Seal śrī-sarvvasiddhi

Plates

svasti śrīmat-piṣṭapurāT. svāmīi-māahāsena-pādānuddhyātānāṁ haārītī-putrāṇāṁ mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ kuramara-svaāmi-vara-laphbdha-raājyānāṁ śrīmaM-caḷkīnāṁ Aśvamedha-yājināvām anvaya-mahodadhoeḥ Amr̥ta yiIva bhūta-trāṇāya sambhūtaḥ kīrttivarmmā. tasya putras tiat-pādānuddhyātaḥ śakti-traya-sampādita-mahā-dhanaugha-vicbhavo jagati satht-kīrty-abhilaksṣito nānā-yuddha-vijayiī prir̥dthiśvīpati-makuṭa-maṇi-mayūkha-dhauta-pādāravintda-jyugalaḥ śrīmānaN makaradhvajo viṣṇur ivāparo viṣṇuvardhana-māahāraājeaḥ. tasya putras tat-paādānuddhyāto mahośvalosaddhipayyatha-maddhya siṅgha yiIva vikraāntaḥ śrī-jayasiṅgha-vallabha-mahāraājāo mātā-pitr̥-puṇya-vividuyepuṇyābhivr̥ddhaye Intrapura-vaāstavyāya bhūtisvaāmi-caturvveda-poautrāya padagāddhyāyino bodasvāmi-putrāya koautsa-sagotraāya dvivedāya svāmiśarmmaṇe kr̥ṣṇa-biṇṇāyā Uttara-taṭe nātāvāḍi-viṣaye viḷetti nāma grāmam āgrahārī-kr̥tya sarvva-bādhā-parihaāreṇa Udaka-pūrvveṇaprattaM

viditam astu sarvva-viṣaya-vāsināṁ Asmad-bhr̥tyānāñ ca.sarvvathaāsthmad-dharmmāo rakṣaṇiīyaḥ. sarvva-dharmma-śāstra-vid oājñāaptaiḥAtra śrī-Ammā. Api coktaM

pṣapṣṭi-varpṣa-sahapsrāṇi svargge modati bhūmi-daḥ AĀkṣeptā cānumantā ca tāvannti narake vaseMT lbahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupālitā syayasya yasya yadā bhūmiḥ tasya tasya tadā phalaM ṣaṣṭīi-variṣarṣa-sahasrāṇi svargge modati bhūmi-daḥ Ākṣeptā cānumantā ca taāvannti narake vaseT bahubhivvir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasya yadā bhuūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaM sva-dataāṁ para-dattāṁvā yatnād rakṣa yudhiṣṭhira mahīṁ mahīmatāṁ śraeṣṭha daānāT śraeyāo ’nupālanaM dānāni dantāni purā narendraindrepuṇar ddānāni dharmmātthirttha-yaśas-kāarāṇi nirmmālalya-vānta-pratimāni tāni ko nāma sādhuḥ punar ādadātiḥ| dhammirmmāśrayaḥ kalpa-taruḥ prajānāṁ śriī-viīyamā sādhu-javanāvagamyaḥ aĀjñaptir asmin kaḍu-rāja kāti nītyā samullaṁghita-loka-netraḥ

