Cipḷūṇ plates of Pulakeśin II

Metadata

Current Version:  draft, 2024-06-28Z

Editor:   Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSBadamiCalukya00006

Hand Description:

Halantas. The halanta T in L8 is a small subscript form with a horizontal line above. L13, slightly reduced, aligned with footline, and has a large horizontal line above it, at or slightly above headline height. L14, also slightly reduced, but is aligned to the headline, and its horizontal line is higher up. L16, is also slightly reduced, aligned to the footline, with a horizontal above, aligned to headline.

Original punctuation. L18. The punctuation mark after ādadīta is indistinct in the scan; if may be a single vertical followed by a single horizontal, but that would be unique. Fleet transliterates it as a double daṇḍa. The mark after mahīyate l19 mark may be a progression of diminishing verticals like that at the very end. The spiral at the end, which Fleet transcribes as om, is a dextrorse spiral starting downward from the centre and ending around 10 o’clock after about one and a half circles. The sign following it seems to be a series of 5 or so progressively shortening verticals.

---

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

mānavya-sago ²t(rā)ṇ(ā)ṁ (hāri)ti-putrāṇā⟨ṁ⟩ c¡i!(lukyā)n(ā)m an⟨v⟩avāye vātā¡b!yāḫ prathama-vidhātur anekāddhvarāvabhr̥tha-snāna-samārdr¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥ta-puṇya-m¿a?⟨ū⟩rtt(eḥ?) sarvva-
³-maṅgalāyatanasya vallabha-nr̥pateẖ k¿i?⟨ī⟩¿rty?ā yuktasya k¿i?⟨ī⟩rttivarmmaṇaḫ putraḥ samanuṣṭhita-pati-devatā-vrata-kamalālayā-vipula-payo-
⁴dhara-vi¿p?⟨l⟩upta-candanālepaḥ surendra-mandira-gata-kinnarāṅgan(o)pagīyamāna-vimala-kīrttiḥ sva-radana-kuliśa-vibhinna-ripu-hr̥dayo-
⁵dgat¿ā?⟨a⟩-rudhira-dhārā-snapita-mastaka-matta-mātaṅgodaya-parvvata-taruṇa-raviḥ nigr̥hīta-duṣṭa-janaḫ parigr̥hīta-vidvat-sa¿h?⟨kh⟩o [’]nu-
⁶gr̥hīta-bhr̥tya-varggaḥ kara-gata-khaḍgottr̥tta-para-nr̥pa-danti-dantotthita-vahni-śikhoddīpita-raṇa-bhūmir vvara-yuvati-nayana-sāyakai-
⁷ka-lakṣo vividha-śāstrārttha-tatva-vicāra-kṣama-sūkṣma-buddhiś calukya-kula-tilakaḥ sarvva-sad-guṇāśrayo ripu-daridraś śrī-satyāśrayo nāma[.]

sa mahīpatir avaretikā-vi¿m?⟨ṣ⟩aya-vāsinas sa-
⁹mājñāpayati yathāyaṁ mama mātulas samadhigatāryya-mārgg¿a U?⟨o⟩nmā◯rggaḥ sva-vikkrama-kkraya-kkrīta-viśāla-kīrtti-vitāna-naddha-sarvva-digantara(ḥ?)
¹⁰sendrakāṇāṁ tilaka-bhūtaḫ parama-māheśvaraś śrī-vallabha-senāna◯ndarājas ¡tena rājñā! mātā-pitror ātmanaś ca puṇyopacayārttha(ṁ?)
^{⎘ plate 2r 11} Ātreya-sagotrāya kr̥ṣṇasvāmi-sūnave m{m}aheśvarāyeṣṭa-yajñ(ā?)◯ya Āmravaṭavaka-grāmo tathā ⟨⟨(v/c)ārubennāyāṁ⟩⟩ Av⟦ā⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩ñcapalyāṁ vi(ṁ?)śati-
¹²ś cāṭ¿ā?⟨a⟩-bhaṭa-dūta-rāja-puru¿m?⟨ṣ⟩āṇām apraveśanīyaṁ◯ dvayam etat ¡prādāT![.]

