II, for thirteen years. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning his younger brother, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana III, for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya I Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen years. His son Viṣṇurāja Viṣṇuvardhana IV, for thirty-six years. His son Vijayāditya II, who erected a hundred and eight majestic Narendreśvara temples, for forty years. His son Kali Viṣṇuvardhana V, for a year and a half. His son Vijayāditya III, for forty-four years. The son of his brother the heir-apparent yuvarāja Prince bhūpati Vikramāditya, is Bhīma I.

That majestic hero, His Majesty King nr̥pati Bhīma, the abode of triumph, the delighter of learned society, for whom the earth and heavens have turned brilliant in all directions with the rays of the moon that is his reputation was petitioned for a donation by the meritorious Śrī Kusumāyudha and, being well pleased, granted a village in perpetuity at the time of his coronation paṭṭa-bandha.],The clauses of this complex sentence are dispersed over the stanza, and the role of Śrī Kusumāyudha (the “flower-bannered,” i.e. Kāma) is obscure. Kielhorn translates who gladdens the learned with the excellent god of love while admitting that he does not see the exact force of this statement. On the basis of the syntax, Kusumāyudha was most likely the name of, or an allusion to, the person who suggested the donation to the king (i.e. kusumāyudhena is the agent of saṁprārtthito). He is probably the Raṇamarddaka chief who was instrumental in raising Bhīma to the throne.

This shelter of all the world sarva-lokāśraya, His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana Bhīma I, the supremely pious Supreme Lord parameśvara of Emperors mahārājādhirāja, the Supreme Sovereign parama-bhaṭṭāraka, convokes and commands all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Northern Kaṇḍerṟvāḍi district viṣaya as follows:

Let this be known to you: there was Revamayya, the bol of the village Ummarakallu,Kielhorn understands the text here to mean Revamayya of the village Ummarakaṇṭhibol, but it seems more likely that the word also includes a term indicating his relation to that village. According to Jens Thomas (personal communication, 21/08/2020), the word bōḷu, probably meaning a village official, is attested as bolu in some Telugu inscriptions, and Ummarakaṇṭhi may be the oblique case of *Ummarakallu (containing kallu, "stone"). I therefore tentatively translate as above. of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, thoroughly versed in the Vedas and Vedāṅgas. His son was Droṇabhaṭṭa. To his son named Potamayya KramayitaSee also the apparatus to line 27. we have granted the village named Kḻakipaṟṟu with a remission of all taxes, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water. Its boundaries are as follows. To the east, Potaṟeṁgari-ceṟuvu. To the southeast, Paruvula-guṇṭha. To the south, Cāki-ceṟuvu. To the southwest, the perimeter is the perimeter itself. A place name was probably omitted here, so that the southwestern boundary of the granted land is the perimeter of another feature. To the west, Cintaṟeni-ceṟuvu. To the northwest, Juvvi-guṇṭha. To the north and northeast, Airiviya-guṇṭha. Let no-one pose an obstacle to his enjoyment of his rights over it. He who does so shall be tainted with the five great sins. The following verses were sung by Vyāsa:

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.

A donor of land stays in heaven for thousands of millions of aeons, while a seizer of granted land and a disdainer of a previous grant shall reside in hell for just as long.

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.

“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.

The donations given by kings in olden days to generate merit dharma, wealth artha and fame are now comparable to discarded garlands or vomit. What decent man would ever partake of them again?I translate the stanza as emended to its standard text. The actual text might translate “comparable to the class of discarded garlands;” see also the apparatus to line 43.

The executor ājñapti of this provision dharma is the valiant castellan kaḍeya-rāja,The term kaḍeya-rāja, equivalent to kaḍa-eṟeya and kaṭaka-rāja, is normally understood to mean a chief officer of the royal camp (cf. 183-185 and kaṭaka-rāja). However, as it seems to denote a very high hereditary office in the Cālukyan court, I believe it had in this case no direct association with any army camps. whose grandfather was Lord Pāṇḍarāṅga, the scorcher of foes.

Written likhita by Koṇḍācārya.