Seal

Plates kuramara-svaāmi- kuramāra-svāmi-vara- While emendation to kumāra-svāmi is attractive, that name is not attested in any cognate grant, and the acquisition of a kingdom is never connected to Kumāra, while kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ is quite ubiquitous. Sanction by Kumāra may of course be connected to the likewise ubiquitous phrase svāmi-mahāsena-pādānuddhyātānāṁ. I wonder if kurumara-svāmi is rather a local deity, perhaps connected to the locality kurumarathyā° mentioned in the Sātārā plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I. For the acquisition of a kingdom through what may be a local deity, compare svāmi-bhaṭṭāraka-pāda-padma-prasādāvāptarājyānāṁ in the Guḍivāḍa plates (set 1) of Jayasiṁha I. śrīmaM-caḷkīnāṁ śrī-vīravakhkhaṇvīra-lakṣṇa KPS's readingis not satisfactory, and their emendation makes no sense in the context even assuming that their intent was vīra-lakṣaṇa. What they read as vī is clearly ma. The tick-mark shaped glyph they read as ra is in my opinion a (rather late-seeming) final M, presumably intended for T. Their va is ca, possibly corrected to or from cā. The next character might conceivably be khka (though not khkha), but I think it was in fact meant to be ḷkī, although the execution of the ḷ component is very poor. Compare the attested forms caḷikyānāṁ and calikyānāṁ. -yājināvām anvaya-mahodadhoeḥ -yaājiṇā cātrayakṣatriya-mahodadhoā The intent may also have been -yājinām anvaye mahodadhau, but a compound seems more likely in such an expression. sambhūtaḥ kīrttivarmmā. tasya putras saṁbhūta-kīrttivarmmāaṇasya puautras -mahā-dhanaugha-vicbhavo mahā-dāhanonāya-deva vo- -mayūkha-dhauta- -mayūkhea-cotac-ot- viṣṇour ivāparo viṣṇor ivāparoa- mahośvalosaddhipayyatha-maddhya mahoeśvalra-siddhi-paryyanta-dharbhvavya In spite of the ungainly execution of most characters, this nonsensical string is quite clearly legible. At the end of line 9, śva may have been meant for, corrected to, or corrected from jva. In line 10, lo might on its own be interpreted as pha, but the glyph is exactly identical to the cursive lo in line 29; it cannot be la as read by KPS (nor can the next character be si). ddhi may be dvi. yya might perhaps be yu and seems to have been corrected, probably from ya or yā, when the next line had already been engraved, as its subscript component stays to the right of the intervening jā there. tha may perhaps be rtha; out of context, it could also be interpreted as a clumsy ḻa. The ligature I read as ddhya could be taken for ndhya or bhvya (which is probably what KPS had read and misprinted bhvavya), but is the same glyph as that in several instances of the word pādānuddhyāta (ll 1, 5, 9; see also the palaeographic description). All in all, I am unable to offer a plausible correction. The composer's intent may have involved mahojvalodadhi-paryyanta, but the word expected after this would be yaśāḥ or kīrttiḥ, while madhya is the only directly intelligible word recognisable in the received reading. -mahāraājāo -mahāraājeasya -puṇya-vividuyepuṇyābhivr̥ddhaye -puṇyāvbhivr̥ddhaye The du engraved instead of ddha is in all probability a scribal mistake, but the rest of the strangeness here may reflect vernacularised usage. Intrapura- guntapura pu is probably a correction from ra. KPS's Guntapura is impossible; the principal stroke of the first character does resemble ga, but definitely not gu, and with the two dashes below it, it can only have been meant for initial I. Thus, KPS's identification with modern Guntur must also be dismissed. The intended name may, however, be Indrapura. -poautrāya -hotrāya padagāddhyāyino gokānvāyine I am unable to interpret the beginning of this string or to explain why KPS do not read the first two characters. The akṣara I read as pa begins with a loop rather than a headmark and thus bears some resemblance to the Central Indian la used in this inscription, but it lacks the extended tail which I believe would be required in absence of a superscript vowel marker. There is an oblique stroke attached to the bottom right of this glyph, which is much too small to be a subscript r and the wrong shape to be an u marker, so I assume that it is an irrelevant slip of the chisel. The character I read as ddhyā is the same as that in several instances of anuddhyāta (see also the palaeographic description), so the latter part of the segment is secure. Throughout the corpus, when the term adhyāyin occurs in the description of a Brahmin, the expression is veda-dvayādhyāyin or an equivalent, but this cannot have been meant here. Could the intent have been pada-Adhyāyino or pr̥thag-adhyāyino? Or could padagādhyāyino be correct and mean a religious student who is a footsoldier? bodasvāmi- poḷasvāmi- -biṇṇāyā -berṇṇāyāṁ The i is unequivocal and may be a rendering of a short e sound. viḷetti viḷeṣṭi The name of the village was correctly read for ARIE. KPS's incorrect reading is repeated in their discussion, so it is not a typo in the edition. grāmam āgrahārī-kr̥tya grāmāgrahārī kr̥tvā prattaM preoktaM. -vāsīināṁ -vāsīsiṇāne KPR's text is vāsī(si)ṇ(ne) with a macron over the opening parenthesis of (ne). I assume that their reading is ṇā. sarvvathaāsthmad-dharmmāo sarvvia-davīdha sva-dharmmmā sva-dharmmāo rakṣaṇiīyaḥ sva-dharmmā rakṣaṇṇiīya I emend tentatively, not being fully satisfied with my reconstruction of the sentence. -vid oājñāaptaiḥAtra -vidoājñeāptagratpa KPS emend in the body of their edition to -vidājñāpta (which is not intelligible to me), and then apparently re-emend to in a footnote attached to gratpa in the next line, which says, The word is unnecessary. Read as ājñaptirasya.. The reading of Atra is unambiguous. śrī-Ammā. Api śrī-grammāgraṣidharmmarakṣitā tāvannti narake tāny eva niarake For the justification of my restoration, compare the less corrupt iteration of the same locus in line 22. vaseMT vased iti ṣaṣṭīi What I (and KPS) read as ī is represented by a dot in the circle of i. The intent may instead be ṣaṣṭiṁ. taāvannti tāny eva vaseT vased aiti sva-dataā The dharacters datta may be a correction over something else. daānāT śraeyāo dānaśc chreyo dantāni purā narendraindrepuṇar ddānāni danttveva narendra nadrepuṇarnā The superfluous ndre in line 26 is obviously a repetition of ndrai in the previous line and one or the other was meant to be ignored. I have no explanation for the superfluous puṇa. I am quite certain that rddāni is a corruption of rddānāni, which produces a correct continuation of the stanza except for the fact that dānāni is repeated (as if yānīha had been inscribed instead of in the first quarter dānāni). In this segment, pu may be a correction, and rddā has definitely been re-engraved, but apparently over another (slightly larger and clearer) rendition of the same character. śriī-viīyamā sādhu-javanāvagamyaḥ śrīmayaṁ-āsādhu ja vanāvagamya The executor's name looks rather like Dhīyamā here, but compare stanza 1 of the Niḍupaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha I, where the name of (probably) the same person is Vīyamā (or possibly Cīyamā). The i of this name must be long for the metre to be correct. After nāvaga, this line dips to avoid the descender of mmi in the previous line, and there are several dots that seem to form a semicircle around that descender, as if to demarcate the space where the next line can be engraved. The character read as mya has a misshapen subscript component that looks rather like ṭ, but the intent is quite certain. aĀjñaptir asmin kaḍu-rāja kāti Ājñaptir asya kuṭkukaṭaka-rāja kaṇḍi The term kaḍu-rāja is clear, although I know of no other attestations. However, compare kaḍa-eṟeya in the Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III and kaḍeya-rāja in the Bezvāḍa plates and Moga grant of Bhīma I, noting also that in the Bezvāḍa plates, kaḍeya is used in place of two syllables of an anuṣṭubh stanza. The reading of kāti is also clear and unambiguous, but I cannot interpret this string in any other way than as another name of this person. nītyā samullaṁghita-loka-netraḥ nityatavya samullayati lokanetraḥ KPS believe that the engraver of the grant was named Lokanetra. They may have understood their samullayati (probably a misprint of samullayita) to stand for samullikhita or a similar word. Although I am not certain of the correct interpretation (see my translation), the reading as established by me is certain. What I read as an anusvāra in samullaṁghita is rather a horizontal stroke attached to the left top of gh, and given the almost complete absence of anusvāras in the inscription, this may be just a slip of the chisel; nonetheless, an anusvāra is then to be supplied.