Uktaṁ ca(|)

²⁰(s)vasty astu lekhaka-vācaka-śrotr̥bhyaḥ(||) spiralRgomutraFinalBars

Apparatus

¹ (na?)ta-(na?) [?2×] (ṇa?) [?4×] ṇa- ◇ nata-na [ ⏑  ⏑  ⏑ ] ṇa [ ⏑  ⏑  ⏑  ⏑ ] ṇa- JFF • The gap as a whole is more likely only 7 characters long, and if Fleet’s ṇa in the middle of this gap is where I think I see it in the rubbing (straight above tu in vidhātur), then there are more likely to be only 2, not 3 lost characters before it. I thus prefer to mark up lacunae of approximate length and unknown prosody, since the single long syllable required could be in multiple places. The last syllables of the gap may be tentatively restored as cara to produce caraṇa-nakha, which may have also been Fleet’s opinion, since he has "toenails" in his translation.
² -m¿a?⟨ū⟩rtt(eḥ?) ◇ -¿matti|?⟨mūrtteḥ⟩ JFF • What Fleet reads as a daṇḍa could, at least on the basis of the scanned estampage, be a visarga. The mark atop tt looks more like a repha (with a small but distinct headmark of its own) and an e marker on top of that, than an i marker.
⁴ °āṅgan(o)pagīyamāna- ◇ °āṅgan¿ā?⟨o⟩pagīyamāna- JFF • Here too I prefer to give the engraver the benefit of doubt: it is plausible to assume that an o mātrā was present, and its left arm is mostly obliterated.
⁸ ś¿o?⟨a⟩trūṇā⟨ṁ⟩ JFF • Perhaps a partial eyeskip for śauryyeṇa.
⁹ -mārgg¿a U?⟨o⟩nmā◯rggaḥ JFF • I retain Fleet’s emendation because I see no way of construing unmārggaḥ as a separate adjective to Senānanda. Still, it is a strange mistake to make. However, hr̥dayodgatā rudhira-dhārā (for hr̥dayodgata-rudhira-dhārā) may be a parallel to it, both indicating that the scribe had some knowledge of Sanskrit, but did not fully understand the text.
¹¹ -sūnave m{m}aheśvarāye° • It seems possible that this is a correction from sunor mmaheśvarāye°. Neither an o nor a repha can be made out in the scan, but ve is squeezed into a very small space, no larger than what may have been left blank initially between na and mma. — ¹¹ ⟨⟨(v/c)ārubennāyāṁ⟩⟩ • The locus of the insertion is marked by a large kākapada shaped like a cross or dagger. The text to be is inserted is in the blank space after the end of the last line at the bottom of the plate. The first character is completely indistinct in the scan, only its ā mātrā and headmark are visible. Fleet’s primary reading is vā, with cā noted in brackets with a question mark.
¹³ mahītale| ◇ mahītale{ḥ}[.] JFF • The sign after le is a short double horizontal, quite unlike most visargas up to this point. However, the definite punctuation mark after phalaṁ in l15 is a double vertical, and some visargas on this second plate are similar: that of ādibhiḥ in l14 is neither a proper double circle, nor a double dash; that after bhūmidaḥ in l15 is a double dash. I still prefer to read this one as a punctuation mark.
¹⁶ yudhiṣṭhira{ḥ} JFF • Here I agree with Fleet about the presence of a superfluous visarga (rather than a punctuation mark). The rubbing is unclear, but the sign seems to be a double circle.
¹⁷ pacyate| ◇ pacyate{ḥ}[.] JFF • See note to line 13 above.
¹⁸ -karāṇi| ◇ karāṇi JFF • Here Fleet reads no visarga, though a double dash is definitely present.
¹⁹ (ph)āla- ◇ ¿ḍh?⟨ph⟩āla JFF • Fleet suggests emending to phāla or hāla. The character is unclear in the scan, but I think ḍhā and phā would be very hard to distinguish even in a clear facsimile, so I show this as an unclear phā, giving the engraver the benefit of the doubt. An originally engraved hā seems unlikely.

Translation by Fleet 1894-1895

Victorious is the footprint, interspersed with the brightness of the toe-nails … … … bowed down, of (the god) Viṣṇu, the creator of the (three) worlds, who traversed the whole universe in three strides!

^1-3— In the lineage of the , who are of the gotra [and] are ,— of (I.), the first maker of , whose pious form was thoroughly well moistened by ablutions performed after celebrating many sacrifices, who was the abode of all auspiciousness, who was the king of favourites, [and] who was endowed with fame, the son [is]—

^3-7— That ornament of the family of the , that asylum of all good qualities, that person who has but few foes, the glorious -(Pulikeśin II) by name, whose besmearing with sandal-wood oil is rubbed off by (the clinging of) the bulky breasts of the goddess of fortune who practises (towards him) the vow of treating a husband like a god; whose pure fame is belong^↓1 sung by the women of the Kinnaras in the hall of (Indra) the lord of the gods; who is a very sun just risen above the mountain of dawn which is [his] elephant, infuriated with rut, the head of which is bathed in the trickling stream of blood that flows forth from the hearts of the enemies which are cleft open by the thunderbold that is its tusk; who punishes wicked people; who receives with hospitality learned people and friends; who confers favours upon servants; who has lit up the field of battle with the flames of the fire that rises from the tusks of the elephants of the hostile kings which are split by the sword that is held in [his] hand; who is the sole aim of the arrows which are the eyes of nice young women; whose keen intellect is eager to examine the essence of the meaning of various Śāstras;

[and] who, (indeed) a king, having bravely planted [his] footstep over [his] enemies, has taught the goddess of fortune, who is fickle by nature, the observances of a true and faithful wife.

