Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II

Metadata

Current Version:  draft, 2024-09-02Z

Editor:   Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00038

Hand Description:

Halantas. Final K is a full-sized ka with a curly tail in place of a headmark, found in l32. Final T is a full-sized ta-shape without a headmark, with a curly tail; specimens in l8, l30, l51 (with a headmark and a tail, possibly a correction from ta). Final N is a small and raised na-shape with a curly tail on top; specimens in l10 (indistinct), l18, l24, l37, l39, l52. Final M is a raised circle at headline height, larger than an anusvāra, with a curly tail on top; specimens in l5, l7, l9, l11, l12, l51, l54, l55 (with the tail starting toward the right and down, and curling upward only after a dip), l60. Jihvāmūlīya in l42, l51; upadhmānīya in l10, l41, l43, l46, l51.

Original punctuation marks are straight verticals of body height, with a headmark. The second bar of the punctuation mark after l3 kṣite seems to have a curly upward extension like a repha and should perhaps be re-classified as an ornate one. Both opening symbols are flowers comprised of a circle, four petals in the cardinal directions, and four spikes in the intercardinals, all detached from the centre.

Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is normally at headline height after the character to which it belongs. It is occasionally shifted above the next character, as in l43 °itaṁ. Medial o is normally written with the cursive single stroke (not indicated in the markup); a composite stroke like e and ā combined occurs e.g. in l8 (and probably l9) viṣṇuvarddhano. Au is distinguished from the cursive o by having a larger right hump, while o is more nearly symmetrical. L17 yauvarājya is a good example for a distinct au, but some instances are identical to some instances of o and are read in good faith as expected (see e.g. the duals in ll25-26, where the cursive marker that could be o or au occurs twice and is read as au, while a bipartite mark that can only be is used once, and is read as an erroneous o. Hypersandhi in l13 samāṣṭabhiḥ (for samā aṣṭabhiḥ). The consonant ṭa has a tail at the top right and thus looks like ṭā; a clear specimen is in l40 ghaṭa. I accept the previous editors’ reading ṭa and, where needed, its emendation to ṭā, but given that this form does not appear common in Indoskript, perhaps it should instead be read as ṭā and emended to ṭa where necessary. Rare initial Ī occurs in line 60.


Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

1śrī-tribhuvanāṁku(śa)

Plates

⎘ plate 1v 1floretQuatrefoil

I. Śārdūlavikrīdita
bhadraṁ syāt tri-jagan-nutāya satataṁ śrīmaj-jinendra-prabhor
uddāmātata-śāsa(n)¿(a)?⟨ā⟩2ya vilasad-dharmmāvalaṁbāya ca|
sāmartthyāt khalu yasya duṣkali-kr̥tā doṣāś ca mitthy¿ā?⟨o⟩dbhavā
du3r¡vv!r̥ttāni ca bhū-tale na vitatā śāntiś ca nityaṁ kṣite⟨ḥ⟩|

floretQuatrefoilsvasti śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-sa-
4ṁstūyamā◯na-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ k(au)śikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rā-
5jyānām mā◯tr̥-ga⟨ṇa⟩-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyāyināM bhagava-
6n-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaś¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥tārāti-maṇḍa(lā)-
7nām aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāM cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇos satyāśra-
8ya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano [’]ṣṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩daśa var¡ṣṣ!āṇi veṁgi-maṇḍalam apālayaT| tad-ā(tma)-
⎘ plate 2r 9(jo) ja(ya)si⟨ṁ⟩has trayastrimśataM| tad-anujendrarāja-nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava| tat-sūnu(r) mmaṁgi-yuvarāja-
10ḫ paṁcaviṁśatin⟨|⟩ ta(t-putro) jayasi(ṁ)has trayodaśa| tad-avaraja⟨ḥ⟩ kokkili¡ṣ! ṣaṇ-māsā(N)| tasya jyeṣ(ṭh)o bhrātā
11(viṣṇuvarddhanas tam uccāṭya sa)ptatriṁśataM{|} varṣṣāni⟨|⟩ tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩rako [’]ṣṭādaśa| tat-suto
12viṣṇuvarddhanaṣ ṣa◯ṭtriṁśataM

II. Anuṣṭubh
narendramr̥garājākhyo
mr̥garāja-parākramaḥ
vijayāditya13-bhūpāla¡ḥ!
catvāriṁśat ¡samāṣṭabhiḥ!

tat-putraḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddhano [’]dhyarddha-varṣaṁ| ta-
14t-putraḥ paracakrarāmāpara-nāmadheyaḥ

III. Śārdūlavikrīdita
hatvā bhūri-no(ḍ)aṁba-rāṣṭra-nr̥patiṁ maṁgim mahā-saṁga15r(e)
gaṁgān āśr¿ī?⟨i⟩ta-gaṁgak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭa-śikharān nirjjitya saḍ ḍ(ā)⟨ha⟩lā-
dhīśaṁ saṁkilam ugra-vallabha-yutaṁ yo bh(ā)16yayitvā catuś-
catvāriṁśatam abdakāṁś ca vijayadityo rarakṣa kṣitiṁ|

tad-anujasya labdha-
⎘ plate 2v 17-yauvarājyasya vikramādityasya sutaś cālukya-bh¿i?⟨ī⟩mas triṁśataṁ| tasyāgrajo vijayādityaḥ
18ṣaṇ māsāN| tad-agra-sūnur ammarājas sapta varṣāni| tat-sūnum ākramya bālaṁ cālukya-bh¿i?⟨ī⟩ma-pi-
19tr̥vya-yuddhamallasya nandanas tāla-nr̥po māsam ekaṁ|

IV. Sragdharā
nānā-sāmanta-va(r)ggair adhika-bala-yutai⟨r⟩ mma20tta-mātaṁga◯-sain¿o?⟨yai⟩r
hatvā taṁ tāla-rājaṁ viṣama-raṇa-mukhe sārddham atyugra-te21jāḥ
Ekābda◯ṁ samyag aṁbhonidhi-valaya-vr̥tām anvarakṣad dharitr¿i?⟨ī⟩
śrīmā¡n! cālukya22-bh¿i?⟨ī⟩ma-kṣitipati-tanayo vikramāditya-bhūpaḥ|

paścād ahamahamikayā vikramādityāsta-
23mane rākṣasā Iva prajā-bādhana-parā dāyāda-rājaputrā rājyābhilāṣiṇo yuddhamalla-rā-
24jamārttaṇḍa¡la!-kaṇṭhikā-vijayāditya-prabhr̥tayo vigrah¿i?⟨ī⟩-bhūtā ĀsaN| vigra-
⎘ plate 3r 25heṇaiva paṁca varṣāni gatāni[.] tataḥ

