Seal śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates śrī-kāntāyābjanābhāya namo bhūuvana-rakṣine| vikramādhaḥkr̥tātyugra -balaye vara-dāyine|

svasti. śriīmatāṁ sakala-bhūuvana-saṁstūyamāna-maānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hāriti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikiī-vara-prasaāda-labdha-rājyānām mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svaāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyaātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitriīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkarigaṣnos saṁtyāśraya-vallabhendrasya pratā kubja-viṣṇaṣṇuvi satyaśrāya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano| ’ṣṭādaśa varṣāṇi veṁgī-deśam apaālayaT| tat-putro jayasiṁha-vallabhas trayastriṁśataṁ| tad-anujendrarājas sapta dināni| tan-nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava saṁvvatsarāN| tat-tokam maṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcaviṁśartimaM| tad-auraso jayasiṁhas trayodaśa| tad-dvaimaāturānujaḥ kokkiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyaeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvarddhaddhanas tam upyccāṭya saptatriṁśad varṣāṇi| tad-āapatyaṁ vijayāditya-bhaṭṭaārako ’ṣṭādaśa| tad-ātmajo viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśataṁ| tat-tanujo narendra-vijayādityaḥ Aṣṭacatvāriṁśataṁ| tat-putraṁḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano ’dhyarddha-varṣaṁ| tad-ātmajo guṇakkenalla-vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ| tad-anuja-voikramāditya-sūnuś cālukya-bhīmas triṁśataṁ| tat-putraḥ kollabigaṇḍa-vijayādityaḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tat-suūnur ammarājas sapta varṣāni| tat-suto bherbhaka-vijayādityaḥ pakṣaṁ| ntatas tāḻapa-rājo māsaṁ| taṁ jitvā cālukya-bhīma-tanayo vikramādityas saṁvatsaraṁ|

sāmanta-śabara-vallabha-daṇḍāś cāṇnyae ca bhuvam aluṁpann abdāN saptāśantaroe ’tra mallarapa-rājaṁ kr̥ta-paṭṭa-bandham avamatya balāT| meḻaiṁhameḻāṁbā-vijayāditya -nandano bhīma-bhūpatiḥ| tān samastān samutkhāya dvādaśābdān apād bhuvaM| sūnus tasyāmma-rājas surapati-vibhavaḥ paṭṭa-baddho dharitriīṁ rakṣann ekādaśābdāṁñ jita-ripur agamat kr̥ṣṇa-kopāt kaliṁgāṁn| tasya dvaimāturaḥ kṣmāṁ sakala-jana-mude vallabhād āpta-rājyo bhaimir ddānārṇṇaveśo ’py avati manu-nayād aṁkidevī-tanūjaḥ| vaidagdhyaṁ vacadharasya vāriruha-saṁbhūtasya bhū-devatā -śgrāmūyatvākalitaṁ kalāsu gaditaṁ vāg-aṁganāyāḥ Api| strī-naisarggika-cāpalāspadatayā nindārham ity ādarād uyad-vaidagdhyam alaṁ kalāsu sakalais saṁstūyate sajjanaiḥ| sthirāpi śaśvad bhramati trilokīṁ janaānurāgaṁ kurute sitāpi| vicitra-rūpeti seadā viśiṣṭair vvicāryyate kīrtti-latā yadīīyā|

sa samasta-bhuvanāśraya-śrī-vijayāditya-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyo nātavāḍi-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas samāhūya matīntri-purohita-senāpati-yuvarājādy-aṣṭādaśa-tīErtthoādhyakṣam ittham ājñaāpayati|

śrī-saṁbhūti-nimitteaṁ mūu.ktāphala-purāuṣa-ratna-saṁyuktaṁ| sāmanta-voṭṭddi-saṁjñaṁ kulam āsīj jalanidhi-pratimaṁ| tad-vaṁśa-vārinidhi-vr̥ddhi-kakraḥ karāsi- nirddāri-cāṭa-bala-vīra-bhaṭāndhakāraḥ| Āsīt śc chaśāṁka gaIva guṇḍiya-rāṣṭrakūṭas saṁt-pūjya-sat-patha-gati-pravaṇa-svaḥ-vr̥ttaḥ| śrīmac-calukyakubhacalukya-vaṁśodita-bhūmipāla -śrīdvāram iccchāgnugataṁ| praviśya naānūyādhipa-dvāram amahaṁ viśāmiīty akṣeṣṭa vāṭaṁ gata-vallabheśaṁ| samasta-satyādi-guṇa-prapannaḥ paropakāra-pravaṇa-phprabhāvaḥ| Abhūd arātīnthdhana-vahnir ugraḥ tad-ātmabhūr eṟiya-rāṣṭrakūṭaḥ| tūuraṁgamārohaṇa-kauśalaena tirasthakr̥tānindita-vatsarājaḥ| Abhūt suto betiya-nāmapdheyas samasta-saṁpan-nilayas tadīyaḥ| tasya śrī-vandyanāṁbāyaām abhavavad bhava-sannibhaḥ samasta-saṁpan-nilayo guṇḍyanākakhyoaḥ sutottamaḥ| pratāpāyatitām eti virodhi-timirāpahaḥ nityaṁ padmākarārādhdhyo yasya ga tejo-virocanaḥ| tena kākatya-guṇḍyana-nāmadheyena| prārtthyamānair asmābhiḥ| cvelāpaṟṟu-mahā-grāma -vāstavyāo vadatāṁ varaḥ| kutsa-gotrābhisaṁbhūto viddamayyaḥ purābhavaT| śrīdharāṁghri-dvayāṁbhoja -sevī śrīdhara-saṁjñayā| viśrutas tat-suto jaāto bhūdeva-śrīdhara-śriyā| tasyāḥbhūn mācemāṁbāyāṁ sūnur ddommana-saṁjñakaḥ samasta-śgunoṇa-saṁpanneas sat-sādhu-jana-vatsalaḥ| śruti-smr̥ti-sadācāra -prauroāṇodita-vartmani| durāpe ’nyajasanair nnityaṁ yasy-ācāviraḥ pravarttatie kākartya-guṇḍyanaṁ vīram uddiśyāhappāḫpati-prabhaṁ| yena karppaṭam ābaddhaṁ tāat-prasādābhikāṁkṣinā| prātaḥ-snānaṁ bpratidinaṁ brāahmavcaryyacm akhaṇḍitaṁ| gaIty-ādi yenācaritaṁ kappārppaṭi-vratam ādarāT satyaṁ śaucan dayā dānam anuṣṭhānam udāra-dhīḥ. kṣāntis saujanyam ityādi yad-upajñam idaṁ kalau|