Seal

Plates

Om ! Hommage à Nārāyaṇa ! Prospérité ! Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, frère de Satyāśraya Vallabhendra, ornement de la lignée des Calukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, honorés dans l’univers entier, fils de Hāritī, qui obtinrent leur royaume grâce à l’excellente faveur de Kauśikī, protégés par la troupes des Mères, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, dont le cercle des ennemis fut soumis en un instant à la vue du signe illustre de l’excellent sanglier, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, dont les corps furent purifiés par le bain purificatoire de l’aśvamedha, règna pendant dix-huit années ; son fils, Jayasiṁha Vallabha, pendant trente-trois années ; le cher fils de son frère cadet Indra Bhaṭṭāraka, Viṣṇuvardhana, pendant neuf années ; le fils de celui-ci, Maṁgi Yuvarāja, pendant vingt-cinq années ; son fils, Jayasiṁha, pendant treize années ; son demi-fère cadet, Kokkili, pendant six mois ; le frère aîné de celui-ci, Viṣṇuvardhana, ayant chassé son cadet, pendant trente-sept années ; son fils Vijayāditya Bhaṭṭāraka pendant dix-huit années ; le fils de celui-ci, Viṣṇurāja, pendant trente-six années ; son fils Vijayāditya pendant quarante années, lui qui fit construire cent huit temples nommés NarendreśvaraLes temples portent les biruda de ceux qui ont ordonné leur construction, cf. introduction p.29. Les insc. n° 34, str.13-14, 38, 41 et 54, str.2, évoquent ces temples. ; le fils de ce dernier, Kali Viṣṇuvarddhana, une année et demi ; son fils Vijayāditya pendant quarante-quatre années ; du roi Vikramāditya, prince héritier et frère de ce dernier, Bhīma,

fut illustre, dont la gloire, comme les rayons de la lune, illumine tous les horizons, la terre et le ciel tout entiers, qui réjouit les savants. ce héros, à l’occasion de son couronnement, l’illustre roi Bhīma, demeure de la victoire, ayant été sollicité par l’illustre et vertueux Kusumāyudha, et l’ayant satisfait, a donné pour toujours un village.

Refuge de tous les hommes, l’illustre Viṣṇuvardhana, roi suprême des grands rois, émiment souverain, excellent seigneur, très pieux, ordonne ceci à tous les chefs de familles qu’il avait convoqués, les rāṣṭrakūṭa en tête, habitant dans le viṣaya d’Uttarakaṇḍeṟuvāḍi : qu’il soit connu de vous que Remayya, du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, habitant à Ummarakaṇṭhibol, maîtrise parfaitement les Veda et Vedāṁga. Son fils est Droṇabhaṭṭa. Nous donnons au fils de celui-ci, nommé Potamayya, kramayuta,D’après F. Kielhorn, ce terme est un synomyme de kramaka ou kramavid (note 9 p. 129). le village nommé Kūkipaṟṟu, exempté de toute taxe, après avoir fait une libation d’eau. Les limites de ce dernier sont, à l’est, Potaṟyaṁgari-Ceṟuvu, au sud est, Paruvula-Guṇṭa, au sud, Cāki-Ceṟuvu, au sud ouest, la limite est la même, à l’ouest Cintaṟeni-Ceṟuvu, au nord ouest, Juvvi-Guṇṭa, au nord et au nord est, Airiviya-Guṇṭa. Aucune charge ne doit lui être imposée, celui qui en impose est souillé aux cinq grands crimes. Voici les stances de Vyāsa :

beaucoup ont donné une terre, beaucoup l’ont protégée, celui qui possède la terre en possède le fruit.

Le donateur d’une terre se réjouit pendant soixante mille ans dans le ciel, celui qui interrompt la donation ou le permet, gît aussi longtemps en enfer.

Qu’ils soient nés dans ma lignée ou dans la lignée d’autres souverains, pour les futurs rois sur terre, dont les pensées sont éloignées du mal, qui protègent ce don qui est le mien dans son intégrité, je fais cette añjali sur ma tête.

Ce pont du dharma commun aux rois doit toujours être protégé par vous, Rāmabhadra demande ceci à tous les rois à venir, encore et encore.

Ces dons que firent ici-bas les rois autrefois, sources de dharma, d’artha et de gloire, semblables à des guirlandes usées, qui, portant le nom de saint homme, les reprendrait ?

L’exécuteur de ce don est le kaḍeyarāja,Variante de kaṭakarāja, « chef de camp de l’armée ». doué de majesté, dont le grand-père était Pāṇḍarāṁga, destructeur des ennemis.

Cet édit a été gravé par Koṇḍācārya.