V. Anuṣṭubh
yo [’]vadhīd r(ā)jamārtaṇḍan
teṣ(āṁ) yena raṇe kr̥tau
ka26ṇṭhikā-vijayāditya-
-yuddhamall¿o?⟨au⟩ videśa-gau|

VI. Śārdūlavikrīdita
Anye mānya-mah¿i?⟨ī⟩bhr̥to [’]pi baha⟨⟨vo du⟩⟩27ṣṭa-pravr̥ttād dhatā¡ḥ!
deśopadrava-kāriṇaḥ prakaṭitāḥ kālālaya⟨ṁ⟩ prāpitāḥ
dor-dd¿e?⟨a⟩ṇḍeri28ta-maṇḍalā◯gra-latayā yasyogra-s¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁgrām¿a?⟨i⟩
vājñā tat-para-bh¿r̥?⟨ū⟩-nr̥pai⟨⟨ś ca⟩⟩29śiras¿o?⟨ā⟩ mā◯leva sandhāryyate|

VII. Śārdūlavikrīdita
nādagdh(v?)ā vinivarttate ripu-kulaṁ kopāgnir ā mūla30taḥ
śubhraṁ ya(s)ya yaśo na lokam akhilaṁ santiṣṭhate na bhramaT
dravyāṁbhodhara-rāśir apy anudina31ṁ santapyamāne bhr̥śaṁ
dāridryogratarātapena jana-sa⟨t⟩-sasye na no varṣati|

VIII. Anuṣṭubh
sa cālukya-bh¿i?⟨ī⟩ma-naptā
vi32jayāditya-nandana⟨ḥ⟩
dvādaś¡āvyāt! samās samya¡K!
rāja-bh¿i?⟨ī⟩mo dharātalaṁ|

IX. Āryā
tasya maheśvara-mū⎘ plate 3v 33⟨r⟩tter umā-samānākr̥teḥ kumārābhaḥ
lokam¿ā?⟨a⟩hādevyāḥ khalu yas samabhavad amma(rā)34jākhyaḥ|

X. Āryāgīti
jalajātapatra-cāmara-kalaśāṁkuśa-lakṣaṇāṁka-⟨ka⟩ra-caraṇa-talaḥ
lasad-ājā35nv-avalaṁbita-bhuja-yuga-parigho girīndra-sān¿u?⟨ū⟩raskaḥ|

XI. Āryāgīti
vidita-dharādhipa-vidyo vividhāyu36dha-kovido vi◯līnāri-kulaḥ
kari-turagāgama-kuśalo hara-caraṇāṁbhoja-yuga37la-madhupa◯ś śrīmāN|

XII. Lalitā
kavi-gāyaka-kalpataru⟨r⟩ dvija-muni-dīnāndha-bandhu-jana38-surabhiḥ
yācaka-gaṇa-cintāmaṇir avanīśa-maṇir mmahogra-mahasā dyumaṇiḥ|

XIII. Āryā
giri-rasa-vasu39-saṁkhyābde śaka-samaye mārggaśīrṣa-māse [’]smiN
kr̥ṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṇ⟩a-trayodaśa-dine bhr̥guvāre maitra-nakṣatre

XIV. Āryā
40dhanuṣi ravau ghaṭa-lagne dvādaśa-varṣe tu janmanaḥ paṭṭaṁ
yo [’]dhād udaya-girīndro ravim iva lokā⎘ plate 4r 41nurāgāya|

sa samasta-bhuvanāśraya-śrī-vij¿ā?⟨a⟩y¿a?⟨ā⟩ditya-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvaraḫ parama-(dhā)-
42⟨r⟩mmiko [’]mmarājaẖ kammanāṇḍu-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas sarvv¿a?⟨ā⟩n ittham ājñāpaya(ti)


43Āryyā|

XV. Mālinī
kira¿n?⟨ṇ⟩apuram adhākṣīt k¿ra?⟨r̥⟩¿ū?⟨ṇa⟩rāj¿a?⟨ā⟩s¿t?⟨th⟩itaṁ yas
tripuram iva mah⟦ā⟧⟨⟨e⟩⟩śaḫ pāṇḍaraṁga⟨ḥ⟩ pratāpī
tad iha (mu)44kha-saha¿ś?⟨s⟩r¿o?⟨ai⟩◯r anvitasyāpy aśakya⟨ṁ⟩
gaṇanam amala-kī⟨r⟩ttes tasya sat-sāhasānā¿ma?⟨M⟩|

tasy¿a?⟨ā⟩tma-
45jo niravadya◯dhavala⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩ kaṭaka-rāja-paṭṭa-śobhita-lalāṭa⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩[.] tat-tanayo vijayāditya-kaṭa-
46kādhipati⟨ḥ⟩|

¿vr̥ṁtta?⟨vr̥ttaṁ⟩

XVI. Sragdharā
tat-putro du⟨r⟩ggarājaḫ pravara-guṇa-nidhir ddhā⟨r⟩mmikas satyavād¿i?⟨ī⟩
tyāgī bho(gī) 47mahātmā samitiṣu vijayī vīra-lakṣmī-nivāsa⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩
cālukyānāṁ ca lakṣmyā yad-asir api sadā rakṣaṇā⟦ya⟧48y¿i?⟨ai⟩va vaṁśa⟨ḥ⟩
khyāto yasyāpi veṁgī-gadita-vara-mahā-maṇḍalālaṁbanāya|

XVII. Sugīti
tena kr̥to dharmmapu(rī-da)49kṣiṇa-diśi saj-jinālayaś cārutaraḥ
kaṭakābhara¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-śubhāṁkita-nāma ca pu¿n?⟨ṇ⟩yālayo va(sati)⟨ḥ⟩

XVIII. Lalitā
⎘ plate 4v 50śrī-yāp¡u!⟨a⟩nīya-¡śaṁha!⟨saṁgha⟩-prap¿u?⟨ū⟩jya-koṭimaḍuva-ga¿n?⟨ṇ⟩e(śa)-mukhyo yaḥ
pu¿n?⟨ṇ⟩¡ruha!⟨rha⟩-nandi-gaccho jinanandi-mu(n)¿(i)?⟨ī⟩śvaro [’](tha) ga51(ṇa)dhara-sadr̥śaḥ|

XIX. Upajāti
tasyāgra-śiṣyaḫ pratitho dh¿ā?⟨a⟩rāyāM|
div¿a?⟨ā⟩kar¿a?⟨ā⟩khyo muni-puṁgavo [’]bh¿u?⟨ū⟩T
yaẖ kevala-jñ¿a?⟨ā⟩na-nidhi52r mmahātmā
svayaṁ jinānāṁ ¿ś?⟨s⟩ad¡ri!⟨r̥⟩śo guṇaughe|

XX. Vallarī
śrīmān diradeva-munis sutapo-nidhir abhavad asya śiṣy¿a?⟨o⟩ dhīm¿a?⟨ā⟩N
ya53m prātihāryya◯-mahim¡ā!-saṁ¡pp!annam ivābhimanyate l¿e?⟨o⟩kaḥ

tad-adhiṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩ita-kaṭak¿a?⟨ā⟩bhara¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-jinālay(ā)-
54ya kaṭaka◯-rāja-vijñapt¿ai?⟨eḥ⟩ khaṇḍa-sphuṭa-navakr̥ty¿o?⟨ai⟩ ¿pi?⟨ba⟩li-prap¿u?⟨ū⟩jādi-sa¡t!ra-siddhy-artthaM| ¡yu!⟨U⟩-
55ttarāya¡n!⟨ṇ⟩a◯-nimitte maliyapūṇḍi nāma grāmaṭikā sarvva-kara-parihāra{M}m udaka-
56-p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvva⟨ṁ⟩ k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩tvā dattā|

Asya grāmāvadhayaḥ[.] pūrvvataḥ muṁjuny(a/u)ru| dakṣiṇataḥ yinimili| paści(ma)-
57taḥ kalvakuru| ¡yu!⟨U⟩ttarata(ḥ) dharmmavuramu| ¡ye!⟨E⟩tad-grāmasya kṣetrāvadhayaḥ[.] pūrvvataḥ gollani-
58-guṇṭha| Āgneyata(ḥ) r(ā)viyaperiya-ceṟuvu| dakṣiṇataḥ sthāpita-śilā| nair¡i!⟨r̥⟩tya⟨taḥ⟩ sth¿a?⟨ā⟩pita-śilaiva⟨|⟩
⎘ plate 5r 59paścimataḥ malkapaṟṟu koṟaboyu-taṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩kaś ca| vāyavyataḥ sth¿a?⟨ā⟩pita-śilaiva| Uttarataḥ duba-(ce)ṟuvu⟨|⟩ ¡Ī!⟨Ai⟩śānyāM| kalvakuri-E⟨r⟩vvoka-ceni-s¿i?⟨ī⟩maiva sīmā|

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

3 kṣite⟨ḥ⟩ EHkṣit¿i?⟨e⟩⟨ḥ⟩ BVC • The e is clear in the estampage, though not in the photo.
9 (jo) ja(ya)si⟨ṁ⟩has • Though shown as clear by both editors, the first and third character in this line are vague in both surrogates available to me and ya occupies fairly narrow space. Some correction may have taken place here, possibly from a haplographic jayasiha or joyasiha.
10 ta(t-putro) • Shown as clear by both editors, these characters are not really legible in the available facsimiles. In BVC’s photo they could with some imagination be tajjeṣṭo (for tajjyeṣṭho), but the photo was retouched by hand. The t of tro is quite clear in Hultzsch’s estampage, so the reading is probably correct.
11 (sa)ptatriṁśataM EHsaptatriṁśat¿āni?⟨aṁ⟩ BVC
13 samāṣṭabhiḥ EHsamā¿ṣṭa?⟨s su⟩dhīḥ BVC
14 -no(ḍ)aṁba-rāṣṭra-nodam⟨ba⟩rāṣṭra- BVC; -no¿d?⟨ḍ⟩aṁba-rāṣṭra- EH • Hultzsch’s emendation may be based on the known form nolamba of this name. In the parallel stanza in the Vemalūrpāḍu plates, he likewise reads d and emends to . From what is visible in the visual aids available to me, the received spelling could be with either. As for BVC’s reading (shown in his edition as ‘नोदम्रा(म्ब)ष्ट्र’), I cannot fathom it. His photo, in all probability doctored by his hand, clearly shows all characters, so a typographic error must be involved somehow, but then why does he print an emendation? Possibly a correction added by him to the print proofs was misunderstood by the typesetter to be an emendation. Note that Hultzsch and I construe this name in compound with the preceding word, while BVC (as implied by their translation) do not. A previously unpublished parallel of the stanza in the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa clearly spells the name with .14–15 -saṁga/r(e)-saṁga/re BVC; -saṁga/r¿a?⟨e⟩ EH • BVC’s (retouched) photo shows a pr̥ṣṭhamātrā e marker in the form of a vertical in front of the r, attached to the consonant at the top left. Since this form of e does not occur in related inscriptions as far as I know, Hultzsch may well be correct in reading ra. The vertical line may belong to the plate’s rim, and its attachment to the consonant may be only fancy.
15 nirjjitya saḍ ḍ(ā)⟨ha⟩lā°nirjjitya saḍ-ḍ(ā)⟨ha⟩lā° EH; nirjji¿tya?⟨taṁ⟩ saṭṭal¿a?⟨ā⟩° BVC • There may be a typo in BVC’s reading: they are aware of the metre, but neither reading nor their emendation is metrical. The doubled consonant is clearly not ṭṭ in Hultzsch’s estampage. Note that Hultzsch construes saḍ- in compound (indicated by his translation, though not in his Devanagari edition), while I take it as a separate word; see the note to the translation.15–16 bh(ā)/yayitvā EH¿cā?⟨yo⟩/¿y?⟨dh⟩ayitvā BVC
17 °āgrajo • Possibly a scribal mistake for °ātmajo. See the note to the translation.
19 -nr̥po EH-nr̥to BVC • Typo in BVC.
20 -sain¿o?⟨yai⟩r hatvāseno hatvā BVC; -s¿ai?⟨e⟩n¿o?⟨ai⟩⟨r⟩ h¿ā?⟨a⟩tvā EH • I think the stroke atop ha that Hultzsch reads as ā is a repha; ā would normally be horizontal. Hultzsch’s emendation is also plausible, but I feel that my equivalent emendation reflects a more likely scribal error: the engraver mistook a subscript y the two strokes of o attached at bottom left and top right and omitted the strokes for ai.
21 dharitr¿i?⟨ī⟩ EHdharitrā BVC • Probably a typo in BVC.
22–23 °āsta/mane • Hultzsch emends to °āstamayane, but since astamana is a known alternative form, I prefer not to do so.
24 °mārttaṇḍa¡la!-°mārttaṇḍa{la}- BVC EH • Hultzsch observes that la may have been added by the scribe under the influence of the common word maṇḍala, which is possible. The name ākhaṇḍala, used in some cognate inscriptions, also springs to mind. I choose not to consider the unexpected syllable a scribal mistake, since the same occurs in line 23 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates. However, line 23-24 of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa has the expected mārttaṇḍa in the same sentence.
27 -pravr̥ttād dhatā¡ḥ! BVC-pravr̥tt¿ā?⟨o⟩ddhatā¡ḥ! EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels.27 kālālaya⟨ṁ⟩ EHkālālaya- BVC
28 -s¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁgrām¿a?⟨i⟩kā vājñā-saṁgrāmak¿āv?⟨asy⟩ājñā BVC EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels.28 bh¿r̥?⟨ū⟩ BVC EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels.28 -nr̥pai⟨⟨ś ca⟩⟩ • The character overstruck with śca had i as its vowel; it may perhaps have been śi or śśi. It is positioned higher and to the left of the post-correction character, very close to the preceding pai.
29 śiras¿o?⟨ā⟩śirasā BVC; śiraso EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels.29 nādagdh(v?)ānāda(gdhv?)ā BVC; nādag⟨dh⟩vā EH • The clear subscript component of the problematic conjunct is more likely to be dh than v; a faint shadow below this may be an additional v, or v may have been omitted.
30 -rāśir EH-rā¿ś?⟨j⟩ir BVC • The reading is clear and does not require emendation, yet the emendation proposed by BVC indeed fits the context of clouds better.
31 jana-sa⟨t⟩- BVCjana¿saṁ?⟨tā⟩- EH • BVC’s edition in fact shows ‘जनसेससस्ये’ (with the vowel marker positioned above the junction of the first and second स), but this impossible reading must be a typo; his actual reading ‘जनससस्ये’ is indicated in a footnote to his translation. The anusvāra read by Hultzsch seems to be present in his estampage, but is not discernible in BVC’s photo. The parallel locus in the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa confirms BVC’s intuition.