Seal

Plates

Greetings from majestic Piṣṭapura. From the great ocean that is the lineage of the majestic Caḷkis, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by the Lord Mahāsena, who are the sons of Hārītī, who are of the Mānavya gotra, who have attained kingship through the boon of Lord Kuramara,See the apparatus to line 2. who perform the Aśvamedha sacrifice, there arose Kīrtivarman, like nectar amr̥ta arising from the great ocean for the salvation of living beings. His son, deliberately appointed as successor by him, was King mahārāja Viṣṇuvardhana, the majestic Crocodile-bannered love god makaradhvaja, resembling another Viṣṇu, whose opulence was a great mass of wealth achieved by means of his three powers śakti-traya, who was recognised in the world for by just reputation, victorious in diverse battles, whose two lotus feet were washed by rays from the gemstones on the crowns of kings. His son, deliberately appointed as successor by him, His Majesty King mahārāja Jayasiṁha Vallabha, I am unable to interpret the text here. It may meant to say something about Jayasiṁha’s fame extending to the oceans. See the apparatus to line 9. who is courageous like a lion siṁha, in order to increase his mother’s and father’s merit, has granted the village named Viḷetti, located in Nātavāḍi district viṣaya on the northern bank of the river Kr̥ṣṇa-biṇṇā, converted into a rent-free holding agrahāra by a remission of all burdens, to the grandson of the caturvedin Bhūtisvāmin, the son of Bodasvāmin who was a student of the padaga,I cannot interpret this word. See the apparatus to line 12 for the associated problems. namely to the dvivedin Svāmiśarman of the Kautsa gotra, a resident of Intrapura, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water.

Let this be known to all residents of the district and to our Jayasiṁha’s retainers bhr̥tya. Our ruling dharma is to be preserved by all means. The executor in this matter, conversant with all legal treatises dharma-śāstra, is His Highness Ammā. Moreover, it is said:

A donor of land rejoices in heaven for sixty millennia, while a seizer of granted land and a condoner of such seizure shall reside in hell for as many.

Many kings have granted land, and many have preserved former grants. Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit/reward accrued of granting it belongs to him at that time.

Stanzas III and IV are repetitions of stanzas I and II, for no clear reason.A donor of land rejoices in heaven for sixty millennia, while a seizer of granted land and a condoner of such seizure shall reside in hell for as many.

Many kings have granted land, and many have preserved former grants. Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit/reward accrued of granting it belongs to him at that time.

O Yudhiṣṭhira, diligently preserve land that has been donated, whether by yourself or another. O best of land-possessors, preserving a grant is superior to making a grant.

The donations given by kings in olden days—donations conducive to merit dharma, wealth artha and fame—are now comparable to discarded garlands or vomit. What decent man would ever partake of them again?

The executor ājñapti in the matter of this provision is His Highness Vīyamā, the Castellan kaḍu-rāja Kāti,I am not sure if Kāti is another name of the executor or a description that I fail to understand. a foundation of proper order dharma, a wishing-tree for subjects, approachable by virtuous men, who has risen above the common purview through his political skill nīti.