tasmai dotmmana-nāmne māṁgallu nāma grāmas savvārvva-kara-parihāreṇa Udaka-pūrvvam uttarāyaṇa-nimitte Agrahārīkr̥tyāttacasmābhir ddatta gaIti viditam astu vaḥ

Asyāvadhayaḥ. pūmrvvataḥ. koḍupulūvri pola-garusuna yilindi-guṇṭa| Āgneyataḥ kuṟṟalabola pannasa| dakṣiṇataḥ laṁjiyamāḍa-sīmā| nairr̥tiyataḥ munna-nadiī| paścimataḥ pallikaṇṭi-bhaṭāraṇḍu| vāyavyataḥ muyyalu-kaṭṭu| Uttarataḥ koṇḍṟūri pola-garusuna cintalu| ĪAiśaānataḥ muyyalu-kuṭṭuna pulugudla-guṇṭa| Asyopari na kenacid bādhā karttavvyā yaẖ karoti sa paṁca-mahāpātaka-saṁyukto bhavati. tathoktaṁ vyāsena|

bahubhimr vasudhā dattā bahubhiś cāsnupālitā| yasya yasya yadā bhūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ| sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā yo hareta vasundharāṁ| ṣaṣṭi-lvarṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭṭhāyāṁ jāyate kur̥maiḥ| sarvvan etān bbhāvinaḥ pārthivendrān bhūyāo bhūyo yācate rāmabhadraḥ sāmānyo ’yan dharmma-setur nnr̥pāṇāM kāle kāle pālanīyo bhavadbhiḥ