32 dvādaś¡āvyāt! BVCdvādaśāv¿yā?⟨a⟩t EH • Hultzsch prefers to emend the verb to āvat, the active imperfect third person of av. The parallel locus in line 32 of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa has the same reading, while line 31 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates reads dvādaśādhyāt, which Hultzsch emends to aśāt (from śās), also noting that adhyāt may have been intended for the same imperfect form of adhyās. Although āvat and aśāt are both grammatically sound and metrically fitting, it is perhaps more likely that we are facing a solecism here. The composer may have intended the precative form avyāt for a past indicative, or may have meant adhyāt as a legitimate form of adhyās.
33 samabhavad EHsam¿āṁ?⟨a⟩bhavad BVC • BVG’s pre-emendation reading is not confirmed either by their photo or by Hultzsch’s estampage.
35 girīndra-sān¿u?⟨ū⟩raskaḥgirīndra-sān¿u?⟨v-aṁ⟩saḥ BVC; gir¿i?⟨ī⟩ndra-sān¿u?⟨ū⟩raskaḥ EH • The ī is clear in both visual representations, so i may be a typo in Hultzsch’s edition. I am not sure of BVG’s reading, represented in their edition as ‘°सान्वंसः नु’, with a note attached to न्वंस saying, ‘नु in the original.’ The following ra is very clear in their photo (as well as in Hultzsch’s estampage), but may have been interpreted by BVG as an oversized anusvāra.
36 vi◯līnāri- BVCvil¿i?⟨ī⟩nāri- EH
37 -kalpataru⟨r⟩-kalpatarur BVC EH37 -dīnāndha- BVC-d¿i?⟨ī⟩nāndha- EH
38 -mahasā • The characters maha are narrow and crowded, with ha distorted in shape. They are probably a correction engraved over a single original character.
40 -girīndro ravim • The corresponding text is -girīndre ravir in CalE52
43 ĀryyāĀryyā⟨ḥ⟩ BVC EH • See the note to the translation.43 °¿a?⟨ā⟩s¿t?⟨th⟩itaṁ yas BVC¿a?⟨ā⟩sthitaṁ yas EH • Hultzsch’s sth is probably a typo in his edition. The emendation endorsed by him and adopted here was proposed in a footnote to BVC’s translation (perhaps added by one of the authors to the edition prepared by the other); in the text of their edition two inferior suggestions, °as tadīyas and °as tr̥tīyas, are offered.43–44 (mu)/kha- • BVC show mu as clear and Hultzsch prints it as unclear. All I can see in either surrogate is a small circle like an anusvāra. I do not see how mu might have fit in the space between ha and the edge of the plate. If mu is present, it must be tiny and is probably a subsequent addition. The preceding characters diha are also quite crammed and may have been corrected from something else.
44 -saha¿ś?⟨s⟩r¿o?⟨ai⟩◯r EH-saha¿ś?⟨s⟩rair BVC • The vowel mark on śr consists of a horizontal stroke at the top left and a stroke at the bottom left; though probably intended for e, it can only be read as o.
45 °dhavala⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩°dhavala- BVC; °dhavala(ḥ) EH • The visarga is quite clear in both visual representations, and is a subsequent addition like the next one (which is indicated as such by Hultzsch and read normally by BVC).45 vijayāditya- EHvijayāditya⟨ḥ⟩ BVC • Note that Hultzsch too interprets the text to mean that he was a kaṭakādhipati named Vijayāditya, not the kaṭakādhipati of a King Vijayāditya.
46 tyāgī BVCtyāg¿i?⟨ī⟩ EH
47 vijayī BVCvijay¿i?⟨ī⟩ EH47 vīra BVCv¿i?⟨ī⟩ra EH47 -lakṣmī- BVC-lakṣm¿i?⟨ī⟩ra- EH47–48 rakṣaṇā⟦ya⟧/y¿i?⟨ai⟩varakṣaṇā¿ya/yi?⟨yai⟩va BVC EH • Both previous editors read ya at the end of line 47, followed by yi in line 48. BVC correct to °ya I° in the text and emend the unmetrical reading to °yai° in a footnote, probably intending to show that they interpret °ya yi° as non-standard sandhi. Hultzsch explicitly mentions this in his introduction as an example of non-standard sandhi with an epenthetic y. While the use of yi may indeed have crept into the text under the influence of spoken pronunciation, I feel quite certain that the space was not sufficient for ya at the end of line 47, and the ya there was only commenced, but never finished (and possibly struck out), to be replaced (rather than continued) by yi in the next line.
49 va(sati)⟨ḥ⟩vasati BVC EH • See the note to the translation for some thoughts about this reading.
50 yāp¡u!⟨a⟩nīya-yāpunīya- BVC; yāp¡u!⟨a⟩n¿i?⟨ī⟩ya- EH50 koṭimaḍuva- EHkoṭhimaduva- BVC • I accept Hultzsch’s reading but note that the name could as well be koḍimaḍuva. Instances where ṭi is expected do have the same form (l27 prakaṭitāḥ, l55 grāmaṭikā), but the consonant looks more like than , with a pronounced notch in the bottom and an upper curve that turns upward at the centre rather than only at the right-hand edge.50 ga¿n?⟨ṇ⟩e(śa)- • The character śa is quite blurred and seems to have some extra strokes. It may have been corrected from ṣa or ma.
53 prātihāryya◯-mahim¡ā!- BVCpr¿ā?⟨a⟩tihāryya-mahimā- EH • Hultzsch’s emendation breaks the metre and is not necessary. As BVC observe, the proper form in compound would be -mahima-.
54 -vijñapt¿ai?⟨eḥ⟩-vijñapt¿e?⟨iḥ⟩ BVC; -vijñapt¿ai?⟨e⟩ EH • Though I know of no occurrence of vijñapti in this context in other Eastern Cālukya grants, the form vijñāpanāt does occur several times, so an ablative would be plausible here. It is also possible that vijñaptyā was intended. The emendations proposed by the previous editors seem inferior to both of these possibilities.54 -navakr̥ty¿o?⟨ai⟩-navakr̥tyai BVC; -navakr̥ty¿o?⟨ā⟩- EH
55 maliyapūṇḍi EHmalliyapūṇḍi BVC55 -parihāra{M}m udaka- • A comma-like stroke below the final M may be an editorial mark signifying deletion (or flagging the adjacent mu for changing into U), but it is quite faint and is more likely to be a scratch.
56 grāmāvadhayaḥ BVCgrām⟨asy⟩āvadhayaḥ EH • While Hultzsch’s emendation is of course grammatically correct, it is more pedantic than essential. I wonder, moreover, if the terms grāmāvadhi and kṣetrāvadhi mean, respectively, boundaries on a village-level (specifying in terms of human geography the surrounding villages) and boundaries on a field-level (specifying in terms of topography the features that demarcate the limits). Further occurrences of these terms and further study is needed here.56 muṁjuny(a/u)ru EHmuṁjunūru BVC
58 nair¡i!⟨r̥⟩tya⟨taḥ⟩nairitya- BVC; nair¡i!⟨r̥⟩ty¿a?⟨āṁ⟩ EH
59 sth¿a?⟨ā⟩pita- BVCsthāpita- EH59 -E⟨r⟩vvoka--Ervvoka- BVC; -Evvoka- EH

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

I.
Let there ever be blessings for the irrepressibly spreading teaching of the Reverend Lord Jinendra, which is praised by the three worlds and which is the foundation of the scintillating Doctrine (dharma). Indeed, thanks its power, the faults (doṣa) caused by the despicable Kali (age) arise in vain, and bad habits do not spread on the surface of the earth, and the land obtains constant peace.

