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-samyaāsādita-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 saṁvatsarāN| tat-tokam maṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcaviṁśakrrimatiM| tad-auraso jayasiṁhas trayodaśa| tad-dvaimaāturānujaḥ kokkiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyaeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvaddhārddhanas tam upyccāṭya saptatriṁśad varṣāṇi| tad-āapatyaṁ vijayāditya-bhaṭṭaārako ’ṣṭādaśa| tad-ātmajo viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśataṁ| tat-tanujo narendra-vijayādityaḥ Aṣṭacatvāriṁśataṁ| tat-putraṁḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhaṇāno ’dhyarddha-varṣaṁ| tad-ātmajeo guṇakkenalla-vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ| tad-anuja-veikramāditya-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 cāṇyanye ca bhuvam aluṁpann abdāN saptāśantare ’tra mallarapa-rājaṁ kr̥ta-paṭṭa-bandham avamatya balāT| meḻaiṁhameḻāṁbā-vijayāditya -nandano bhīma-bhūpatiḥ| tān samastān samutkhāya dvādaśābdān apād bhuvaṁ| sūnus tasyāmma-rājas surapati-vibhavaḥ paṭṭa-baddho dharitrīṁ rakṣann ekādaśābdāṁñ jita-ripur agamat kr̥ṣṇa-kopāt kaliṁgāṁn| tasya dvaimāturaḥ kṣmāṁ sakala-jana-mupde vallabhād āpta-rājyāo bhaimir ddānārṇṇaveśo ’py avati manu-nayād aṁkidevī-tanūjaḥ| vaidagdhyaṁ vacadharasya vāriruha-saṁbhūtasya bhū-devatā -grāmūyatvākalitaṁ kalāsu gaditaṁ vāg-aṁganāyāḥ Api| strī-nauaisarggika-cāpalāspadatayā nindārham ity ādarād uyad-vaidagdhuyam alaṁ kalāsu sakalais saṁstūyate sajjanaiḥ| sthirāpi śaśvad bhramati trilokīṁ janaānurāgaṁ kurute sitāpi| vicitra-rūpeti seadā viśiṣṭair mvvicāryyate kīrtti-latā yadiīyā|

sa samasta-bhuvanāśraya-śrī-vijayāditya-mahārājaādhirāja-paramaeśvara-parama-bhaṭṭaārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyo nātavāḍi-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas samāhūya matīntri-purohita-senāpati-yuvaroājaādy-aṣṭādaśa-tīEtthortthādhyakṣam ittham ājñaāpayati|

śrī-saṁbhūti-nimitteaṁ vūmu.ktāphala-purāuṣa-ratna-saṁyuktaṁ| sāmagnta-voṭṭi-saṁjñaṁ kaṁkulam āsīj jalanidhi-pratimaṁ| tad-vaṁśa-vārinidhi-vr̥ddhi-kakraḥ karāsi- nirddāri-caṭa-bala-vīra-bhaṭāndhakāraḥ| Āsīt śc chaśāṁka gaIva guṇḍiya-rāṣṭrakuūṭas saṁt-pūjya-sat-patha-gati-pravaṇa-sva-vr̥ttaḥ| śrīmac-calukyakubhacalukya-vaṁśodita-bhūmaipāla -śrīdvāram adyāgnugataṁ praviśya naānuyādhipa-dvāram amahaṁ viśāmiīty akṣaeṣṭa vāṭaṁ gata-vallabheśaṁ| samasta-satyādi-guṇa-prapannaḥ paroparkāra-pravaṇa-prabhāvaḥ| Abhūd arātīndhana-vahnir ugraḥ tad-ātmabhūr eṟiya-rāṣṭrakūṭaḥ| tūuraṁgamārohaṇa-kauśalena tirasḻakr̥tānindita-vatsarājaḥ| Abhūt suto betiya-naāmaṣadheyas samasta-saṁpan-nilayas tadīyaḥ| tasya śrī-vandyanāṁbāyaām abhavavad bhava-sannibhaḥ samasta-saṁpan-nilayeo guṇḍyanārakhyeaḥ sutottamaḥ| pratāpāyaṟitām eti virodhi-timirāpahaḥ nityāaṁ padmākarārādhdhyo yasya ga tejo-virocanaḥ| tena kākatya-guṇḍyana-nāmadheyena| prārtthyamānair asmābhiḥ| velapaṟṟu-mahā-grāma -vāstavyāo vadatāṁ varaḥ| kutsa-gotrābhisaṁbhūto viddamayyaḥ purābhavaT| śrīdharāṁghri-dvayāṁbhoja -sevī śrīdhara-saṁjñayā| viśrutas tat-suto jaāto bhūdeva-śrīdhara-śriyā| tasyābhūn mācemāṁbāyāṁ sūnur ddommana-saṁjñakaḥ samasta-śgunoṇa-saṁpanneas sat-sādhu-jana-vatsalaḥ| śruti-smr̥ti-sadācāra -prauroāṇodita-vartmani| durāpe ’nyajasanair nnityaṁ yasy-ācāciraḥ pravarttatie kākartya-guṇḍyanaṁ vīram uddiśyāhappāḫpati-ṣprabhaṁ| yena karppaṭam ābapddhaṁ tāat-prasādābhikāṁkṣinā| prātaḥ-snānaṁ bpratidinaṁ brāahmacaryyam akhaṇḍitaṁ| gaIty-ādi yenācaritaṁ karppaṭi-vratam ādarāT satyaṁ śaucan dayā dānam anupṣṭhānam udāra-dhīḥ. kṣāntis saujanyam ityādi yad-upajñam ihdaṁ kalau|