Ājñaptiḥ kaḍaka-rājaḥ. potanabhaṭṭa-kr̥tiḥ|

Seal

Plates -samāsādita- -samyāsādita- -samyaāsādita- The vowel mark for ā is extended downward in a curve much like that for subscript r. This may be an ornamental extension of the stroke or an error made by an illiterate scribe, but definitely does not look like a subscript y. -vaśīkr̥tārāti- -vaśiīkr̥tārāti- -viṣṇaṣṇuvi- -viṣṇuṣūvi- At this locus, VR marks the text from pratā to vallabhendrasya as superfluous, while PVPS discards the string from pratā to (the first) vallabhendrasya. There is no way to tell which iteration of the (imperfectly) repeated string was inscribed in error, but PVPS's excision of a string stretching across both iterations can not, in my opinion, be reasonably derived from scribal error; and since the second instance of vallabhendrasya contains a scribal correction (see next apparatus entry), I assume that its presence in the text was approved by a contemporary editor. Thus, by my reasoning, the whole of the first iteration was rejected, and the text re-inscribed from satyaśrāya onward, ignoring the fact that, if the rejected string were explicitly deleted, this string ought to have started with ssa. -vallabhendrasya The addition is written below the line and to the right of bha, i.e. one character to the right of where one would expect it to be. kubja- kubba- paṁcaviṁśartimaM paṁcaviṁśakrtimaM paṁcaviṁśatiīmaM I believe that an originally inscribed r has been corrected somewhat clumsily to t. upyccāṭya upytpāṭya The emendation proposed by previous editors does not presuppose a smaller scribal error, and related grants use uccāṭya; utpāṭya never occurs as far as I am aware. dhyarddha- dhyardha- -voikramāditya- -veikramāditya- bherbhaka bheka The reading is clear, but unattested elsewhere, while the form arbhaka-vijayāditya is attested in the Koḻūru grant of Bhīma II. cāṇnyae cānye The principal consonant definitely has the shape of ṇ, but the subscript y is joined to its foot rather than to its wing. The character is not ne by any means, though it must have been intended for such. saptāśantaroe saptāśantare saptāsantare PVPS's sa is probably a typo. -rājaṁ kr̥ta- -rāja-kr̥taṁ -rājaṁ kr̥ta- While there is no original anusvāra, nor space for one in its usual position, PVPS's reading is better as an emendation and equally permitted by the metre. I have supplied hyphenation in PVPS's reading. bhuvaM bhuvaṁ °ābdāṁñ jita-ripur agamat °ābdān agamat Typographic omission in PVPS, with some strangeness around the n. bhaimir ddānārṇṇaveśo bhaimo ddānārṇṇaveśo The i of mi has a gap at the top right to accommodate the subscript k above, while the repha of rddā is damaged and attached separately to the top right rather than being combined with the ā marker. I am nevertheless confident of my reading. vacadharasya vacaodharvasya vacadhaturasya In addition to an extra light syllable in this word (where the poet apparently availed of a licence to use three light syllables where two would be expected), the first pāda of this stanza also has a caesura between a prefix and a verb, which is also permissible only by licence. VR's emendation, while it improves this particular word, only aggravates the metrical anomaly. PVPS's emendation is metrically and grammatically correct, but is too heavy-handed to accept, while with his alternative proposal ca varasya is awkward and bland (not to mention that this is one of the very few instances of dha that does not look like va, so it should probably not be emended to va). If I am correct in interpreting the composer's intent (for which see the translation), then the meaning could have been expressed in correct prosody, e.g. as vacasaḥ pateḥ kamala-saṁbhūtasya (though the inferior caesura is not remedied by this suggestion). -śgrāmūyatvā° -grāmūyatvā° -grāmyāyatvā° nindārham The problematic character looks rather like hyā, with the subscript y unfinished. uyad-vaidagdhyam udvaidagdhyam vvicāryyate vvicāryate -mahārājādhirāja- -mahārāja- matīntri- mantri- I cannot interpret the character tī (or possibly ti) written directly below vā in the line above and ignored by both previous editors. In the facsimile I see no indication that it has been deleted, but can only assume that it was engraved in error for the ntri required here, and the correct character was re-engraved to the right of it. It was probably not meant to be an addition, since it is equal or almost equal in size to the regular characters, whereas other interlinear additions are much smaller. There is also no apparent place where such an addition would have been required. This character was engraved before the rest of line 33 and slightly higher than the other characters of that line; the correct ntri is to the right of and below this one. -tīErtthoādhyakṣam -tīErthādhyakṣam -tīErthādhyakṣamān PVPS's emendation of the ending is plausible, but the composer appears to have used the singular in a collective sense. -nimitteaṁ -nimitte There may in fact be an anusvāra or a final M after this word. sāmanta- The principal consonant of the problematic character in fact has the shape of g, and the subscript component is distorted. The intent must have been nta. -voṭṭddi- -voḍḍi- PVPS's preferred reading is voṭṭi, which he connects to the name viṣṭi, see the commentary. He mentions voddi as a possible reading only in his discussion. I agree that both these are possible and each is more likely than VR's voḍḍi.Throughout the inscription, ḍ has a tail that curls conspicuously upward (cf. e.g. l32 ḍi). At face value, ddi may be the most likely reading; compare l51 ddi, which is practically identical in shape to what we have here. Conversely, ṭ should normally lack a neck, see e.g. ṭṭa in ll 12, 20 and 31. However, l53 ṭi does have a neck and looks quite identical to the upper part of the present character. Given the textual parallels cited by PVPS, I accept ṭṭi as the most likely reading. -kakraḥ -katraḥ Possibly a typo in PVPS. -nirddāri-cāṭa-bala- -nirddāricāṭatāri-bala- Both previous editors show the text as clear. Indeed, -cāṭa- seems likely from the estampage, but if correct, it requires emendation. PVPS's emendation is very plausible and is probably close to the intent of the composer, but I hesitate to introduce it to the text because it requires a major intervention. An equally invasive alternative emendation would be nirddārita-prabala-. -vīra- -viīra- The vowel mark of the first character has a dot, so I prefer to read it as the expected ī. For the second character, VR admits to uncertainty but PVPS does not. It can plausibly be read as ra, but several other readings may be possible, including ri. If the latter is correct, then the word may be emended to vairi, in which case ari is not needed in the previous locus. bhaṭāndhakāraḥ VR admits to uncertainty on the problematic characters, while PVPS does not. The reading is plausible both in context and on the basis of the vestiges, but as far as I can tell, other readings may also be possible, such as balā°, varā° or even ghanā°. saṁt-pūjya- saṁtpūjya satpūjya While VR's emendation is also plausible, I prefer my emendation as being less invasive and slightly smoother. PVPS may have been of the same opinion, though he ignores the superfluous anusvāra. -pravaṇa- -pravaṇaḥ Compare paropakāra-pravaṇa-prabhāvaḥ in line 40 below. -svaḥ- While I agree with VR and PVPS that a visarga is not wanted here, I am not sure that one was at all present in the original, though shown as clear by both previous editors. The dots may be random damage. śrīmac-calukyakubhacalukya- śrīmac-cālukyakubhalukya- śrīmac-calukyakubhalukya- The character at the end of line 37 seems in the estampage to be cca, though VR reads it as ccā. To reduce the dittography, both previous editors suppress the string kubhalukya. While this yields meaningful text with a small and straightforward suppression, it seems unlikely that these characters could have been erroneously engraved while the others were correct and deliberate. Much more likely in my opinion is that the engraver first started with śrīmac-calukya-ku, probably beiginning to engrave kula out of habit. Realising the mistake, he would have started again from the beginning of the stanza, but this time round, he neglected to close the bottom of ca, so the character as engraved turned out as bha. My emendation is thus more complex than that of the previous editors, but presupposes much more feasible scribal mistakes. The final problem with this locus is that of śrīmac. Suppressing this word results in correct prosody for the line, but so does suppressing the subsequent vaṁśa (and altering a retained vowel, so we are left with śrīmac-calukyodita-). I believe it is much more likely that śrīmac was, again out of habit, engraved unnecessarily (or perhaps conceived of as a bit of prose tagged on before the stanza). Moreover, with my emendation of the dittography, śrīmac is a natural part of the erroneously engraved string, whereas PVPS has to resort to a separate emendation to suppress it (while VR only notes that the stanza is metrically faulty, but does not attempt to correct it, though his editor does propose deleting śrīmac in a footnote.). -śrīdvāram iccchāgnugataṁ -śrīdvāra-madhyānugataṁ -śrīdvāram adhyāājñānugataṁ My reading and emendation are tentative. See the commentary for a discussion. In the actual reading, the character dvā is mostly clear. The ostensible ra-ma is wholly indiscernible in the estampage, though read as clear by both editors. I see no explicit indication of an i here, but a smallish vowel marker (like that in bhūmipāla earlier in this line) could conceivably have fit