rythayo śrī sata śā koṭī namaḥś śīvăya bhaṭāra parameśvara sarvvadaiva kusamvaḥhi ya

jāmiḥ Inan vīṣnāṇḍa ḍapūnta selendranamaḥ santanū namāṇḍa bāpaṇḍa bhadravati namaḥṇḍa Ayaṇḍa sampūrṇa namaṇḍa viniṇḍa selendranamaḥ mamāgappāsarlempevāṅiḥ

rythayo ryayoṁ The spelling ryayon was a misprint in the 1966 publication, unfortunately left uncorrected by the editors in the 2012 publictaion. vīṣnāṇḍa dhiṣnānda sampūrṇa sampūla

homage to Śiva, sovereign lord! I ever and always bow down to Him!

There are the relatives: his father in-law ? vīṣna Milord Selendranamaḥ; called Santanū, his father; called Bhadravatī, his mother; called Sampūrṇa, his wife. Selendranamaḥ

Line 2 is only engraved on its left half.

In line 5, the expression sarvvadaiva, from Sanskrit, can be analyzed as sarvadā+eva ever and always, or it can be a slightly deviant spelling of sarvadeva all gods. The former option seems more likely in the context. The element ku (Boechari considered that it might be read kna), is taken here as marking the agent of a transitive verb sembah-i, but it could theoretically be a possessive suffix. We observe orthographic doubling of the base-final consonant. It would be possible to assume glide and irrealis suffix (kusambaḥhiya = kusembahia), but I assume that ya is a separate word, namely an anaphoric pronoun marking the object of the verb. Boechari here assumed the word hiyaṁ god, which is also a viable option. It would give us the Old Malay form of sembahyang — also attested in the 9th-century Old Javanese Landa inscription.

At the start of line 6, I expect a word such as relative, to cover the group that follows. This is why I restore the word jāmi, which has precisely this sense in Sanskrit. But the j is entirely conjectural, and the unexpected final ḥ would then seem to be another instance of the unexpected appearance of this sound in the repeated forms namaḥ that must mean nāma name. After demonstrative inan, I read vīṣṇāṇḍa, and imagine this to be a form of Malay besan. Cf. the inscriptions N. 138 and Gandasuli for the kinship terms ayāṇḍa and bapāṇḍa.

If my division of words is correct, selendranamaḥ is a very surprising name, from the Sanskrit point of view. Either is is for śailendranāma named Śailendra, in which case the ḥ is unexpected; or it is for śailendranamaḥ Śailendra-homage, in which case it makes no sense. But if we separate selendra namaḥ, we seem to run into other problems.

In line 11, it would also be possible to read vājīḥ. The rest of the reading seems fairly secure. Could we have here an irrealis verb-from ma-magap-a, or should the words be split mamāgap pasar lempe? The first word, however it is precisely to be delimited, seems reminiscent of the maṅgap forms discussed in 247-251. For the rest, I have no idea at all.

First edited in an English-language publication by Boechari (), which was marred by typographical limitations and some errors suspected to be misprints; Boechari's edition is cited here after the more reliable version included in his collected papers (). The present revised edition by Arlo Griffiths (2025) based on the EFEO estampage n. 2149 and photogrammetry by Adeline Levivier.