^8-12— He, the king, issues a command to the inhabitants of the to this effect:—“My maternal uncle, the ornament of the Sendrakas, the most devout worshipper of (the god) , , who has acquired (a knowledge of all) the proper and improper practices of noble people, [and] who has covered all the spaces between the quarters of the compass with the canopy of [his] fame that was purchased by the price of his valour,—he, the king, in order to increase the religious merit of [his] parents and of himself, has given to , the son of , of the gotra, who has performed sacrifices, these two things, free from the right of entry by the irregular and regular troops, by messengers, and by the king’s servants,—[viz.] the village of , and twenty at (the village of) on the (river) .^↓2

Let all kings, born in my race, and other rulers of the earth, and (all) feudatory chiefs in the world, be made to know [that] any ruler of the earth who may obstruct the enjoyment of this (grant),—to him will attach the penalty of one who commits the five sins.”^↓3

¹⁴—And it has been said:—

The earth has been enjoyed by many kings, commencing with Sagara; whosoever at any time possesses the earth, to him belongs, at that time, the reward (of this grant that is now made, if he continue it)!

The giver of land enjoys happiness in heaven for sixty thousand years; [but] the confiscator (of a grant), and he who assents to (an act of confiscation), shall dwell for the same number of years in hell!

O Yudhiṣṭhira, best of kings, carefully preserve land that has previously been given to the twice-born; (verily) the preservation (of a grant) is more meritorious than making a grant!

Whosoever confiscates land that has been given, whether by himself or by another,—he is born as a worm in ordure,^↓4 and is consumed together with [his] deceased ancestors!

Those grants, productive of religion and wealth and fame, which have been formerly given here (on earth) by (previous) kings, [are] like worn-out garlands; verily, what good man would take them back again?

He who grants land, (whether simply) ploughed, (or) planted with seed, (or) full of crops,—he is treated with honour in heaven, for as long as the worlds, created by the sun, endure!

²⁰—Let prosperity attend the writer, the reader, and the hearers! Om!

Translation into French by Estienne-Monod 2008

Il est le créatuer : vainqueur est le pied de Viṣṇu, que couronnent les rayons émanant de ses ongles, lui qui a traversé l’univers entier en trois pas * * *

^1-7Appartenant à la lignée des Calukya, du gotra de Manu, fils de Hāriti, il est le fils de Kīrtivarman, - premier fondateur de Vātāpī, dont le corps^↓5 saint fut lavé par le bain purificatoire des nombreux sacrifices, temple de tous les bons augures, seigneur favori, pourvu de gloire. De Kamalālayā, qui a (envers lui) accompli le vœu d’être une épouse fidèle, les seins charnus ont essuyé l’onguent de santal (étalé) sur sa poitrine. Sa gloire immaculée s’unissait^↓6 aux femmes des Kinnara venues dans le pavillon du roi des dieux, soleil levant sur cette montagne d’orient qu’est son éléphant furieux, dont la tête est baignée par les flots de sang s’écoulant de la poitrine des ennemis, éventrée par les haches que sont ses défenses. Il réprime les mauvais hommes, accueille les savants et les amis, gratifie l’armée des serviteurs. Tranchées par l’épée que tient sa main, les défenses des éléphants ennemis émettent des flammes dont s’embrase le champ de bataille. Unique cible des flèches que sont les yeux des belles jeunes femmes, lui dont l’esprit subtil est apte à examiner l’essence de la signification des différentes sciences, ornement de la lignée des Calukya, refuge de toutes les saintes vertues, dépourvu d’ennemi, portant le nom illustre de Satyāśraya,

ce roi, qui posa le pied avec bravoure sur ses ennemis, le roi apprit à Lakṣmī, frivole par sa nature, à être une épouse fidèle et dévouée.