in the damaged spot above consonant read as m. For the next character, dhyā is a plausible reading, but far from the only possibility. In fact, vyā is at least as likely, and out of context, I would be most inclined to read it as dyā. My suggested reading, ccā (intended for cchā) may be wishful thinking, but seems to be permitted by the facsimile. Next, the character read as nu by both previous editors is in fact a perfect specimen of gu, though nu is a very plausible emendation. There seems to be a short vertical punctuation mark at the end of this word, though no previous editor reads it and it is definitely superfluous. It is also possible that what looks like an anusvāra and a punctuation mark is in fact a final M, though this would likewise be out of place. naānūyādhipa-dvāram nanu vipad-dvāram nanunūnaṁ vipad-dvāram VR's editor in a footnote proposes emending the first word of this string to nānyo. It is not clear to me how he sees this as an improvement to the text without additional alterations. Reading nanu would be unmetrical, and the plate seems rather to have nanū. I find that emending ū to yā is a minor intervention, and there are two instances in the text where u must clearly be emended to ya (lines 26 and 28), so we know the scribe is prone to this kind of mistake. I thus emend the first two characters in a way similar to that suggested by VR's editor. But in the next line, I read dhipa-dvāram in preference to vipa-dvāram (which requires supplying an extra d), since most instances of dh in this text are indistinguishable from v. See the commentary for further discussion. amahaṁ ama VR's editor proposes the same emendation in a footnote. It very probably reflects the intent of the composer, though given that the stanza as a whole is quite unintelligible, something else may have been intended, e.g. amuṁ, imaṁ or aho. viśāmiīty akṣeṣṭa viśāmi tyakṣaṣṭa- viśāmīty akṣaṁṣṭsta VR's editor in his footnote proposes viśāmīty ācaṣṭa. A dot above the right-hand side of kṣa may be seen as confirmation for PVPS's emendation, but its position is not where anusvāra is normally placed in this inscription and the dot is not read as such by either previous editor. Moreover, I find PVPS's interpretation unconvincing. See the commentary for further discussion. vāṭaṁ gata- -vāṭaṁ-gata- The damaged character read as ṭaṁ might conceivably be ḍa, tha, dha, pa, ma, la or va. An additional problem is segmentation into compounds and independent words. Although PVPS's text is spaced, he too apparently construed both of these words as in compound to the next word, which I find problematic. See the commentary for further discussion. paropakāra- The character ro has an extra curly stroke on each side. These may be random, or ornamental elaborations of the vowel mark, or perhaps a remnant of correction from ko. In turn, kā lacks the expected arms. -phprabhāvaḥ -prabhāvaḥ arātīnthdhana- arātīndhana- -kauśalaena -koauśalena °rājaḥ| Abhūt suto PVPS's emendation is perfectly plausible, though the intended wording may have been slightly different. VR offers no emendation, while his editor in a footnote suggests °rājaḥ suto bhavad, which is inferior because it requires inserting text both before and after the inscribed to. -vandyanāṁbāyaām The problematic component of what we expect to be ndya may be dh. bā in fact looks like ha, with the tail of the vowel mark curved back under the body. ya has some extra strokes including a small loop at the bottom centre, possibly traces of correction from a different character. guṇḍyanākakhyoaḥ guṇḍyanātakhyaḥ Where previous editors see a superfluous ta, I believe ka was first engraved, intended for kya in error for khya. This may or may not have been explicitly deleted. There is also a stroke for o above the correct khya, so probably khyo was engraved and then corrected to khyaḥ. PVPS suggests that the deleted/superfluous character and the next one together could be alternatively read as ryyaḥ. In spite of some resemblence to ryya, I feel this is not likely, but the possibility cannot be excluded. pratāpāyatitām pratāpāyya citām °ārādhdhyo °ārādhyo The problematic character looks more like rdhdhya. -nāmadheyena| -nāmadheyenāa -nāmadheyena cvelāpaṟṟu- velāpaṟṟu- PVPS uses the name Celāpaṟṟu in his discussion, though he prints velāpaṟṟu in his edition. It seems likely to me that the character is indeed ce, as the upper outline of its body has a a definite notch and is joined directly to the headmark rather than to the stem. Compare e.g. vi at the end of the previous line versus cā in line 30. However, see also the next entry on viddamayyaḥ, where I read the same glyph as v. °saṁbhūto viddamayyaḥ °saṁbhūto ciddamayyaḥ The problematic character does indeed look like ci (see also the previous entry on velāpaṟṟu). However, since the names Viddamayya, Viddamiya and Viddamaśarman are attested in several related inscriptions, while I know of no occurrence of Ciddamayya, I prefer to read this character as vi. Note that both previous editors may have vacillated on the reading, since both of them supply to for the preceding word rather than taś, as would be expected before c. jaātyā jātyā jaāto jātyā In the estampage I do not see a full subscript y, much less yā where the vowel stroke ought to be attached to the end of y. I think this character is to, with vowel strokes on the right of the headmark and the bottom left of the body. The reading of the previous editors, along with their emendation (see next entry) makes the text more awkward, see also the note to the translation. bhūdeva- bhūdevaḥ In my perception the emendation proposed by the previous editors makes the text more awkward regardless of the reading in the previous entry. See also the note to the translation. tasyāḥbhūn tasyābhūn mācemāṁbāyāṁ mācemāṁbāyāṁ macemāṁbāyāṁ The short a in PVPS is probably a typo. I see no original anusvāra here. The composer's intent may also have been mācemāṁbāyāḥ. Note also that the e must be short for the line to be metrical. sūnur ddommana- sūnur ddommana- -śgunoṇa- -śguṇa- saṁpanneas saṁpaṇnnas durāpe durāpeo kākartya- kākarttya- āhappāḫpati- āhaḥppāati- āharppati- I assume that the upper p with the vowel mark (which PVPS reads as a repha) was meant to be an upadhmānīya. This presupposes a much smaller scribal error than VR's equivalent emendation and is preferable to PVPS's non-standard reading. karppaṭam karppaṭam ābaddhaṁ ārabdhaṁ Previous editors admit to uncertainty only in the last character of this string. That could indeed be bdhaṁ from what I can make out, but the preceding character is much more likely from the vestiges to be ba than ra. Compare also baddha-karppaṭakaḥ in line 21 of the Cevuru plates of Amma I. brāahmavcaryyacm brāahmacaryyam gaIty- gaty- Given that ga is consistently inscribed instead of initial I throughout the inscription, I fully endorse PVPS's emendation. kappārppaṭi- kappārppraṭī- karppaṭī- VR's emendation to rppra seems to be a typo for rppa. anuṣṭhānam anuṣṭṭhānam anuṣtaṭhānam PVPS's t and a are probably typos; his actual reading would have been indentical to VR's. idaṁ iha PVPS's reading is far from clear (though he prints it as such). Nonetheless I prefer it because VR's reading is unmetrical, and because there is some space after the problematic character. The noise in that space may well include an anusvāra, and what seems to be the hook of ha may in turn be random noise. tasmai tasme VR's editor suggests emendation to tasmai, but the second stroke for that vowel may actually be present. PVPS prints this reading as clear, but I am not sure if he does so after a scrutiny of the estampage or out of negligence. dotmmana-nāmne dotmāna-nāmne The expected emendation is also suggested by VR's editor. The ā in VR's tmā may be a typo. PEM's etext emends here to ātmano nāmnā. I do not know if this is her own emendation or if it comes from an unnamed source. It is in line with PVPS's opinion (which I endorse) that Dānārṇava issued this charter in his own name rather than in lieu of Amma II, but I am confident this was not the intent of the composer. savvārvv- sarvva- sarvva- -pūrvvam -pūrvvam -nimitte -nimittaṁ There is definitely no anusvāra here; however, part of an e is in my opinion discernible. Even if that is noise, I would still prefer emending to nimitte in spite of the hiatus, since that is the form used in practically all related grants that mention an occasion (with a few occurrences of nimittena and none, that I know of, of nimittam). Agrahārīkr̥tyāttacasmābhir Agrahārīkr̥tyāttachasmābhir It is possible that the text has tya rather than tyā, and that one or both of the superfluous characters was intended for A. The second superfluous character, apart from a malformed ca or cha with the headmark in the wrong place, could be a not-so-malformed rai with only the lower left vowel stroke present and the top one omitted. ddatta datta pūmrvvataḥ pūrvvataḥ koḍupulūvri I adopt the emendation of the Telugu on blind faith. laṁjiyamāḍa- laṁjayamāḍa- laṁjiyavāḍa- While the i is clear, the only problem with mā is that the vowel marker is attached to the left arm rather than the right. It may be a correction of ma to vā, or of vā to or mā. pallikaṇṭi- pallikaṇṭī- pulugudla- pūlagudla- puluguḍla- The word definitely begins with pulu. The second part may be guḍla, but, without understanding it and judging by the glyph alone, gudla is much more likely. karttavvyā karttavyā bahubhimr vasudhā bahubhir vvasudhā dattā dattā -lvarṣa- -varṣa- kur̥maiḥ kr̥miḥ kr̥rimiḥ There is definitely a typo in PVPS's edition, but I am not sure what his actual reading may have been. bhūyāo bhūyo