tasmeai dotmmana-nāmne māṁgallu nāma graāmas sarvva-kara-parihāreṇa Udaka-pūrvvam uttarāyaṇa-nimitta Agrahārīkr̥tyāttachasmābhir ddatta gaIti viditam astu vaḥ

Asyāvadhayaḥ. pūmrvvataḥ. koḍupulūvri pola-garusuna yilindi-guṇṭa| Āgneyataḥ kuṟṟalabola pannasa| dakṣiṇataḥ laṁjiyamavāḍa-sīmā| ṇenairr̥tiyataḥ munna-nadiī| paścimataḥ pallikaṇḍi-bhaṭāraṇḍu| vāyavyataḥ muyyalu-kaṭṭu| Uttarataḥ koṇḍṟūri pola-garusuna cintalu| ĪAiśaānataḥ muyyalu-kuṭṭuna puluguḍla-guṇṭha| Asyopari na kenacid bādhā karttavyā yaẖ karoti sa paṁca-mahāpātaka-saṁyukto bhavati. tathoktaṁ vyāsena|

bahubhimr vvasudhā dattā lbahubhiś cāsnupālitā| yasya yasya yadā bhūmis tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ| sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā yo hareta vasundharāṁ| ṣaṣṭiṁ lvarṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭhāyāṁ jaāyate kur̥miḥ| sarvvaṁān etān bbhāvinaḥ pārtthivendrān bhūyo bhūyo yācate rāmabhadraḥ sāmānyo ’yan dharmma-setur nnr̥pāṇāṁ kāle kāle pālanīyo bhaviadbhiḥ