3-12Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārītī, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who are humbly devoted to Lord Mahāsena,↓1 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 (I), for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja’s (Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s) son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen. His [brother] of inferior birth, 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.

II.
King (bhūpāla) Vijayāditya (II) who was called Narendramr̥garāja and who had the courage of a lion (mr̥garāja), [reigned] for forty years [together] with eight.

13-14His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son, also called Paracakrarāma,

III.
Having killed in pitched battle Maṅgi, the king of the populous↓2 Nodamba country, having summarily defeated↓3 the Gaṅgas ensconced on the top of Gaṅgakūṭa, and having intimidated Saṁkila, the lord of Ḍāhala together with the vicious Vallabha, he protected (rakṣ-) the earth as Vijayāditya (III) for forty-four years.

16-19The son of his younger brother—Vikramāditya, who had attained the rank of heir-apparent (yauvarājya)—[this son] Cālukya-Bhīma [reigned] for thirty [years]. His elder-born [son]↓4 Vijayāditya (IV) for six months. His firstborn son Ammarāja (I), for seven years. After assaulting his underage son, King (nr̥pa) Tāla—the son of Yuddhamalla, the paternal uncle of Cālukya-Bhīma—for one month.

IV.
Thanks to his excessively fierce valour, His Majesty King (bhūpa) Vikramāditya (II)—the son of King (kṣitipati) Cālukya-Bhīma—slew at the front line of rugged battle that King (rājan) Tāla together with groups of diverse barons (sāmanta) who possessed a superior force and an army of raging elephants, and then soundly protected (rakṣ-) the earth—wrapped in her girdle of oceans—for one year.

22-25Then, upon the demise of the Sun of Valour (Vikramāditya), collateral (dāyāda) princes (rājaputra)—such as Yuddhamalla, Rājamārtaṇḍa and Vijayāditya of the Locket (kaṇṭhikā)—materialised like demons (rākṣasa) {upon the setting of the sun}, yearning for kingship out of egomania and bent on oppressing the subjects. Five years passed in nothing but strife. Then—

V.
he who slew Rājamārtaṇḍa among these (pretenders) and who through battle banished Vijayāditya of the Locket and Yuddhamalla to a foreign country—

VI.
the scimitar (graceful) like a frond, wielded by his arms like iron bars, has also dispatched to the abode of Death many other kings (who were otherwise) respectable (but), being struck by depravity, were blatantly wrecking the country; and his command, even when it relates to vicious battle, is borne on the head like a wreath even by kings of other lands—↓5

VII.
the fire of [his] anger would never cease unless it has burned the enemy’s family to the root; whose bright reputation would never stand still unless it has ranged all over the world; the cloudbank of his wealth would never fail to rain on the good crop that is the populace, though it be seared day after day by the inexorable sunblaze of poverty—

VIII.
he, the grandson of Cālukya-Bhīma and son of Vijayāditya (IV), King (rājan) Bhīma (II), soundly ruled↓6 the surface of the earth for twelve years.

IX.
To him (Bhīma II), who was [like] Maheśvara in form, a [son] named Ammarāja (II), who resembled Kumāra, was born from none other than (his queen) Lokamahādevī, who was like Umā in appearance.

X.
The palms of his hands and the soles of his feet are marked with the omens of the conch,↓7 the parasol, the chowrie, the jar and the elephant goad. His two playfully moving arms are like iron bars and extend to his knees. His chest is like a cliff of a majestic mountain.

XI.
[He is] majestic, familiar with the sciences (appropriate) for kings, expert with various weapons, skilled in the lore of elephants and horses and a bee to the lotus that is the foot of Hara (Śiva). The families of his enemies have melted away.

XII.
[He is] a wish-granting tree to poets and singers, a cow of plenty (surabhi) to Brahmins (dvija), ascetics (muni), the afflicted, the blind and his kinsfolk, a wish-fulfilling jewel to crowds of supplicants, a jewel among kings, and the jewel of the sky (the sun) by his great and fierce glory.

XIII.
In the year that has the numbers of mountains, flavours and the Vasus (867, right to left) in the Śaka reckoning, in this month of Mārgaśīrṣa, on the dark thirteenth day, a Friday, under the asterism (nakṣatra) Maitra (=Anurādhā),

XIV.
when the sun was in Sagittarius (dhanus) and the ascendant (lagna) was Aquarius (ghaṭa), in the twelfth year (after) his birth he donned the (royal) turban to the delight of the people, as the lordly Mountain of Sunrise dons the sun {to tint the world red}.

41-42That shelter of the entire universe (samasta-bhuvanāśraya), His Majesty Vijayāditya, Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), the supremely virtuous Ammarāja (II), commands the householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Kammanāṇḍu district (viṣaya) as follows:

43[What follows is] moraic verse.↓8

XV.
It would be impossible even for one who had a thousand mouths to recount in this world the honourable daring acts (performed) by that man of spotless reputation: the courageous Pāṇḍaraṅga who burned Kiraṇapura while Kr̥ṣṇarāja was stationed there, as Maheśa (Śiva) burned Tripura.

44-46His son Niravadya Dhavala had his head decorated with the turban of the castellan (kaṭaka-rāja). His son was the castellan (kaṭakādhipati) Vijayāditya.

46[What follows is] syllabic verse.

XVI.
His son Durgarāja, a repository of eminent qualities and a residence of heroic majesty, was virtuous, honest, selfless, opulent, magnanimous and victorious in battle; moreover, his sword ever served solely for guarding the royal majesty of the Cālukyas, and his famous lineage {bamboo cane} [ever served solely] as a support {prop} to the superb great country called Veṅgī.

XVII.
On the southern side of Dharmapurī he built a beautiful temple of the good Jina and a monastery (vasati) marked by the auspicious name Kaṭakābharaṇa (“Jewel of Kaṭaka”), an abode of merit.↓9

XVIII.
Now there was a lord among ascetics resembling a gaṇadhara: Jinanandi of the Nandi gaccha of auspicious merit, who was the foremost of the leaders of the worshipful Koṭimaḍuva gaṇa [belonging to] the reverend Yāpanīya saṁgha.

XIX.
His foremost disciple was a bull among sages famed on earth by the name Divākara, a great soul and a storehouse of absolute knowledge (kevala-jñāna) who in his myriad virtues resembled the very Jinas.

XX.
His disciple was the intelligent ascetic the Reverend Diradeva, a repository of noble austerity whom the people esteem as one possessed of miraculous power (prātihārya).