Seal

Plates

Homage to the beloved of Śrī with a lotus in his navel, the boon-granting protector of the world who by his valour overcame the exceedingly savage Bali.

Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra Pulakeśin II was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāriti, 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 son Jayasiṁha Vallabha I, for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja Indra Bhaṭṭāraka, for seven days. His son Viṣṇuvardhana II, for nine years. His offspring Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha II, for thirteen. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana III, for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya I Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen. His son Viṣṇuvardhana IV, for thirty-six. His son Vijayāditya II Narendramr̥garāja, for eight and forty. His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana V, for a year and a half. His son Guṇakkenalla Vijayāditya III, for forty-four. The son of his younger brother Vikramāditya, Cālukya-Bhīma, for thirty. His son Kollabigaṇḍa Vijayāditya IV, for six months. His son Ammarāja I, for seven years. His son the infantVijayāditya V is named Beta in some records of his much later descendants. In this text, the received reading is Bheka, which is in my opinion a scribal mistake for arbhaka (see the apparatus to line 17), though a deliberate slur is not altogether out of the question. The word bheka means a frog and, at least in lexicons, also a coward. Vijayāditya V, for a fortnight. Then King rājan Tāḻapa, for a month. After defeating him, Cālukya-Bhīma’s son Vikramāditya II, for a year.

