Attili grant of Bhīma I

Metadata

Current Version:  draft, 2025-01-14Z

Editor:   Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00051

Hand Description:

Halantas. Final N (l8, l16) is a simplified na, reduced and raised, without a headmark. Final T is like a full-sized ta with a curly tail (l16, l18). Final M (l29, l30) is a circle with a vertical tail (straight or only slightly sinuous), slightly smaller than regular characters.

Original punctuation marks are plain short verticals, floating around median height.

Other palaeographic observations. Dependent o is sometimes written with a cursive single stroke, but the two-stroke form also occurs many times. Dependent au (e.g. l2) differs from cursive o in being conspicuously extended to the footline, and its humps are also slightly asymmetrical. Rare initial Ai occurs in line 28.

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

1śrī-tribhuvanāṅkuśa

Plates

⎘ plate 1v 1svasti[.] śrīm¿ā?⟨a⟩tā⟨ṁ⟩ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁ hāriti-pu-
2trāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-ma(hā)-
3sena-pādānuddhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-l(ā)-
4ñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥¿t?⟨th⟩a-s(n)āna-pavitr¿i?⟨ī⟩-
5kr̥ta-vapu◯ṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam ala⟨ṁ⟩kariṣṇoḥ s{s}atyāśraya-vallabhe-
6ndrasya bhrātā ku¿j?⟨b⟩ja-viṣṇuvarddhano [’]ṣṭādaśa va⟨r⟩ṣāṇi| tat-suto jayasiṁhas trayastri-
7(ṁ)śata(ṁ)| tad-anuj¿o?⟨e⟩ndrarāja-nandano viṣṇuvarddhano nava| tad-ātmajo maṁgi-yuvarājaḥ pa(ñca)-
8viṁśati⟨ṁ⟩| tat-tanujo jayasiṁhas trayodaśa| tad-anujaḥ kokkiliṣ (ṣ)aṇ māsāN| tad-a-
9graj(o) viṣṇurājo [’]nujam uccāṭya saptatriṁśataṁ| tat-tanūjo vijayāditya-bhaṭṭāra-
⎘ plate 2r 10 ka Ekānnaviṁśatiṁ| tat-tanujo viṣṇurājaḥ ṣa¿s?⟨ṭ⟩triṁśataṁ| tat-sūnu⟨r⟩ vvijayādityo bhī-
11ma-salki-nāmān¿ā?⟨a⟩ṁ tat-pakṣa-dakṣiṇa-gaṁga-balaṁ ca ni(r)jjityāṣṭaśata-narendreśvarā-
12ṇāṁ karttā catvāriṁśataṁ| tat-tanaya(ḥ) kali-viṣṇuvarddhano [’]ddhyarddha-varṣa(ṁ|) tat-putraḥ

I. Āryāgīti
kira13ṇapuram acalapuram uru nellūra-pur¿ā?⟨aṁ⟩ vidāhya caitat ⟨t⟩ripuraṁ
martya-maheśva14ra-nāmn¿a?⟨ā⟩ khyā◯ta-yaśo-rāśir ābabhau yas satataṁ|

Atha ca|

II. Anuṣṭubh
kāliṁga-gaṁga-rū15pyādi
kośaleśa-dvipādi ca|
pāṇḍya-pallava-hemādi
haṭhāt ⟨t⟩yāgā(r)ttham āhara16T|

III. Anuṣṭubh
gaṁgān āropayad gaṁga-
kūṭam maṁgi-śiro [’]c¿c?⟨ch⟩ina¿N?⟨T⟩|
kr̥ṣṇaṁ raṇe [’]jayad vaktuṁ
ka(s sa)17marttho [’]s¿u?⟨ya⟩ sāhasāN|

sa vijayādityaś catuścatvāriṁśataṁ{|} veṁgī-deśam a(nu)-
18varṣam avarddhayaT| tad-anujanmano yuvarājasya vikr¿ā?⟨a⟩mākrānta-sakala-dha-
⎘ plate 2v 19 rā-cakrasya vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ priya-tanayaḥ|

IV. Sragdharā
śākeṣv abdeṣu yāteṣv atha ma20nu-vasu-saṁprāpt¿e?⟨a⟩-saṁkhyeṣu meṣe|
mitre caitre ca maitre śaśini śaśi-dine kr̥ṣṇa21pakṣa-dvitīye|
yugma-rkṣasyodgame [’]dhāt sakala-jana-mude paṭṭam ā-candra-tāra(ṁ|)
22śrīmā¡n!⟨ñ⟩ cālukya-bhīmaś catur-udadhi-lasa{(ṁ)}n-mekhalelā-talasya|