^8-12Ce maître de la terre ordonne aux habitants du viṣaya d’Avaretikā ceci : mon oncle maternel que voici, ayant compris ce que sont le bon et le mauvais chemins pour les hommes nobles, ayant ceint tous les horizons du dais qu’est sa vaste gloire, achetée au prix de son propre courage, être qui est l’ornement des Sendraka, grand dévôt de Maheśvara, l’illustreVallabha Senānandarājas, ce roi,^↓7 pour accroître les mérites de sa mère et de son père, ainsi que les siens, a donné au fils de Kr̥ṣṇasvāmi, du gotra des Ātreya, à Maheśvara, qui accomplit des sacrifices, le village d’Āmravaṭavaka ainsi que vingt (arpents de terre) dans Avañcapali sur les bord de la Vārubennā,^↓8 deux biens dont l’entrée est interdite aux troupes régulières et irrégulières, aux messagers et aux serviteurs du roi.

Qu’on fasse savoir à tous les rois nés dans ma lignée et aux autres protecteurs de la terre, ainsi qu’aux feudataires dans le monde :

quel que soit le roi qui empêche la jouissance de ceci il recevra le fruit de celui qui commet les cinq crimes fondamentaux.

¹⁴Et on dit :

beaucoup de rois ont joui de la terre, Sagara le premier ; celui qui possède la terre en possède le fruit.

Celui qui donne une terre vit heureux dans le ciel pendant six mille années, celui qui l’interrompt et celui qui le permet vivent dans l’enfer pendant le même nombre d’année.

Autrefois donnée aux deux-fois-nés, ô Yudhiṣṭhira, protège avec soin cette terre ô le meilleur des possesseurs de la terre, la préservation d’une terre est plus méritoire que le don !

Qu’elle soit donnée par lui ou par un autre, celui qui prend une terre renaît ver de terre dans les excréments et se consume avec ses ancêtres.

Autrefois en ce monde des rois firent des dons, qui engendrent dharma, artha et gloire, semblables à des guirlandes usées, quel homme de bien s’en emparerait ?

Celui qui donne une terre labourée, ensemencée et couverte de céréales, aussi longtemps que les mondes créés par le soleil, est honoré dans le ciel.

²⁰Prospérité aux graveurs, récitants et auditeurs^↓9 ! om !

Commentary

¹Fleet shows all transliterated characters as clear and present; I’m marking up unclear and restoration on the basis of the scanned rubbing, which is quite poor. More may be legible in the original rubbing.

⁶PEM on -ottr̥tta: Cette forme de l’adjectif verbal de TR̥D- n’est pas recensée, la forme attendue est tr̥ṇṇa.

¹⁰Fleet: emend tena rājñā to sa rājā OR emend prādāt (l12) to pradattam. I choose not to make either emendation in the text, but indeed, one or the other is required to correct the syntax.

Bibliography

Edited by J. F. Fleet (1894-1895) with a translation and inked estampages. Fleet says the plates were once edited by Bhagwanlal Indraji, whose paper on them was sent to the BBRAS and mislaid. Fleet stumbled on the original plates in 1889 in the library of the BBRAS and re-edited them.^↓10 The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Fleet’s edition with the published facsimile.

Primary

Secondary

Notes

↑1. This must be a typo for ‘being’.
↑2. Or, perhaps, Cārubennā. — The text indicates an allotment of land, measured by twenty nivartanas or some other measure so well known that it was thought unnecessary to specify it. [DB: I do not know why Fleet is so sure that this is a river.]
↑3. Fleet probably meant “who commits (the five) great sins” here. It is not like him to translate so loosely.
↑4. Fleet is lax again; the text has śvaviṣṭhāyām, not sa viṣṭhāyāṁ.
↑5. ou si l’on retient la leçon mateḥ : « dont la pensée ». Mais ceci est peu vraisemblable car dans le corpus on rencontre à cette place vapus-.
↑6. PEM reads kinnarāṅgaṇā-patīyamāna in line 4. The reading is clearly wrong, but it seems to be the basis of this translation.
↑7. anacoluthe : le donataire est indiqué au nominatif puis à l’instrumental, puis l’objet est au nominatif mais le verbe transitif est à la voix active.Cette erreur de construction semble démontrer que l’auteur de la praśasti est différent, et plus instruit en sanskrit, que celui de la partie opératoire.
↑8. Le texte est elliptique, le nombre viṁśatiś évoque sans doute une mesure connue du rédacteur (N. D. T.). Selon Fleet, Avañcapalī est un village.
↑9. Mention très rare et très intéressante qui prouverait que les inscriptions étaient lues à haute voix. On trouve la même mention dans l’inscription n° 3 sur rocher de Pulakeśin II.
↑10. Incidentally, this means that EI3, theoretically 1894-95, was published no sooner than 1889.