Ājñaptiḥ kaḍaka-rājaḥ. potanabhaṭṭa-kr̥tiḥ|

Seal

Plates -vara-prasaāda-labdha-rājyānām mā° These characters, have been scratched shallowly on the plate then re-engraved properly, with the final lines not fully overlapping the pre-scratched ones (except for rā and nā, where either the overlap is perfect or there was no pre-scratched text). -samyaāsādita- -samyāsādita- The originally inscribed subscript y is attached to the right arm, rather than the body, of ma. Part of the y seems to have been struck out, while much of it has been retained as an ornamental extension of the subsequently added ā marker. -vaśīkr̥tārāti- -vaśiīkr̥tārāti- -viṣṇaṣṇuvi- -viṣṇuṣūvi- At this locus, R marks the text from pratā to vallabhendrasya as superfluous, while PS 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 PS'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- paṁcaviṁśakrrimatiM paṁcaviṁśakrtimaM paṁcaviṁśatiīmaM Although bizarre, it seems that kri was originally inscribed (probably as a scribal misinterpretation of a predrawn ti), and it has been wrongly corrected to ri. upyccāṭya upytpāṭya Related grants use uccāṭya; utpāṭya never occurs as far as I am aware. viṣṇuvarddhaṇāno viṣṇuvarddhano dhyarddha- dhyardha- -varṣaṁ| -varṣaṁ| -ātmajeo c-ātmajo bherbhaka bheka The reading is clear, but unattested elsewhere (except in secondary literature), while the form arbhaka-vijayāditya is attested in the Koḻūru grant of Bhīma II. cāṇyanye cānye saptāśantare saptāsantare PS'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, PS's version is a better emendation in my opinion. R's emendation is also metrically and semantically possible. dharitrīṁ dharitriīṁ °ābdāṁñ jita-ripur agamat °ābdān agamat Typographic omission in PS. -mupde -mude -rājyāo -rājyo 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 interpretation; of there is only damage and no original repha, then one is to be supplied. 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. R's emendation, while it improves this particular word, only aggravates the metrical anomaly. PS'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). -grāmūyatvā° -grāmyāatvā° -nauaisarggika- naisarggika uyad-vaidagdhuyam uyad-vaidagdhyam udvaidagdhyam The d preceding this word may have been corrected from p. viśiṣṭair mvvicāryyate viśiṣṭair vvicāryate The character mvi is probably the engraver's misinterpretation of a predrawn rvvi. kīrtti- kīrtti- -mahārājaādhirāja- -mahārājādhirāja- -mahārāja- -paramaeśvara- -parameśvara- -paramaeśvara- -parameśvara- -bhaṭṭaārakaḥ -bhaṭṭārakaḥ samāhūya The formation of hū, with the vowel small in size and attached to the left of the body beyond the shorter-than-usual tail, shows that the text was pre-drawn for the engraver, and this character was shaped so as to leave room for mi below. 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. The character has not been deleted and is larger than other interlinear additions, nor can I see any locus where such an addition would be appropriate. I 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. The superfluous character was engraved before the rest of line 33 and slightly higher than the other characters of that line, so that its top touches the bottom of vā above. The correct ntri is to the right of and below this one, encroaching on the space of the next line and forcing the first few characters there to be reduced. The following pu is level with ntri, but from ro onward the line continues at the expected distance from the adjacent lines. -yuvaroājaādy- -yuvarājādy- -yuvarājādy- -tīEtthortthādhyakṣam -tīErthādhyakṣam -tīErthādhyakṣamān -nimitteaṁ -nimitte There may in fact be an original anusvāra after this word. vūmu.ktāphala- mūu.ktāphala- sāmagnta- sāmanta- The principal consonant of the problematic character is definitely g (compare n at the beginning of the next line and g in the second next), which must be the engraver's misinterpretation of a predrawn n. The subscript t is attached with an additional notch as many other times in the inscription, compare e.g. line 9, sapta. -voṭṭi- -voḍḍi- In my opinion, R's voḍḍi can be excluded, because throughout the inscription, ḍ has a tail that curls conspicuously upward (cf. e.g. l32 ḍi), which is definitely not present here. At face value, the most likely reading is voddi, for which compare l51 ddi, practically identical to what we have here. PS also mentions voddi as a possible reading in his discussion. A stem between the headmark and the body speaks against reading ṭṭi, which should