Atha ca|

V. Svāgatā
ya23sya khaḍga-ja◯la-vā⟨r⟩ddhi-nimagnaṁ|
kr̥ṣṇa-vallabha-balaṁ sa-sapatnaṁ|

sa sarvva-lok(okā)-
24śraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvaraḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ cālu-
25kya-bhīma-nāmāttili-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhāN kuṭuṁbinaḥ
26Ittham ājñāpayati

viditam astu vo [’]smābhiḥ yā sā Apsaro¿ṣ?⟨p⟩amā thuṇḍa-
27kākhyā tasyāḥ yaḥ putraḥ ⟨tu⟩ṁburu-samāno mallapākhyaḥ tat-sutāy¿(ā)?⟨ai⟩ calla-
⎘ plate 3r 28 (v)ākhyātasyai samasta-gāndharvva-vidyā-vedinyai Attili nāma grāme Aiśānyā-
29n diśi sahasra{ṁ}-kramuka-taru-sthānaM tasm¿a?⟨i⟩nn eva grāme vāyavyān diśi pa(ṁ)-
30cāśat-khaṇḍikā-vr¿i?⟨ī⟩hi-bījāvāpa-kṣetraṁ gr̥ha-sthānañ ca dattaM[.] Asyo-
31pari na kenacid bādhā kara(ṇ)īyā[.] karo⟨ti⟩ yas sa pañca-mahā-pātaka-saṁyu-
32to bhavati[.]◯ vyāsenāpy uktaM

VI. Anuṣṭubh
ṣ{ṭ}aṣṭi(ṁ) varṣa-sahasrāṇi
svargge modati 33bhūmi-daḥ
Ākṣept¿a?⟨ā⟩ cānumantā ca
tāny eva na(ra)ke vaseT(|)

(Ā)jñāp(t)ir a-
34sya dharmmasya kaḍeya-r¿a?⟨ā⟩jaḥ| bhaṭṭa-vāmanena raciteya(ṁ) śāsana-pa(d)dha(t)i(ḥ|)
35cāmikuṟṟācāryyeṇa likhitā

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

1 hāriti- ◇ hārīti- LR
6 ku¿j?⟨b⟩ja- ◇ kubja- LR
7 -anuj¿o?⟨e⟩ndrarāja- ◇ -anujendrarāja- LR • The right-hand stroke of the o marker is, here and throughout, a minuscule bend in the appendage of j (compare jā in line 24). Reading the expected je here would force me to also read the several instances of jo in the lower part of this page as je.
10 Ekānna° ◇ Ekonna° LR
11 °āṣṭaśata ◇ °āṣṭāśata LR
13 -pur¿ā?⟨aṁ⟩ ◇ -purā(N) LR — 13 caitat ⟨t⟩ripuraṁ ◇ caitatripura- LR
15 haṭhāt ⟨t⟩yāgā⟨r⟩ttham ◇ harātyā Ittham LR • For a parallel LR cites the Vedatulūru grant of Bhīma I as reading hemādikalātyāgārthamāharaT.The reading there, as well as in the the Moga grant, is in fact balāt tyāgārttham āharaT (with slight emendations; both originals actually inscribe tyā, as in the present text). I am confident of haṭhāt here.
16 [’]c¿c?⟨ch⟩ina¿N?⟨T⟩ ◇ cchinaT LR — 16 [’]jayad vaktuṁ ◇ jayac chaktuṁ LR • My reading is certain and is confirmed by the Moga grant. — 16–17 (ka)s sa/ma(r)ttho ◇ kasta|/ma⟨r⟩ttho LR • kasta| is probably a typo in LR, since he explicitly emends samarttho, but notes nothing about this unintelligible word.
17 [’]s¿u?⟨ya⟩ sāhasāN| ◇ susāhasāN| LR • I emend on the basis of the Moga grant The present reading is also intelligible, but the sandhi suggests that it is a scribal mistake.
20 -saṁprāpt¿e?⟨a⟩-saṁkhyeṣu • LR prints -saṁprāpta-saṁkhyeṣu in his text and emends to -saṁprāpāsaṁkhyeṣu, but I believe this is a compound typo and his intent was to show the received reading and emend as I do. The character sa before khye is much smaller than other characters in the text, but the surface of the plate around it is pristine, so correction was certainly not involved.
21 -tāra(ṁ|) ◇ -tāra¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩ LR
29 -sthānaM ◇ -sthānaṁ LR — 29 tasm¿a?⟨i⟩nn ◇ tasminn LR
30 -bījāvāpa- ◇ -bīja-vāpa- LR
32 -saṁyu/to • There are some additional strokes below t; perhaps tko is in fact inscribed here.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

1-12Greetings! Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—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,↓1 who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, to whom the realms of adversaries 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 [reigned] for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha (I), for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja’s son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen. His younger brother Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning the younger brother, his elder brother Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana III), for thirty-seven. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for nineteen. His son Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana IV), for thirty-six years. His son Vijayāditya (II), who constructed a hundred and eight Narendreśvara [temples] after defeating the one named Bhīma Salki and the force of Southern Gaṅgas that sided with him, [reigned] for forty [years]. His son Kali Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son—

I.
who shone ever in a nimbus of glory by the name “Mortal Maheśvara (Śiva),” [for] having burned the three cities of Kiraṇapura, Acalapura and spacious Nellūrapura;

14furthermore,

II.
vehemently seized, in order to donate it, the silver and other [goods] of the Kāliṅgas and the Gaṅgas, the elephants and other [goods] of the Lords of Kośala, and the gold and other [goods] of the Pāṇdyas and the Pallavas;

III.
pressed the Gaṅgas up to the Gaṅga peak, struck off the head of Maṅgi, defeated Kr̥ṣṇa in battle—who would be capable of recounting his daring deeds?