53-56Upon the request of the Castellan (kaṭaka-rāja), on the occasion of the winter solstice the hamlet named Maliyapūṇḍi has been donated with a remission of all taxes to the Jain temple Kaṭakābharaṇa superintended by him (Diradeva), [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water, for the renovation of what is broken and cracked (khaṇḍa-sphuṭa) [and] for the purpose of offerings, worship and suchlike, and charity (satra).

56-59The boundaries of this village [are as follows]. To the east, Muṁjunyaru. To the south, Yinimili.↓10 To the west, Kalvakuru. To the north, Dharmavuramu.↓11 The boundaries of this village’s fields [are as follows]. To the east, the Gollani pond. To the southeast, the Rāviyaperiya tank. To the south, a demarcation stone. To the southwest, ditto a demarcation stone. To the west, Malkapaṟṟu and the Koṟaboyu tank. To the northwest, ditto a demarcation stone. To the north, the Duba tank. In the northeast, the border is none other than the border of the ervvoka field↓12 of Kalvakuru.

Translation into French by Estienne-Monod 2008

Seal

Plates

I.
Que le bonheur échoie à l’enseignement du seigneur illustre Jinendra, éternel sujet de louange pour les Trois Mondes, dont l’autorité s’étend aux êtres sans retenue, et qui est le support aimable du dharma, lui par la puissance duquel les méfaits de l’âge de Kali et les vices adviennent en vain, les mauvaises actions ne se répandent point à la surface de la Terre, et l’univers connaît toujours la paix !

3-12Prospérité ! 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 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 le maṇḍala de Veṅgī pendant dix huit années. Son fils Jayasiṁha pendant trente-trois ans ; Le fils d’Indrarāja, frère cadet de ce dernier, Viṣṇuvardhana, pendant neuf ans ; Le fils de celui-ci, Maṁgi, le prince héritier, pendant vingt-cinq ans ; Son fils Jayasiṁha pendant treize ans ; Le frère cadet de ce dernier, Kokkili, pendant six mois ; Son frère aîné, Viṣṇuvardhana, après l’avoir chassé, pendant trente-sept ans ; Le fils de celui-ci, Vijayāditya, l’illustre seigneur, pendant dix-huit ans ; Son fils Viṣṇuvardhana pendant trente-six ans ;

II.
Le fils de ce dernier, nommé Narendra Mr̥garāja, qui avait le courage du lion, le roi Vijayāditya pendant quarante ans ;

13-14son fils Kali Viṣṇuvardhana pendant un an et demi ; son fils, dont l’autre nom est Paracakrarāma,

III.
qui a tué dans la gande bataille Maṁgi, le roi du puissant Noḍambarāṣṭra, qui a vaincu les Gaṅga réfugiés au sommet du Gaṅgakūṭa, qui a terrifié Saṅkila, roi des vertueux Dāhala, qui s’était allié au puissant Vallabha, Vijayāditya↓13 a protégé la terre pendant quarante-quatre ans ;

16-19le fils du roi Vikramāditya, frère cadet de ce dernier,↓14 qui avait reçu les droits du prince héritier, Cālukya-Bhīma a protégé la terre pendant trente ans ; Son fils aîné, le roi Vijayāditya↓15 pendant six mois ; Son fils aîné, Ammarāja, pendant sept ans ; Après avoir attaqué le fils de celui-ci,↓16 alors qu’il était enfant, le fils de Yuddhamalla, oncle du côté parternel de Cālukya Bhīma, le roi Tāla a protégé la terre pendant un mois ;

IV.
Après avoir tué le roi Tāla, à la tête d’une bataille difficile, d’une très puissante énergie, avec ses armées d’éléphants furieux, avec la foule de ses divers vassaux, accompagnés de forces immenses, le fils de l’illustre Cālukya Bhīma, le roi Vikramāditya a protégé, avec justice, la terre entourée du cercle des océans pendant un an ;

22-25Ensuite, convaincu de leur supériorité, lorsque Vikramāditya s’éteignit, occupés à opprimer leurs sujets, comme des Rākṣasa opprimant les créatures au coucher du soleil, les princes prétendant au trône, aspirant à la conquête du pouvoir, Yuddhamalla, Rājamārtaṇḍa et Kaṇṭhīkā Vijayāditya en tête, se firent la guerre. Cinq années de guerre passèrent↓17 puis,

V.
celui qui, parmi ces derniers, tua Rājamārtaṇḍa, qui contraignit à l’exil Kaṇṭhīkā Vijayāditya et Yuddhamalla,

VI.
qui précipita au royaume de la mort nombre d’autres hommes, qui, bien qu’ils fussent de respectables souverains, s’enorgueillissaient de leur conduite criminelle et se révélaient source de calamité pour le pays, de la lame de son cimeterre, mû par son bras puissant, lui, le combattant puissant, dont les ordres sont portés telle une guirlande pour leur tête, par les rois des terres ennemies dévoués à cette tâche,

VII.
dont le feu de la colère ne s’éteint pas sans avoir consumé totalement l’armée ennemie, dont la gloire resplendissante ne s’arrête pas sans parcourir l’univers entier, dont les nuages de richesses, bien qu’immenses, ne se répandent pas en pluie jour après jour, puisque ces blés que sont les hommes ne sont pas cruellement soumis à la très intense brûlure de la pauvreté ;

VIII.
ce petit-fils de Cālukya Bhīma, fils de Vijayāditya, le roi Bhīma a gouverné avec justice la terre pendant douze années entières.

IX.
De ce dernier, manifestation de Maheśvara, et de Lokamahādevī, qui avait revêtu l’aspect d’Umā, pareil à Kumāra, naquit le nommé Ammarāja.

X.
Les paumes de ses mains et les plantes de ses pieds portent les marques du lotus, du parasol, du panache, de la coupe et du croc à éléphant. Les barres d’acier de ses deux bras charmants se déploient jusqu’à ses genoux, son torse est pareil au plateau du Roi des Montagnes.

XI.
Il a acquis la science royale, il est expert dans les diverses armes, il a fait disparaître les troupes ennemies, il est expert dans la science des éléphants et des chevaux, illustre, il est une abeille butinant les doubles lotus que sont les pieds de Hara.

XII.
Il est pour les poètes et les chantres l’arbre à vœux pour les brahmanes, les ascètes, les malheureux, les aveugles, les amis, la vache céleste, pour les solliciteurs la pierre combleuse de désirs, joyau des rois par son grand et puissant éclat, joyau du jour.

XIII.
Lors de l’année qui se compte en montagnes, rasa, vasu, dans l’ère śaka, au mois de Mārgaśīrṣa, en ce treizième jour de la quinzaine sombre, le jour de Bhr̥gu sous la constellation de Mitra,

XIV.
sous le signe de l’arc alors que le soleil est en conjonction avec le Pot, dans la douzième année depuis sa naissance, il a revêtu la couronne par affection passionnée pour l’univers comme le soleil sur la grande montagne du levant.

