siddham· ☉ namo maheśvaraM Umāñ ca Agniñ ca brahmāṇaṁ viṣṇum eva ca namo prir̥thivīṁ vāyur ākatham apaḥjyotiś ca pañcamaM; namaskr̥tvāham icchāmi sarvva-viśeṣair anudhyātaMḥ duṣkr̥taṁ me vyapohantu sukr̥tena yunantu ca

bhadreśvara-svāmi-pādānudhyātena cāsmākaṁ mahārājñā bhadravarmmaṇā manuṣyam adhruvaṁ jñātvā bhadreśvarāya Akṣayī nīvī dattā yathā pūrvvataḥ sulaha-parvvata dakṣiṇena mahā-parvvata paścimena kucoka-parvvata Uttareṇa mahānadī parimāṇābbhyantarā sa-kuṭumbi-janā bhūmir dattā ; janapada-maryyādā ṣaḍbhāge pi svāminā daśa-bhāgenānugr̥hītā devasya deyaā Iti tad eva yathābhilikhitam akurvvato devasya ; janma-prabhr̥ti dharmma-prasavo yaḥ ; tat-phalam bhadravarmmaṇaḥ ; yadi kaś cid aākramya harati vināśayati vā ; mukta-doṣāḥ kuṭumbinaḥ ; tasyoparī adharmmaḥ syāT ; cāturvvaidyaṁ rājānaṁ rājamātram bvā saha kuṭumbibhiḥ ; vijñāpayāmi mamānukampārtthaṁ yan mayā dattaṁ mā vināśayathata yadi vināśayatha janmani janmani vo yat sukr̥taṁ tan mama syāT yac ca mama duṣkrir̥taṁ tad yuṣmākaṁ syāT ; Atha samyak paripālayatha tad yuṣmaākam aeva dharmmaḥ syād iti ; bhūyo vijñāpayāmi; ya Iha prabhavati; Ete deva-muṣṭi-kārakāḥ teṣāṅ karmma na kārayitavyaṁ; syāc cora-bhayaṁ skandhāvāra-tvaduritaṁ vā rāja-kula-kāryyam anuṣṭheyaM macaguro 'smākaṁ rājānaM; yat kiñ cit puṣpa-phalaṅ gr̥hyaṁ pādeṣu paāditavyam iti me mahila-putra-natr̥ka-panatr̥ka-jāmāduko vā vijñāpayāmi; yaṁn mayā kr̥tam anupālayeta vaḥ; Iha paratra ca; mama karmma-phalaṁ bhaviṣyati; tubhyaṁ prabhāva Ahannisvāreto; dharmmo bhaviṣyati ya Anupālayati tasyaiṣa dharmmo yo nānupālayati; mā vināśayatu; Atha vināśayati tasya bhadreśvarasvāmiī jānāti

☉ sign in the form of a triśūla. ☉ svastiFinot omits the spiral-shaped fleuron and inserts after svasti the sign || which is not actually there.sasureśamukhyāthe reading with short a in sa is uncertain. Judging only by the estampage, one might be inclined to read sā, but this would be unmetrical. See the note to our translation. maheśvaraM Finot notes that il y avait peut-être un m ascrit à la suite de ce mot. It seems more than likely that the sign is indeed to be read as M. agn[i]ñ ca pra ... brahmāṇaṁ viṣṇum brahmāṇaṁ viṣṇum ākatham apaḥ understand ākāśam āpaḥ with Finot. The akṣaras tha and śa are sufficiently similar to be confused, but one cannot here read śa without emendation. jyotiś Ce mot est peu distinct sur le fac-simile, mais il est à peu près sûr, d'après l'examen de la pierre Finot. duṣkr̥taṁ duṣkr̥[tka]rmma sukr̥tena yunantu ca sukr̥to nayutantudā Finot comments: Bien que les lettres principales de cette ligne soient assez distinctes, le lecture en est problématique, spécialement celle du mot que je lis, faute de mieux, nayutantudā (= niyutaṁtudā).'' The reading adopted here was proposed to me by Yuko Yokochi. -pādānudhyātena -pādānudhyānena mahārājñā mahārājena manuṣyam adhruvaṁmānuṣyam adhvānaṁyathā pūrvvataḥ yathājñānam Correction to pūrvveṇa is implied in BEFEO 18 no. 10, p.~14. C. 147, line 1, indeed supports the latter reading, but there is no trace here of any e joined to rvv. So little is visible on stone and estampage that final the ending -taḥ proposed here is only a diagnostic conjecture, in place of which -syām· would be acceptable as well. sulaha-parvvata sulaha-parvvato mahā-parvvata mahā-parvvataḥ kucoka- kucaka- Cf.~C.~147, and Finot observation in BEFEO 18 no 10, p.~14 n.~2: J'avais lu précédemment Kucaka, mais la voyelle o est nettement indiquée sur la copie. Il s'agit sans doute d'un nom indigène, peut-être Ku čơk, « l'auguste montagne ». From Finot's presentation of the matter, it is not clear whether this intends to correct his earlier reading of C.\ 72 or of C.\ 147, or both. mahānadī maryyādāḥ Cf.~C. 147, l.~4. Majumdar indeed reads ma(hānadī), but without any text-critical note. parimāṇābbhyantarā parimānābhyantarā bhūmir dattā Finot notes: Lire bhūmir; mais ce doit être une faute du texte, car il n'y a pas du d. deyaā deyā I see no mark of ā, but it must have been intended. tat-phalam bhadra° tatphalaṁ bhadra° rājānaṁrājamātram bvā rājānaṁ rājamātraṁ vā Cf.~Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa 2.94.19: eko 'py amātyo medhāvī śūro dakṣo vicakṣaṇaḥ| rājānaṁ rājamātraṁ vā prāpayen mahatīṁ śriyam. °nukampārtthaṁ °nukampārthaṁ vināśayathata vināśayata If the ending -tha is indeed what has been engraved, it must be emended to -ta. duṣkrir̥taṁ duṣkr̥taṁ yuṣmaākam aeva yuṣmākam eva Ete deva-muṣṭi-kārakāḥ deva-bali-kārakāḥ syāc cora-bhayaṁ skandhāvāra-tvaduritaṁ syād . ora............ ratrarataṁ anuṣṭheyaM anuṣṭheyam.. macaguro atha guro rājānaM rājāno.. kiñ cit puṣpa-phalaṅ gr̥hyaṁ pādeṣu paāditavyam kiñcit... phalāḍhyeṣu pādeṣu paditavyam iti me iti Although no traces of lost akṣaras are visible at the end of line 5 or the beginning of 6, it seems that ye must possibly be restored between these two words. -natr̥ka-panatr̥ka-jāmāduko This sequence is certainly corrupt. Yuko Yokochi has made the convincing suggestion to me of reading naptr̥ka-pranaptr̥ka-jāmātr̥kān. While what is readable on the stone cannot be read as such, it may be supposed that a reading such as that proposed by Yokochi stood in a source of which the composer of our inscription has access to an itself already corrupt copy. Line 6 was left entirely unread by Finot, who merely notes: Environ 27 askṣaras. m anupālayeta vaḥ; Iha paratra ca kuśalāyatanāḥ ; vahularatnaca Understand anupālyeta? Finot only read the first 12 akṣaras of this line. For the rest, he noted: Environ 16 askṣaras. Ahannisvāreto Ayan na svarato dharmmo bhaviṣyati dharmmabhava..... ya Anupālayati ...... pālayati dharmmo dharmmaḥ nānupālayati na tu pālati mā vināśayatu Abhināśayatu As already observed by Finot, the text seems to end abruptly.