The armies of barons sāmanta, tribesmen śabara and Rāṣṭrakūṭas vallabha, as well as others, ravaged the land for seven years, audaciously disdaining King rājan Mallapa Yuddhamalla here, who had in the meantime donned the royal turban.

King bhūpati Bhīma II, the son of Meḻāṁbā and Vijayāditya IV, eradicated all of these and protected pā- the earth for twelve years.

Magnificent like Indra the Lord of the Gods, crowned with the turban, his son Ammarāja II defeated his enemies and protected rakṣ- the earth for eleven years, then went to the Kaliṅgas because of Kr̥ṣṇa’s the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kr̥ṣṇa III’s wrath. Now his half-brother, Lord īśa Dānārṇava, the offspring of Bhīma II born of the body of Aṅkidevī likewise protects av- the earth to the delight of all the populace and according to the policy of Manu, having obtained kingship from the Vallabha Kr̥ṣṇa III.

“The sophistication of the lotus-born Supporter of Speech Brahmā is reckoned on a par with the rusticity of the Earth Goddess,Though I feel quite certain that this is the intended meaning of the first statement in this stanza, the text is vague and may stand in need of correction. Whereas the second statement includes the reason why the divine exemplar is inferior, I do not see one here and do not know why the Earth Goddess would be thought of as particularly rustic (perhaps because she is worshipped in villages?) and how Brahmā is associated with her (perhaps because he is born of a lotus, which in turn normally rises out of mud?). and even the art discourse of Lady Speech Sarasvatī is subject to the natural frivolity of women and thus despicable”—so do all men of culture, out of respect, abundantly praise his sophistication in arts.

“Strange is its appearance: though permanent stationary, it always wanders about the triple world; though white, it makes people affectionate red”—so do eminent people continually puzzle over the creeper that is his reputation.

That shelter of the entire universe samasta-bhuvanāśraya, His Majesty Vijayāditya Dānārṇava the supremely pious Supreme Lord parameśvara of Emperors mahārājādhirāja and Supreme Sovereign parama-bhaṭṭāraka, convokes the householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Nātavāḍi district viṣaya, and, witnessed by the eighteen worthies tīrthaEighteen dignitaries, normally called mahāmātra, are listed in 12.6 and referred to by the term tīrtha in 12.20. beginning with the minister mantrin, the chaplain purohita, the general senāpati and the crown prince yuvarāja as follows:

There was a family named Sāmanta Voṭṭi, a source of majesty and prosperity endowed with precious men who were not attached mukta to fruitless aphala causes, resembling the ocean which is the source of the generation of Śrī and is endowed with pearls that serve as jewels for men.I am not sure my translation exactly reflects the bitextual meaning intended by the composer, especially in the long and rather awkward compound beginning with muktāphala.

Like a moon which produces the ascendance tide of that ocean-family and which shatters the darkness consisting of powerful enemy soldiersThere are definitely some errors in the text here (see the apparatus to line 36) and I have not been able to reconstruct it, but the composer’s intent must have been something along these lines. with his rays that are like a sword with the sword held in his hand, there was born in that family Guṇḍiya Rāṣṭrakūṭa, whose inherent conduct was inclined to follow the true path respected by gentlemen.

“Having passed through the gateway of honour śrīdvāra granted to me by the noble kings of the Calukya dynasty in accordance to my desire, I shall not pass through the gateway of another suzerain”—so saying, he took up residence in Vāṭa only when the Vallabha lord had departed from there.This stanza is all but incomprehensible, owing to multiple blunders of the engraver and some damage at crucial spots. My translation rests on a number of tentative emendations, and is very uncertain. See the apparatus to lines 37 to 39 for the textual problems, and the commentary for a discussion of the purport.

He had a son equipped with all virtues beginning with honesty: Eṟiya Rāṣṭrakūṭa, whose power was inclined to aid others, a fierce fire to the kindling sticks that were his enemies.

He had a son with the given name Betiya, a repository of all talents, who surpassed the immaculate Vatsa king Udayana in his skill at horsemanship.

He had a perfect son resembling Bhava Śiva by Her Grace Vandyanāmbā, a repository of all talents named Guṇḍyana.

The sun of his glory, being the dispeller of the darkness of enemies and ever adored by clumps of lotuses the hand of Padmā Śrī, becomes the continuation of his predecessors’ valour.

Being requested by that Kākatya Guṇḍyana, we Dānārṇava… This sentence is continued in line 54 after the introduction of the donee. The logical subject (in the original, the agent of the sentence in the passive) is repeated there.

There was once an excellent orator residing in the great village of Velāpaṟṟu: Viddamayya born of the Kutsa gotra.

A son was born to him, a servant of the lotus that is the two feet of Śrīdhara Viṣṇu, renowned by the name Śrīdhara for being as excellent as a Śrīdhara among Brahmins.There is some uncertainty of the text here, for which see the apparatus to lines 47 and 48. With the reading and emendation suggested by the previous editors, the translation would be “His son was a servant of the lotus that is the two feet of Śrīdhara, a Brahmin by birth, renowned by the name Śrīdhara for being as excellent as Śrīdhara.” The repetition of Śrīdhara with the same meaning in the first and third instance would be poor poetry and there seems to be no need to emphasise that he was born a Brahmin, so I prefer to avoid emendation. If the correct reading were jātyā, I would still prefer to retain bhūdeva- and understand the text to say (somewhat needlessly) that Śrīdhara was Viddamayya's son by birth.