17-19—that Vijayāditya (III) strengthened the land of Veṅgī year after year for forty-four [years]. His younger brother was the Heir Apparent Prince (bhūpati) Vikramāditya who conquered the entire circle of the earth by his valour (vikrama). His dear son,

IV.
His Majesty Cālukya-Bhīma (I), upon the passing of Śaka years whose number is obtained through the Manus (14) and the Vasus (8) (i.e. Śaka 814 expired), with the Sun (mitra) in Aries (meṣa), in [the month] Caitra, with the moon in [the asterism] Maitra (i.e. Anurādhā), on a Monday, the second [day] of the dark fortnight, at the ascension of the constellation Gemini (yugma), donned to the delight of the people the eternal (ā-candra-tāra) turban of [sovereignty over] the surface of the earth whose glittering girdle is the four oceans.

22Furthermore,

V.
The ocean whose water was his swords swallowed up, along with his rivals, the forces of Kr̥ṣṇa Vallabha.↓2

23-26that shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana, the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), named Cālukya-Bhīma (I), commands all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Attili district (viṣaya) as follows:

26-32Let it be known to you that to the [woman] known as Callavā, who knows the entire science of music (gāndharva), who is the daughter of [a man] called Mallapa who is the equal of Tumburu and who is the son of that [woman] equal to an apsaras called Thuṇḍakā, we have given an orchard of a thousand betelnut trees at the village named Attili to the northeastern direction (of the village), as well as as a field (sufficient) for sowing fifty khaṇḍikās of rice seed and a homestead plot at the same village, to the northwestern direction. Let no-one pose an obstacle [to her enjoyment of her rights] over it. He who does so shall be conjoined with the five great sins. Vyāsa too has said:

VI.
A donor of land rejoices in heaven for sixty millennia, [while] a seizer (of granted land) and a condoner (of such seizure) shall reside in hell for just as many.

33-35The executor (ājñapti) of this provision (dharma) is the castellan (kaḍeya-rāja). The formulation (paddhati) of this decree was composed by Bhaṭṭa Vāmana. Written (likhita) by Cāmikuṟṟācārya.

Commentary

V.
Stanza 5 consists only of two pādas. As LR notes, the remaining pādas can be supplied from stanza 3 of the Vedatulūru grant of Bhīma I as follows: mr̥ṇmayan tu caturaṁga-balaṁ vā kṣipram eva vilayaṁ gatam ājau.

Bibliography

Reported in ARIE 1917-1918: page 13, appendix A/1917–18, № 14 with some further details at ARIE 1917-1918: page 131, §4. Edited from the original by K. V. Lakshmana Rao(1922), with estampages and translation. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photos taken by myself in February 2023 at the Andhra Sahitya Parishad Museum, Kakinada, collated with Lakshmana Rao’s edition and facsimiles.↓3

Primary

Lakshmana Rao, Komarraju Venkata. 1922. “The Telugu Academy Plates of Bhima I. Saka 814.” JBORS 8: 83–98.
[siglum LR]

Secondary

ARIE 1917-1918. Page 13, appendix A/1917–18, № 14.
ARIE 1917-1918. Page 131, §4.

Notes

↑1. Or, alternatively, by the grace of Kauśikī’s bridegroom, i.e. Śiva. In spite of its slight awkwardness, I prefer the former interpretation because the Bādāmi Cālukyas refer to themselves as nourished (saṁvardhita) by Kauśikī.
↑2. If the second hemistich of this stanza was omitted by scribal oversight, then the full stanza as supplied from a parallel attestation (see the commentary) would translate, “Sunk in the ocean whose water was his swords, the {four-branched} forces of Kr̥ṣṇa Vallabha along with his rivals dissolved in battle like a {chess} army made of (unbaked) clay {sunk in the (actual) ocean}.” Lakshmana Rao interprets the text to mean “The army of Krishnavallabha who was (Bhīma’s) rival,” but sa-sapatna does not in my opinion allow this interpretation. Instead, rivals separate from Kr̥ṣṇa Vallabha must have been meant here, probably ones from his own family, usually referred to with the word dāyāda) in other Eastern Cālukya inscriptions.
↑3. The published estampages have been evidently doctored by hand. Lakshmana Rao’s edition differs from the facsimile in numerous trivial details (e.g. reading an anusvāra where none is visible in the estampage), which may be silent emendations by the editor or details that were not cleared up by the person who retouched the plates. My apparatus does not indicate differences from Lakshmana Rao’s edition that I deem to be silent emendations or obvious typographic mistakes in the latter.