Success! [Having paid] homage to Maheśvara and to Umā and to Agni, to Brahmā and to Viṣṇu; homage to earth, to air, to ether, to water, and to fire as fifth; having paid homage (to all of them), blessed by all qualities,The translation is mechanical. The text is certainly corrupt here, and a more intrusive emendation that the modification to anudhyātaḥ, also involving the hypermetrical sarvvaviśeṣair (for which one imagines saviśeṣair or sarvvadevair), is probably required. do I wish that they repel [from me] any sin, and join [me] with virtue.

And blessed by the feet of the Lord Bhadreśvara has our king Bhadravarman, realizing that human [existence] is impermanent,A similar expression is a standard element in a formula in the corresponding portions of all charters of the Maitraka dynasty of present Gujarat in India, during the period of whose reign that of Bhadravarman in Campā must have fallen. The formula is as follows: āgāminr̥patibhiś cānityāny aiśvaryyāṇy asthiraṁ mānuṣyaṁ sāmānyaṁ ca bhūmidānaphalam avagacchadbhir .... Very rarely, the element that concerns us is expressed in still more closely corresponding manner: asthiram mānuṣyaṁ cāvekṣya. I have not found anything comparable in other contemporary Indian epigraphical corpora. given a permanent endowment (akṣayī nīvī) to Bhadeśvara.

Namely, land has been given, along with the cultivators, within the boundaries: East mount Sulaha, South the great mountain, West mount Kucoka, North the great river. Even though the standard is at one sixth share, [the land] has been supported by the Lord with [a lower standard, namely] a tenth share, to be given to the god.

The production of merit from birth onwards by the one who does not act on behalf of the god in accordance with this written (edict), his fruits (of merit) belong to Bhadravarman. If some one encroaches and seizes (any part of the endowment), the cultivators are free of blame. The demerit would rest on him.

I request any member of the community of (Brahmins learned in) the four Vedas, any (future) king or claimant, together with the cultivators, out of sympathy with myself not to destroy that which I have given. If you destroy it, whatever merit is yours in every birth, that will belong to me, and what sin I have, that will belong to you. If you protect it properly, the merit will be yours alone.

Furthermore I request him who holds power here (in the future): they are robbers of (what belongs to) the god. Their deed should not be encouraged to be done! Should there be danger of thieves, or misfortune of the army, the royal family's duty is to be carried out. \ldots\ our king. If some fruits or flowers are to be taken, they must (first) be dropped at (the Lord's) feet.

I request my wife (or: wives), sons, grandsons, great-grandsons and (vā) sons-in-law: whatever I have done, may that be maintained by you, (so that) the fruit of action will accrue to me! For you ... power ... will accrue merit from this. He who maintains it, to him does the merit belong. He who does not maintain it, let him not destroy it. If he does destroy it, Lord Bhadreśvara knows it.

TO BE SUPPLIED

First published, with French translation, in 187-191, based on an uninked estampage, photographs and personal inspection of the stone. The edition, with English translation, in 4-8 largely follows Finot, but contains a small number of original readings. The publication in English by 2-4 as well as the one in Japanese by 13-7 seem to follow that of Majumdar. Majumdar's readings are not cited systematically in the edition below, which is based on inspection of the set of inked estampages EFEO and of the stone itself, in December 2010. The signs C· render the subscript consonants that function as C-virāma in this inscription.

187-191 402180-18213-14