He had a son by Mācemāmbā. Named Dommana, he was imbued with all virtues and fond of good and decent men.

Though difficult for others to attain, his action is always conducted along the path taught by the Veda śruti, scripture smr̥ti, the practice of good men and the Purāṇas.

He took upon himself the karpaṭa vow for the benefit of the valiant Kākartya Guṇḍyana who is brilliant as the sun, desiring to obtain his favour.

The vow of the karpaṭin that he performed out of respect included daily bathing early in the morning, ceaseless chastity and so forth.

Truthfulness, purity, compassion, generosity, religious observance and a magnanimous mindset: all this and more comes to him instinctively even in the Kali age.

To that one named Dommana, on the occasion of the winter solstice we have given the village named Māṁgallu, converted into a rent-free holding agrahāra by a remission of all taxes, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water. Let this be known to you.

Its boundaries are as follows.Throughout this passage, I translate the Telugu phrases tentatively and incompletely on the basis of words occurring in other Eastern Cālukya inscriptions and translated by the respective editors. To the east, the yilindi pond at the verge of the fields of Koḍupulūr. To the southeast, the pannasaPannasa is an obscure term that may mean land held in some sort of tenure. See pannasa. of Kuṟṟalabola. To the south, the border of Laṁjiyamāḍa. To the southwest, the river Munna. To the west, Pallikaṇṭi-bhaṭāraṇḍu. To the northwest, the triple boundary juncture. To the north, the tamarind tree at the verge of the fields of Koṇḍṟūru. To the northeast, the pulugudlaEstienne-Monod translates l’étang au lotus. pond at the triple boundary juncture. Let no-one pose an obstacle to his enjoyment of his rights over it. He who does so shall be conjoined with the five great sins. So Vyāsa has said:

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.

Over and over again, Rāmabhadra begs all these future rulers: “Each in your own time, you shall respect this bulwark of legality that is universally applicable to kings!”

The executor ājñapti is the castellan kaḍaka-rāja. The composition is by Potana Bhaṭṭa.

Seal

Plates

Hommage à Viṣnụ dont le nombril est un lotus, protecteur de l’univers, Dont le courage a rabaissé le très puissant Bali, au dispensateur de dons !

Prospérité ! Le roi Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, frère de Satyāśraya Vallabhendra, qui orne la dynastie des Cālukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, loués dans l’univers entier, fils de Hārīti, ayant reçu leur royaume par l’excellente faveur de Kauśikī, protégés par les Mères réunies, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, eux dont les cercles des ennemis ont été soumis en un instant à la vue du signe de l’excellent sanglier, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, eux dont les corps ont été purifiés grâce aux bains consécutifs au sacrifice du cheval, a protégé la contrée de Veṅgī pendant dix huit années. Son fils Jayasiṁha Vallabha pendant trente-trois ans, Le frère cadet de celui-ci, Indrarāja, pendant sept jours, Le fils de ce dernier, Viṣṇuvardhana, pendant neuf ans, Son fils Maṁgi, le prince héritier, pendant vingt-cinq ans, Son fils légitime Jayasiṁha pendant treize ans, Le frère de celui-ci, né d’une seconde mère, Kokkili, pendant six mois, Son frère aîné Viṣṇuvardhana, après l’avoir détrôné, pendant trente-sept ans, Le fils de celui-ci, Vijayāditya, l’illustre seigneur, pendant dix-huit ans, Son fils Viṣṇuvardhana pendant trente-six ans, Son fils Narendra Vijayāditya pendant quarante-huit ans, Le fils de ce dernier, Kali Viṣṇuvardhana pendant un an et demi, Son fils GuṇakenallaCe roi est sans doute Guṇagāṁka Vijayāditya pendant quarante-quatre ans, Le fils de Vikramāditya, frère cadet de ce dernier, Cālukya Bhīma pendant trente ans, Le fils de celui-ci, Kollabigaṇḍa Vijayāditya, pendant six mois, Son fils, Ammarāja, pendant sept ans, Son fils Bheka-Vijayāditya pendant quinze jours, Puis le roi Tāḻapa pendant un mois, Après avoir vaincu ce dernier, le fils de Cālukya Bhīma, Vikramāditya, a protégé la terre pendant un an ;

Les armées de ses feudataires Śabara et Vallabha,ou Śabara-Vallabha ainsi que d’autres, ravagèrent sa terre pendant sept années, Méprisant avec violence la couronne placée, entre-temps, sur la tête du roi Mallapa.Feudataire des Rāṣṭrakūṭa, cf. supra II, B, 1, p 25 .

Le fils de Meḻāṁbācorr. pour Meḻaimha. et de VijayādityaIl s’agit Kollabhigaṇḍa-Vijayāditya. fut le roi Bhīma ; après avoir éradiqué tous ceux-ci, il protégea la terre pendant douze ans.

Son fils, Ammarāja, qui a la puissance du roi des dieux, dont la tête est ceinte du diadème, alors qu’il protégeait la terre depuis onze ans, vainqueur de ses ennemis, attaqua les Kaliṁga, à cause de la colère de Kr̥ṣṇa. Son frère, né d’une autre mère, qui, pour la joie de tout le peuple, a reçu le royaume de Vallabha, Bhaima, bien qu’il soit souverain des flots de dons,Jeu de mots sur l’opposition entrela mer et la terre, entre le « souverain des flots » et celui qui « administre la terre », ce paradoxe est un virodha, marquée notamment par l’emploi de la particule api . Ainsi, contrairement à l’éditeur de ce texte, nous n’estimons pas que le terme dānārṇava soit à interpréter comme un nom. fils de Aṁkidevī, administre la terre selon les préceptes de Manu.