not include such a stem (compare 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 this and PS's argument that we are dealing with a cognate or corruption of the name sāmanta viṣṭi (see the commentary), I accept ṭṭi as the most likely reading. kaṁkulam kulam Here again, the engraver must have misinterpreted the u attached to the consonant's side. -kakraḥ -katraḥ Possibly a typo in PS. nirddāri-caṭa-bala- -nirddāri-cāṭa-bala- I am reasonably certain that the received reading is caṭa (unmetrical). Emending to cāṭa, as read by R, straightforwardly solves the metrical problem but leaves us with an uninterpretable compound. PVPR proposes emending to nirddāritāri-bala-, which makes sense but is difficult to explain as a scribal mistake. Similarly invasive alternative emendations include nirddārita-prabala-. Although cāṭa may be a scribal mistake for something else (perhaps elicited by the proximity of bhaṭa?), I think it is more likely that it was the composer who did a poor job here and used nirddāri either in the meaning nirddārita or in an incorrectly constructed compound where this word ought to have been the last member. -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, R admits to uncertainty but PS 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 The problematic first two characters (shown by PS as clear) are reasonably certain from my photographs. The first looks rather like ca, but if that is the correct reading, it is still likely to be a scribal mistake for bha. -rāṣṭrakuūṭas -rāṣṭrakūṭas saṁt-pūjya- saṁtpūjya- satpūjya- While R's emendation is also plausible, I prefer my emendation as being less invasive and slightly smoother. PS may have been of the same opinion, though he ignores the superfluous anusvāra. -pravaṇa-sva- -pravaṇaḥ svaḥ- The superfluous visarga shown by both previous editors is definitely not present on the plate. Emendation to pravaṇaḥ is unnecessary and results in inferior text. Compare paropakāra-pravaṇa-prabhāvaḥ in line 40 below. śrīmac-calukyakubhacalukya- śrīmac-cālukyakubhalukya- śrīmac-calukyakubhalukya- The character at the end of line 37 is cca, though R 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 PS has to resort to a separate emendation to suppress it (while R 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 adyāgnugataṁ -śrīdvāra-madhyānugataṁ -śrīdvāram adhyāājñānugataṁ The reading is quite certain in spite of extensive damage to the characters rama. The following dyā is quite clear, but due to the ambiguity of the script, dhyā and vyā cannot be excluded, and ddhyā or dvyā are also conceivable, if barely. I find none of these alternatives interpretable in the context. Next, the character read as nu by both previous editors is in fact a perfect specimen of gu, though nu must indeed have been intended (compare sāmagta in l35). My interpretation is tentative; see the translation and the commentary. naānuyādhipa-dvāram nanu vipad-dvāram nanunūnaṁ vipad-dvāram R's editor in a footnote proposes emending the (unmetrical) nanu to nānyo. It is not clear to me how he sees this as an improvement to the text without additional alterations. I find that emending nu to nyā 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 R's editor. But in the next line, I read dhipa-dvāram in preference to vipa-dvāram (which requires supplying an extra d). Most instances of dh in this text are indistinguishable from v, but in this case the large gap at the top of the body strongly implies that dh was intended. See the commentary and the translation about my interpretation. amahaṁ ama R's editor proposes the same emendation in a footnote. It probably reflects the intent of the composer, though given that the stanza as a whole is difficult to interpret, something else may have been intended, e.g. amuṁ, imaṁ or aho. viśāmiīty akṣaeṣṭa viśāmi tyakṣaṣṭa- viśāmīty akṣaṁṣṭsta I find PS's interpretation unconvincing. R's editor in his footnote proposes viśāmīty ācaṣṭa, which is not impossible. See the translation and the commentary for further discussion. vāṭaṁ gata- The anusvāra is in fact a short daṇḍa just like the one following the anusvāra at the end of this stanza. -vallabheśaṁ The vowel e, shown as clear by both previous editors, is certainly expected, but it is either not present or overlaps with the bottom of the subscript y above and discernible only as a small stroke rising from the headmark of bh and possibly another small stroke descending toward the headmark of the following śa. paroparkāra- paropakāra- -kauśalena -koauśalena tirasḻakr̥tānindita- tirasthakr̥tānindita- °rājaḥ| Abhūt suto PS's restoration is perfectly plausible, though the intended wording may have been slightly different. R 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. naāmaṣadheyas nāmapdheyas -vandyanāṁbāyaām -vandyanāṁbāyām -nilayeo -nilayo guṇḍyanārakhyeaḥ guṇḍyanātakhyaḥ The superfluous character is clearly ra. A superfluous e attached to khya has probably been deleted in the original. PS suggests alternatively that the superfluous character and the next one together could be alternatively read as ryyaḥ. While khye does bear some resemblance to ryya, there is no reason to prefer this alternative. pratāpāyaṟitām pratāpāyatitām pratāpāyya citām The last character in line 33 has interference from the rim, but it is unequivocally ṟi, with a notch in the bottom and a cross-stroke. It is clearly a scribal mistake for something else, but no clear solution offers itself. It may have been intended for ti, as read by PS, but this still leaves us with a very awkward stanza. Any other corrections I can think of (e.g. pratāpāyodhitām) involve more emendation and are still awkward. nityāaṁ nityaṁ The down-curling end of tyā was probably the engraver's misinterpretation of tyaṁ, which has been reversed by deleting part of the line at the top right. °ārādhdhyo °ārādhyo -virocanaḥ virocanaḥ The engraved character looks like va or a va-like dha. I agree with the previous editors that virocana was probably intended. -nāmadheyena| -nāmadheyenāa -nāmadheyena velapaṟṟu- Outside context, he first consonant of this name would be a rather unambiguous c, and may have been intended as such. However, Velapaṟṟu is perhaps a more likely name (compare Velaṁbaṟṟu in an eponymous grant attributed to Amma I), and the same graphic shape is used in the name of Viddamayya (for which see the apparatus to line 46). The second character may have an ā marker. It ends in a slight bend to the right instead of a proper hook for ā or a vertical stem and a headmark for a. Since there are several instances of la of the same shape in lines 57-58, including one with the vocalisation u, I prefer to read la here. Both previous editors print velāpaṟṟu in their texts, but PS uses Celāpaṟṟu in his discussion. °saṁbhūto viddamayyaḥ °saṁbhūto ciddamayyaḥ The first character of the name does indeed look like ci (see also the previous entry on velapaṟṟu). However, since the names Viddamayya, Viddamiya and Viddamaśarman are attested in several related inscriptions, while I know of no occurrence of Ciddamayya (although Cīḍamārya exists), 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. jaāto jātyā bhūdeva- bhūdevaḥ mācemāṁbāyāṁ mācemāṁbāyāṁ macemāṁbāyāṁ The short a in PS is probably a typo. I see no original anusvāra here. The composer's intent may also have been mācemāṁbāyāḥ. It may also be possible to read the name as Māvemāṁbā (compare the notes to lines 45 and 46 above). The e must be short for the line to be metrical. sūnur ddommana- sūnur ddommana- -śgunoṇa- -śguṇa- saṁpanneas saṁpaṇnnas durāpe durāpeo ācāciraḥ ācāviraḥ kākartya- kākarttya- -guṇḍyanaṁ The top of the subscript y bends to the right, so the character looks like ṇḍyā. The intent was clearly ṇḍya. vīram I accept the reading of both previous editors, but the engraved character is definitely not vī. By the shape, I would read it as an initial Ai, but this is uninterpretable in the context (unless Aiṟam was intended, in the meaning "descendant of Eṟiya", but aside from the spelling, this is also problematic with respect to sandhi). It is thus most likely that the intent was vīram; dhīram may also be possible, but is less likely, as the top of the body is fully closed. āhappāḫpati- āhaḥppāati- āharppati- I assume that the upper p with the vowel mark (which PS reads as a repha) is the engraver's misinterpretation of a predrawn upadhmānīya. This presupposes a much smaller scribal error than R's equivalent emendation and is preferable to PS's non-standard reading. -ṣprabhaṁ -prabhaṁ karppaṭam karppaṭam The character is slightly damaged, but the r is definitely present, although it looks rather like an ā marker. ābapddhaṁ ābaddhaṁ ārabdhaṁ The received reading is unequivocal in spite of some damage. The body of the conjunct has a flat headmark clearly distinct from the curly top of the preceding ba. The intended word may have been either previous editor's reading. I prefer ābaddhaṁ partly because it presupposes a simple scribal mistake (misinterpreting a predrawn d as