41-42Celui-ci, refuge de l’univers entier, l’illustre Vijayāditya, souverain suprême des grands rois, premier seigneur, roi très juste, ayant convoqué tous les chefs de familles de la circonscription de Kammanāṇḍu, les raṣṭrakūṭa en tête, ordonne pour l’éternité ceci :

43Nobles seigneurs !

XV.
Lui qui brûla Kiraṇapura où régnait le roi Krṣṇa, comme Maheśvara brûla Tripura, Pāndarāṁga, ardent, Dans ce monde, même celui qui serait doté de milliers de bouches ne pourrait faire le compte des vertueux coups d’audace de ce seigneur à la gloire immaculée.

44-46Son fils était Niravadyadhavala, il portrait sur son front le turban brillant du kaṭakarāja; Son fils était Vijayāditya, un kaṭakādhipati;↓18

46Voici les vers :

XVI.
Son fils Durgarāja, trésor d’excellentes vertus, vertueux, dont les serments étaient sincères, généreux, jouissant de richesses, magnanime, victorieux dans les combats, héros qui séjournait auprès de Lakṣmī, protégea uniquement et éternellement la fortune des Cālukya, lui, dont la famille était renommée, dont dépendait la grande et excellente contrée appelée Veṅgī.

XVII.
Il éléva au sud de Dharmapurī un temple jaïn tout à fait charmant. Il se consacra à un temple auspicieux dont le nom, de bon augure, est Kaṭakābharaṇa.↓19

XVIII.
Là était l’excellent seigneur des Koṭimaḍuvagaṇa, vénéré par le Yāpanīyasaṁgha↓20 le seigneur des ascètes, Jinanandi, semblable aux Gaṇadhara,↓21 appartenant au vertueux et méritant Nandigaccha.

XIX.
Le premier de ses disciples, célèbre sur terre, portait le nom de Divākara, chef éminent des ascètes, réceptacle de l’Omniscience, magnanime, semblable aux Jina par la masse de ses qualités.

XX.
L’illustre ascète Diradeva était son érudit disciple, réceptacle de sévères austérités que le monde considère doué de la puissance d’accomplir des miracles.↓22

53-56[Nous] donnons au temple jaïn Kaṭakābharaṇa, administré par ce dernier, à la requête du kaṭakarāja, en vue de l’accomplissement des offrandes, du culte, etc., et d’un sattra↓23 avec la rénovation de ce qui est tombé en ruine,↓24 à l’occasion du solstice d’hiver, le village nommé Maliyapūṇḍi, exempté de toute taxe, après avoir fait une libation d’eau.

56-59Les limites de ce village sont : A l’est, Muñjunyuru ; Au sud, Yinimili ; A l’ouest, Kalvakuru ; Au nord, Dharmavuramu. Les limites des terrains de ces villages sont : A l’est l’étang Gollani ; Au sud-est, le réservoir de Rāviyaperiya ; Au sud, une pierre dressée ; Au sud-ouest, une pierre dressée aussi ; A l’ouest, Malkapaṟṟu et l’étang de Koṟaboyu ; Au nord-ouest, une pierre dressée aussi ; Au nord, le réservoir de Duba ; Au nord-est, la limite est aussi la limite de Evvokacenu à Kalvakuru.

Commentary

The name Nodaṁba in stanza 3 must have a short o for the metre to be correct. The same stanza has two enjambements, including one from the first hemistich to the second. Verse 6, if correctly emended (see apparatus to line 28), has an early break (sandhi fusion) at the end of pāda c. The first quarter of verse 8 may be a ra-vipulā, but its preamble does not conform to a pattern permitted in this variation as far as I am aware. Stanza 12 is in the rare gaṇacchandas metre lalitā, other instances of which occur in stanza 2 of the Guṇḍugolanu grant of Amma II and stanza 3 of the Kolaveṇṇu plates of Bhīma II. Stanza 17 is in the rare gaṇacchandas metre sugīti, the only occurrence of this metre that I am aware of so far. Stanza 18 is probably another lalitā, but it fits that metre only if the name koṭimaḍuva, comprising the fifth foot of the first hemistich, is read as four morae (either by poetical licence or because it needs emendation to shorten it by one syllable, and assuming that ko is pronounced with a short o). Hultzsch tentatively proposes emending gaṇeśa to gaṇeśvara to correct the metre. This would result in a gīti stanza, but a deficient one, since although the mora count is correct, the expected pattern ⏑–⏑ (or ⏑||⏑⏑⏑) does not obtain in the sixth foot of the first hemistich. There is also a possibility that the śa of gaṇeśa was deleted rather than corrected from something else, but even taking that possibility into account, I have not been able to arrive at any reading or emendation that would fit any other moraic template perfectly.

I follow previous editors in not emending kammanāṇḍu to karmmanāṇḍu, though the form karmmarāṣṭra is attested in several related inscriptions. Hultzsch observes that Kammanāṇḍu must be identical to the Kammarāṣṭra or Kammākarāṣṭra of other inscriptions, and cites also the Prakrit form Kaṁmākaraṭha from a Jaggayyapeṭa inscription. Stanza 21 is in yet another rare gaṇacchandas metre, vallarī, again the only specimen that I am aware of so far.

The word vr̥ttaṁ, introducing verse (incidentally, also sragdharā) after a prose section, also occurs in CalE51 .

There is information about the yāpanīya saṅgha in an article by A. N. Upadhye in ABORI 55 (1974), not traced; there are further references in this article.

VI.
As of September 2021, I have come across three specimens of this verse, as stanza 6 of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II (hereafter: M), stanza 5 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II (hereafter: V), and stanza 5 of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa (hereafter: Ī). The variation between these specimens is minor and none are fully intelligble. My reconstruction of the stanza as intended by the composer runs as follows: anye mānya-mahībhr̥to’pi bahavo duṣṭa-pravr̥ttād dhatāḥ| deśopadrava-kāriṇaḥ prakaṭitāḥ kālālayaṁ prāpitāḥ| dor-ddaṇḍerita-maṇḍalāgra-latayā yasyogra-sāṁgrāmikā| vājñā tat-para-bhū-nr̥paiś ca śirasā māleva sandhāryyate||
  • pravr̥ttāddhatāḥ is the received reading identical in all three, including the lack of sandhi (complemented with a punctuation mark in V). Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty, the first editors of M (hereafter: BVC), accept this reading, while Hultzsch (hereafter: H) emends it to pravr̥ttoddhatāḥ.
  • kālālayaṁ appears without a recognisable anusvāra in M and V, and the text is intelligible that way. However, the anusvāra is clearly present in Ī, yielding a better text, so I assume that it has been lost or accidentally omitted in the other two records.
  • sāṁgrāmikā vājñā is not attested as such; the variants are M saṁgrāmakāvājñā; V saṁgrāmakānājñā; Ī sāṁgrāmikanājñā. BVC emend to saṁgrāmakasyājñā in their edition of M, which H tentatively endorses in his re-edition of M and his edition of V. I find this too heavy-handed and believe that the composer may have used in the sense of eva (or, essentially, as a hiatus filler). However, the original intent may also have been the better attested sāṁgrāmikā nājñā, in which case n must be a hiatus filler (cf. BHSG §4.65).
  • para-bhū-nr̥paiś is also not attested; M and V read parabhr̥nr̥paiś, while Ī has parabhr̥nnr̥paiś. BVC and H both emend bhr̥ to bhū. While para-bhr̥t is a legitimate word for which Ī appears to supply confirmation, I cannot make sense of it in the context. Conversely, engraving bhr̥ instead of bhū is a very straightforward scribal mistake, and bhr̥n may be the result of the scribe’s attempt to make sense of the unintelligible bhr̥.
  • For śirasā, M and V read śiraso. The text is intelligible that way (and H does not emend it in his editions), but I agree with BVC that śirasā (to be construed with sandhāryyate) is more elegant, and this reading is confirmed by Ī.
I thus prefer to interpret the stanza as indicated in my translation. However, depending on the choice of readings, a number of slightly different alternative interpretations may be possible. If pravr̥ttoddhatāḥ is preferred in pāda a, then the other kings are “formidable and obdurate in their depravity, blatantly wrecking the country.” Reading saṁgrāma-kāv in pāda c, the text might mean that “his command (given) on the field of vicious battle is borne on the head,” but this relies on the rather laborious use of ku in the sense of bhūmi. The phrase tat-para-bhū-nr̥paiś could be construed as tatpara-bhū-nr̥paiś, “kings of the land (i.e. subordinates) intent (on obedience),” but the contrast with kings of other lands is poetically more effective.

