Seal śrī-viṣamasiddhi

Plates

svasti. śrīmāatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstuūyamāna-mānavya-sagotraāṇāṁ hāriti-putraāṇāṁ mātrir̥-gaṇa-paripālitaāṇanāM svaāmi-mahaāsena-paādaānuddhyaātānāM bhagavan-nāraāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-laāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥taṇaM śeṣa-maṇḍalānāM maAśvamedhaāvabhr̥ttha-snaāna-pavitriīkr̥ta-vapuṣāM caḷukyānaāM kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahaārājyasya Ananya-nr̥pati-sāthdhaāraṇa-guṇa-traya-sampādita-saāmr̥rājyasya pautrayaḥ tad-anuśayita-pitr̥guṇavva-sampannasya śrī-sarvva-lokāśraya-mahaāraājasya putrayaḥ śakra Ivaāpratihata-śāsano ravir iva tejasviī mathapa Iva maneo-nandana-karaḥ nārāyaṇaIva śrīmaāN śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahaārājaḥ parama-brahvmaṇyaḥ ājñāpayati

yathaā viditam astu vo ’smābhiḥ vaṁgipura-vastavyaāya khaṇvakāṇva-ghgotraāya tahitrinayataittirīyāya ndiśanaṇḍndiśarmmaṇaḥ putraāya durgganandisarmmaṇaḥ pauvutrayapautrāya nandisśarmmaṇae ’smaābheir nnaātavaā ḍi-viṣaye koṇḍakaḻipḻola nāmama grāme grāmasya AkneyantisiĀgneyyān diśi puūrvvadtaḥ kuṟikiyuru kaṟuru panta siīmaā. dakṣiṇataḥ silaśilā siīmaā. pacścimataḥ silaśilā siīmaā. Uttarataḥ koṇḍakaḻipḻola paḍakaṁḷuru panta siīmaḥā. Eteṣaāṁ madhye tvadvādaśa-kodrava-khaṇḍikaāvaāpa-kṣetraṁ pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsare pañca varuṣevarṣe pravarttamāne candra-grahaṇa-nimitte seodaka-pūrvvaṁ mātā-pitror ātmanaś ca śsva-puṇyaāvaāptaye ta dattaḥṁ. Uktañ ca bhagavatā vyāsena