* * *Nous n’avons pu proposer de traduction pertinente de ce vers.

Bien que ferme, sans cesse elle parcourt les Trois Mondes ; elle sucite l’amour des hommes malgré sa blancheur : « Merveilleuse est sa beauté », voilà ce que toujours les êtres distingués pensent de la liane de sa gloire.La liane est un topos qui renvoie à l’amante. Ce composé laisse suggérer que la gloire, telle une amante passionnée, ne délaisse jamais le roi.

Celui-ci, refuge pour l’univers entier, l’illustre Vijayāditya, grand roi, premier seigneur, illustre seigneur, très pieux, ayant convoqué les chefs de familles de la circonscription de Nātavāḍi, à commencer par les rāṣṭrakūṭa et le conseiller, le chapelain, le maréchal, le prince héritier, les dix-huit TīrthaGardiens et intendants des lieux saints ou allusion à la liste de 18 tīrtha, officiers, fournie dans l’, I, 12. en tête, ordonne ceci :

à l’occasion de Śrīsaṁbhūti, liée à Muktāphala, cette perle d’homme, il y eut une famille portant le nom de la feudataire Voḍḍi, comparable à l’océan.

Source de prospérité pour l’océan de cette lignée, source de ténèbres pour les pillards, les brigands, les troupes, les guerriers et les soldats portant l’épée au poing, naquit, pareil à la lune, Guṇḍiya-Rāṣṭrakūṭa qui, hommage rendu, enclin à fouler le chemin de la vertu, fut indépendant.Le vers 9 contient des formes irrecevables. L’éditeur constate qu’en substituant 4 composés du texte et en les remplaçant par d’autres termes, it may yield some sense.

Doué de toutes les vertus à commencer par la sincérité, dont la puissance étaient encline à servir autrui, naquit , incendie pour ses ennemis réduit à l’état de bois d’allumage, puissant, son fils Eṟiya-Rāṣṭrakūṭa.

Par son adresse à monter les chevaux, humiliant le roi des Vatsa, son fils fut Bhetiya, trésor de toutes les prospérités.

Il eut de l’illustre Vandyanāmbā un fils qui était pareil à Bhava. Son fils, nommé Guṇḍyana, fut un trésor de toutes les prospérités,

Ayant allumé le bûcher , il se développe, repoussant les ténèbres ennemis, apportant une satisfaction éternelle au massif de lotus, lui, dont la puissance est resplendissante.

Par celui-ci, qui portait le nom de Kākatya Guṇḍyana, nous avons été sollicités. Habitant le grand village de Velāpaṟṟu, le meilleur des orateurs, issu de la famille des Kutsa, Ciddamayya naquit autrefois.

Rendant un culte aux deux lotus que sont les pieds de Śrīdhara, connu sous le nom de Śrīdhara. Son fils fut par sa naissance un brahmane, ainsi que par l’éclat de Śrīdhara.Jeu de mots sur le terme śrīdhara qui désigne à la fois le personnage et l’époux de Śrī, Viṣṇu.

Celui-ci eut un fils de Mācemāṁbā nommé Dommana. Possèdant toutes les vertus, il fut l’ami des hommes vertueux et des saints,

lui dont la conduite demeure sur le chemin enseigné par la Révélation, la Tradition, l’usage des hommes de bien et les Purāṇa, conduite à jamais inaccessible aux autres hommes.

A l’égard du héros Kākartya Guṇḍyana, dont l’éclat est celui du soleil, qui a pris l’habit des ascètes, désireux d’obtenir sa faveur,

Qui pratique un bain matinal quotidien et dont le vœu de chasteté n’est pas rompu, qui accomplit avec respect le vœu des ascètes, conduite qui commence par la marche,

lui qui en ce monde et dans le Kaliyuga enseigne la sincérité, la pureté, la compassion, la générosité, le respect des rites, l’intelligence, la tolérance, l’amabilité.

Nous donnons à celui qui porte ce nom, le village nommé Māṁgallu, exempté de toute taxe, après avoir fait une libation d’eau, en qualité d’agrahāra, à l’occasion du solstice d’hiver. Que cela soit connu de vous.

Ses limites sont : à l’est l’étang Yilindi vers le pépier de Koḍupūluru, au sud-est le pannasa de Kuṟṟalabola, au sud la limite de Laṁjayamāda, au sud-ouest la rivière Munna, à l’ouest Pallikaṇṭī-Bhaṭāraṇḍu, au nord-ouest le point de jonction des trois routes, au nord les tamaris vers le pépier de Koṇḍṟūru au nord-est au l’étang au lotus vers le point de jonction des trois routes. Aucune charge ne doit lui être imposée, celui qui en impose est lié aux cinq grands crimes. Vyāsa a dit ceci :

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

Qu’elle soit donné par lui ou par un autre, celui qui prend une terre renaît ver de terre dans les excréments pendant soixante mille ans.

Rāmabhadra demande ceci à tous les princes des rois à venir de la terre, encore et encore : « ce pont du dharma commun aux rois doit toujours être protégé par vous. »

L’exécuteur est le kaḍakāraja. L’auteur est Potanabhaṭṭa.