Bibliography

First edited from the original by Alan Butterworth and V. Venugopaul Chetty (1905: pages 164–181, № 19), with photographs (which appear to have been retouched by hand to emphasise the characters, not always reliably) and translation. Re-edited from inked impressions by E. Hultzsch (1907-1908), with an abridged translation and with estampages. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of the above editions and the visual material published with them.↓25

Primary

Butterworth, Alan & V. Venugopaul Chetty. 1905. A Collection of the Inscriptions on Copper-Plates and Stones in the Nellore District: Part I. Madras: Superintendent, Government Press.
Pages 164–181, № 19. [siglum BVC]
Hultzsch, Eugen Julius Theodor. 1907–1908. “Maliyapundi Grant of Ammarāja II.” EI 9: 47–56.
[siglum EH]

Secondary


Notes

↑1. While I consistently translate the phrase (pāda+)anudhyāta, occurring in almost all Cālukya plates, as “deliberately appointed by,” the construction here is with °ānudhyāyin. Thus, the composer of this text had in mind “meditation on feet of,” or at least a humble devotion to the respected presence. This in turn may mean that the standard phrase with (pāda+)anudhyāta was also understood to have this latter meaning by this time in the Cālukya chancellery. Compare Ferrier and Törzsök 2008: 109.
↑2. I construe bhūri- in compound with nodaṁba-rāṣṭra, as Hultzsch does, and understand it to mean “large/populous/plentiful/mighty.” It is also possible to construe bhūri as an adverb, as translated by Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty, in which case Vijayāditya III defeated Maṅgi summarily or repeatedly. With this latter interpretation, saḍ must be construed in compound to the following word; cf. the next note.
↑3. I construe saḍ as an adverb with nirjjitya. Hultzsch construes it in compound with the following word, translating, ‘the excellent Ḍāhala’. Both interpretations are plausible grammatically, and the choice matters little ultimately, but I feel that while an enemy country may be described as bhūri (cf. the previous note) to emphasise the king’s prowess even more, the adjective sat would not be used for the country of a defeated enemy.
↑4. The word agraja, literally “fore-born,” is established in the sense of elder brother, yet Vijayāditya IV was the son of Cālukya-Bhīma. The word may have been used by the composer in an unconventional sense here (compare agra-sūnur in the next item and a possible use of agra-janman in line 32 of the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II). More probably, °āgraja may be a mistake for °ātmaja.
↑5. See the commentary about the problems with the reading and interpretation of this stanza.
↑6. I translate the expected meaning, but the word avyāt is problematic; see the apparatus to line 32.
↑7. Alternatively, jalaja may mean a fish or perhaps a lotus. This latter is how Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty translate this word (while Hultzsch does not bother to translate this stanza).
↑8. This word is not an address meaning “Gentlemen!” as translated by both previous editors. Although theoretically, the king might address the above people in this way, there is no parallel for this in any related grant. Rather, it was intended for a label (compare the label vr̥ttaṁ in line 46 below, and the use of both vr̥ttaṁ and āryā as labels in several other Eastern Cālukya grants (e.g. line 8 of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya). However, the present label is incorrect; the following stanza is not in a metre of the āryā family.
↑9. I believe vasati is used as a noun in this stanza, and therefore emend to vasatiḥ; see the apparatus to line 49. There are thus two separate items featured here: a temple and a monastery. This is confirmed by the presence of the connective ca. The name Kaṭakābharaṇa probably designates both (singly or jointly), but syntactically, it is applied to the monastery in this verse. Hultzsch apparently understands vasati as a verb and translates it, with some stretch, as “there is;” accordingly, he speaks only of a temple. Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty also do not emend vasati; their translation is harder to follow than Hultzsch’s, but probably also uses “there is” to render vasati as a verb. However, they do seem to think that two separate items are mentioned, an ‘excellent temple’ (saj-jinālaya) and a ‘holy temple’ (puṇyālaya?). In my interpretation, although the noun vasati is feminine, construing puṇyālayo (masculine) in apposition to it is not syntactically problematic, since ālaya is itself a substantive. The compound ending in nāma is used adverbially in the neuter accusative.
↑10. Or perhaps Inimili, given the scribe’s propensity to add an epenthetic y before initial vowels.
↑11. I.e. the village or town referred to in stanza 17 as Dharmapurī.
↑12. The word ervvoka is probably the Telugu word ēṟuvāka (or ēruvāka), apparently meaning the commencement of cultivation. The term ervvoka-ceṇu also appears in line 27 of the Cevuru plates of Amma I.
↑13. Corr. à Guṇagāṁka.
↑14. De Guṇagāṁka.
↑15. Corr. à Kollabhigaṇḍa.
↑16. Vijayāditya V.
↑17. Cette époque correspond dans les autres inscriptions au règne de Yuddhamalla qui dura sept ans. Il y a donc un décalage de deux ans dans la chronologie de cette praśasti, de même que dans l’inscription de Vemalūrpāḍu.
↑18. Autre terme qui désigne le chef de camp du roi, Vijayāditya hérite de la fonction de son père.
↑19. Il semblerait que, comme le roi, le chef de camp donne son nom aux temples.
↑20. Nom d’un groupe religieux.
↑21. Ce sont les onze premiers disciples directs du 24ième Jina, Mahāvira.
↑22. Le mot prātihārya signifie dans un contexte bouddhique et jaïn « qui accomplit des miracles », St. Petersburg Dictionary.
↑23. Lieu où l’on distribue gatuitement de la nourriture, cf. D. C. Sircar, 1966, p. 306.
↑24. L’inscription n° 46 présente une formulation très proche : khaṇḍa-sphuṭita-nava-karmmārttha[ṁ*], mais ne mentionne pas le bali, sattra et prapūja. Le sens de ce dernier terme reste obscur.
↑25. Neither publication includes an image of the seal.