bahubhir vvasudhā bhuktaā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasyayadaā bhūmiḥ tasya tasya tadā pphalaM sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vaā yo haretia vasundharāṁ ṣaṣṭi-varuṣrṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ svadandān dātuṁ sumahaT śac chakhkyaṁ duḥkkham anyasya pālanaṁ daānaṁ vā pālanaṁ veti daānāchrec 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. The two phrases seem to be confounded here. -sāthaāraṇa- -sāyadhāraṇa- This must be an error of the Devanagari typesetter in NR's edition. guṇa-traya It may be better to emend this to guṇasya śakti-traya; see note to the translation. pautrayaaḥ pautrāya -anuśapita- -anuśapita- A Devanagari typesetting error. pitr̥guṇavva-sampannasya pitr̥guṇavvaaiś ca sampannasya NR's emendation (in fact pitr̥guṇaiṣca, clearly a typographic mistake) renders the text intelligible, but has no parallel in related grants. Several of these (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. 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. mathapa matayamanmatha NR's tentative emendation (printed manmadha, a Devanagari typo) does not seem satisfactory. In the received text, the second character may be ta but looks more like tha. The third character is definitely not ya; in addition to a misshapen pa, it could be a misshapen ca. Related grants sometimes compare the king to the moon in similar phrase, 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 (as in the second parallel cited here) 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. My best guess at the composer's intent is therefore mr̥gāṅka, but since this presumes an egregious scribal mistake, I do not make the emendation in the text. Emending to mādhava would be less invasive, but inferior in the context. ājñāpayati The text omitted here may well have been longer. NR only notes that some portion seems to be missing at this point. yathaā yadhethā khaṇvakāṇva- The ARIE reporter reads the gotra as khaṇḍi and emends to kauṇḍinya. I concur with NR that it is khaṇva. tahitrinayataittirīyāya ndiśanaṇḍndiśarmmaṇaḥ putraāya tahitriyataittirīya-naṇḍiśarmmaṇaḥ putraāya In addition to the anomalies, this locus is confusing because of the descenders of stu and smā in the line above, the presence of scribal correction, and the faintness of the estampage. I am fairly certain that originally, tahitri was followed by nandi and a now illegible character that may have been śa, but also ṣa or ma. The first two of these were probably beaten out and replaced, lower down, by yana. The third, at the same height (and extending above and below the pre-correction character) was replaced by ṇḍi instead of the expected ndi. The śa after this is very faint and may also have been deleted or re-inscribed shallowly. After that, mma is positioned higher. Of the following ṇa, only the faintest trace is discernible in the estampage, and most of pu is also indistinct. durgganandisarmmaṇaḥ duṇaḥ My reading of the name is extremely tentative and partly conjectural, see also the commentary. The name may have been deleted in the original. Of the first character in line 14, only a headmark and part of an arc from the top of the body remain. These are consistent with reading g, and since the headmark is raised, a subscript consonant is likely. Of the following character, the headmark is distinct and the vestiges of the body imply na. Next, part of a headmark and a dependent i remain, but nothing of the body. Of the following character, there is again a largely discernible headmark and some vestiges of the body, from which sa is slightly more likely than śa (cf. the spelling of the next name in the line), but many other readings could be possible. The vestiges of the next character strongly suggest rm, and in any case, śarmma or sarmma is certainly expected here in the context. The following ṇa is pristine. pauvutrayapautrāya I wonder if putrāya was in fact intended here and pautrāya in the previous line. In that case, the sequence of grandfather and father would be more standard, and we would have (partly) identical names for the grandfather and grandson rather than, unusually, for the father and son. ’smaābheir nnaātavaāḍi- ’smaai bhpennaātavaāḍhḍi- 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. No related charters use asmai in such a context, while many put asmābhiḥ here. The district names Nātavāḍi and Pennātavāḍi are both attested and may be identical or the latter may be an extension of the former. koṇḍakaḻipḻola NR's accompanying text uses Koṇḍakariplola in transliteration, while his edition in a mixture of Devanagari and Telugu script shows कोण्डक ఱిपो లుल, which I take to be a typographic approximation of koṇḍakaṟipḻola. See also the second instance of the name in line 18. The actual reading begins beyond doubt with koṇḍakaḻipḻo. The last character's body is shaped like that of la, but it completely lacks the tail curving back and down above the body. The tail is present in all instances of la except for the two occurrences of this name here and in line 18 below. As it is, the received character could be read as ba in related inscriptions of a slightly later time, but again, all instances of ba in the present inscription differ from it in that they have a closed box for a body. nāmama naāmama The narrow nā (or perhaps na) is almost certainly a subsequent insertion; if the vowel marker is present, it is close to the stem and faint. The second ma may have been deleted in the original or redundant as judged by NR. It also seems possible that mahā- had been intended. grāme grāmasya grāma The locus is damaged, but my reading is reasonably confident. puūrvvadtaḥ In the character da, there are two dots placed to the left and right of the stem, just above the body. They may be a scribal mark indicating an error (though why this one error out of dozens?), or possibly a very strange manner of inserting a visarga subsequently. kuṟikiyuru kuṟikiyūru NR's article uses Krokiyuru, but his edition's text is correct. kaṟuru kaṟūru koṇḍakaḻipḻola See the note on this word in line 15 above. For this instance, NR's mixture of Devanagari and Telugu characters seems to read koṇḍakaṟipoṭila. paḍakaṁḷuru padakaṁkūru The last character is rather awkward, but I am fairly confident of its reading. Compare also the village Paḷaṁkalūru granted in the Paḷaṁkalūru grant of Amma II and located near Nandigāma, the findspot of the present plates. pravarttamāne pravarddhamāne I am very unhappy with this word and guess tentatively. Interestingly, the previous (and expected) instance of pravarddhamāna is right above this one. After the unclear but fairly certain pra (below and slightly to the right of the pra above), we have a plausible va (alternatively: ca, bha, below and a hair to the left of the rddha of the previous line), and at the end, a very likely ma (though probably not mā, below and a hair to the right of the mā above). There is nothing discernible between the possible va and the possible ma, and NR's rddha would have to have been much compressed to fit here. My alternative rtta would also have to have been compressed, but a faint stroke to the left of tro in the next line may be the remnant of a subscript t. Reading pravarttamāne would also eliminate the redundancy with the earlier pravarddhamāna, but the usage is strange. seodaka-pūrvvaṁ mātā-pitro° sodaka-pūrvvaṁ mātā-pitro° The characters marked here as lost and supplied are completely invisible in the estampage. bhagavatā bhagavatā bhuktaā 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. jāyate jāyate daānāchrec chreyo dadānāTdhke yo I assume that dhke in NR's edition must be a typo for cchre or chre.

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 Hāriti,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 moon with its raysSee 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 Vaṁgipura of the KāṇvaSee the apparatus to line 13. gotra and the Taittirīya school, son of Nandiśarman and grandson of Durganandiśarman,The name is mostly lost. The 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, at the village named Koṇḍakaḻipḻola in Nātavāḍi district viṣaya, in the southeastern direction of the village—To the east, the border is the road between Kuṟikiyuru and Kaṟuru.Here and below in connection to Koṇḍakaḻipḻola 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 demarcation stone. To the west, the border is a demarcation stone. To the north, the border is the road between Koṇḍakaḻipḻola 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 course ofSee the apparatus to line 20 for my doubts concerning the reading of this phrase. the year that is the fifth year of our progressive victorious reign, on the occasion of an eclipse of the moon 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.