p), and partly because of the attestation of baddha-karppaṭakaḥ in line 21 of the Cevuru plates of Amma I. gaIty- gaty- Given that ga is repeatedly inscribed instead of initial I throughout the inscription (l37, l56), I fully endorse PS's emendation. karppaṭi- kappārppraṭī- R's emendation to rppra seems to be a typo for rppa. His original reading is due to the horizontal formation of the superscript repha. anupṣṭhānam anuṣṭṭhānam anuṣtaṭhānam PS's t and a are probably typos; his actual reading would have been indentical to R's. I disagree with both previous editors: the principal consonant is clearly p, while the subscript consonant looks like v but given that the intent must have been ṣṭhā, it can easily be accepted as ṭh (while ṭ is impossible). ihdaṁ iha idaṁ The locus is damaged, but the received reading is quite unequivocal. Since iha is unmetrical, the intent was probably idam. tasmeai tasmai tasme R's editor suggests emendation to tasmai. dotmmana-nāmne dotmāna-nāmne The expected emendation is also suggested by R's editor. R's reading of tmā cannot be excluded (but would still have to be emended to mma), and the apparent ā marker seems to me rather to be an ornamental extension of the headmark, which is also mirrored on the left side. 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 PS'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 that this was not the intent of the composer here. graāmas grāmas sarvva- sarvva- sarvva- The superscript r is horizontal, resembling ā. -nimitta -nimittaṁ There is definitely no anusvāra here. Since practically all related grants that mention an occasion use nimitte (with a few occurrences of nimittena and none, that I know of, of nimittam), I think an omitted e marker or non-standard sandhi is more likely than an omitted anusvāra. Agrahārīkr̥tyāttachasmābhir Agrahārīkr̥tyāttacasmābhir ddatta datta pūmrvvataḥ pūrvvataḥ koḍupulūvri I adopt the emendation of the Telugu faith in the previous editors. laṁjiyamavāḍa- laṁjayamāḍa- laṁjiyavāḍa- ṇenairr̥tiyataḥ nairr̥tiyataḥ nairr̥titaḥ pallikaṇḍi- pallikaṇṭi- pallikaṇṭī- muyyalu- The u of lu seems to have been engraved twice, once fully below the body (which may have been deleted), and a second time starting from the bottom right of the body and rising up on the right. puluguḍla-guṇṭha pūlagudla-guṇṭa puluguḍla-guṇṭa -saṁyukto -saṁyukto bahubhimr vvasudhā bahubhir vvasudhā dattā dattā lbahubhiś bahubhiś ṣaṣṭiṁ ṣaṣṭi- A probable anusvāra is visible in the groove where the rim begins. -lvarṣa- -varṣa- viṣṭhāyāṁ viṣṭṭhāyāṁ viṣṭaṭhāyāṁ Aside from the body, this character is largely obliterated. I see no reason to doubt that correct ṣṭhā was engraved. jaāyate jāyate kur̥miḥ kr̥miḥ kr̥rimiḥ There is definitely a typo in PS's edition. His intended reading and emendation may have been the same as mine. sarvvaṁān sarvvān The engraver apparently mistook the downward bend of the repha (i.e. the ā marker) for an anusvāra. pārtthivendrān pārthivendrān pārtthivendrān bhaviadbhiḥ bhavadbhiḥ

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, with his rays that are like a sword with the sword held in his hand, shatters the darkness consisting of rogue bands and audacious soldiersThere are problems with the received text here (see the apparatus to line 36), but the composer’s intent was probably something along these lines. there was born in that family Guṇḍiya Rāṣṭrakūṭa, whose inherent conduct was inclined to follow the true path respected by gentlemen.

“Having today attained anugata and passed through the gateway of honour śrīdvāra of the noble kings of the Calukya dynasty, I shall not pass through the gateway of another suzerain”—so saying, he took up residence in Vāṭa, from where the Vallabha lord had departed.This stanza is all but incomprehensible, with several scribal blunders of which some afford no straightforward correction. My translation rests on a number of tentative emendations. 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 virocana 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.The text of this stanza is corrupt and the translation may be inaccurate. See the apparatus to line 43.

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 Velapaṟṟu: 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.

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 Laṁjiyavāḍa. To the southwest, the river Munna. To the west, Pallikaṇḍi-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 puluguḍlaEstienne-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.