Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00052
Hand Description:
Halantas. Final N (e.g. l8, l31) is a raised and reduced na-shape with a sinuous tail. Final M (e.g. l11, l25) is a raised circle with a sinuous tail. Final T looks like ta with sinuous tail instead of headmark (e.g. l6), or like a raised and reduced ta with a sinuous tail, almost identical in the unclear facsimile to final N and M (l44, l52).
Original punctuation marks are double verticals with a pronounced serif.
Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is normally at head height after the character to which it belongs. Initial Ī occurs in line 49.
No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1[svasti. śrīmatāṁ sa](kala)-[bhuvana]-(saṁstūya)māna-mā(na)vya-sa(go)[trāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ]
2[kauśikī-vara-pra](sāda-labdha-rā)jy(ānāṁ) mā(tr̥-gaṇa-paripāli)tā(nāṁ svāmi)-[mahāsena-]
3[-pādānudhyātā](nāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-)p(rasāda-samāsādita)-[vara-va](rāha)-[lāṁcchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-]
4-[vaśīkr̥tā]◯rā(ti-ma)ṇḍal(ānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥)[tha-snāna-pa](vi)trīkr̥ta-(va)[puṣāṁ
ca-]
5[lukyānāṁ kulam a]◯laṁkariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya va(lla)bhendrasya bhrātā (ku)bja-viṣṇuvarddhano
[’](ṣṭ)[ādaśa-]
6[varṣā](ṇi veṁgī)◯-deśam apālayaT| tad-ātma(jo) jayasiṁ(ha)s tra(yastriṁ)śataṁ| ta[d-a-]
7[nujendrarāja-nandano] (v)i(ṣṇu)va(r)ddhano na(va)| tat-sūnur mmaṁgi-(yuvarājaḥ) paṁca(viṁśatiṁ|
tat-pu)[tro jaya-]
8[siṁha](s trayo)daśa| tad-ava(ra)jaḥ kok(k)iliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvarddha(na)[s
tam uccā-]
9[ṭya saptatriṁśa](taṁ|) ta(t-putro vija)y(ād)itya-bhaṭṭārako [’]ṣṭādaśa| tat-su(to)
viṣṇu(va)rddha(naṣ ṣaṭtriṁ)[śataṁ|]
tat-priya-(tanayaḥ|)
śrī-rājanā(rā)ya(ṇa)[?1+]
⟨Atrā⟩vasare||
sa sarvvalokā(ś)raya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-ma(hā)-
54rāj¿a?⟨ā⟩dhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩raka-parama-brahmaṇya-parama-māhe⟨śva⟩raḥ vaṟanāṇḍu-viṣaya-(ni)-
55(vā)sino rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭa-pramukhāN kuṭ¡i!⟨u⟩ṁbinas sa(r)vv(ā)n samāh¿a?⟨ū⟩ya mantri-purohita-se(nāpati-yu)-
⎘ plate 4v 56[varāja-dauvā]r(ikād)(dhyakṣā?)(n) (i?)¿(th)?⟨t⟩(tham ā?)[jñāpaya](ti?)[. yathā](|)
[?3×]y(e) (pa?)r(o?) y(aiḥ?) (bhāra)dvāja(b?)i
57(rapā?)ra(yāvataya?) [?6×] (va/bha) [?9×] (sa?)kala-śās(tr)(o jā?)taḥ|
(Ā)sī-
58(t ta?)(sya sutas satya) [?12×] s(u)ta [?6×] (karmma?)-nirato (y)(o?)
59[?4×] ◯ [?8×] (linā?)n na(ya)va(t)(āṁ ca sār?)d(dham) (āśrava?)ṇa-praty(ā)-
60(śra)va(ṇayā?)◯(ṣṭa?) [?8×] (ma?)(hāyajñi)yaḥ|
(A)tha vennamayya-nāmna-
61(s ta?)(sya) (sū?) ◯ [?14×] (m ādi?)ty(o) [’]jan(i) dv(i)ja-kulo-
62(t)(tamaḥ|?)
[?9×] (ta?)(tvaś ca) [?6×]ḥ vy(ākara)(ṇe?) [?2×] (prakṣ)ālana-v(ā)riṇāti(śi?)-
63[?2×] (pra)(kṣā?)(l)(i?)(ta-pāpa-malaḥ?)
1-9Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, 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 younger brother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six.
14His dear son—
38[Called] His Majesty Rājanārāyaṇa,
42On this occasion,
53-56That shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana, the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), the Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka) and supreme devotee of Maheśvara, convokes all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Vaṟanāṇḍu district (viṣaya), and commands the minister (mantrin), the chaplain (purohita), the general (senāpati), the crown prince (yuvarāja) and the commander of the guard (dauvārikādhyakṣa) as follows. [To wit:]
56-57[...] Bhāradvāja [...] was born [... who was familiar with] all śāstras.
57-60There was his son, [...] truth,↓15 [...] devoted to [ the six ] duties (of a Brahmin) [...] together with prudent [men], [...] ritual calls (āśravaṇa) and the ritual responses (pratyāśravaṇa) [...] a great practicioner of sacrifices.
60-62Now of his ¿son? named Vennamayya [...] was born [...] the sun↓16, the foremost of the priestly lineage.
62-63[...] in grammatics [...] by the water of [his] ablutions [...] washed off the stain of sin.
Sandhi-obscured caesura in v12 (śārdūlavikrīḍita) c. The break between pādas c and d is obscured by sandhi in v22 (also śārdūlavikrīḍita).
KR assigns stanza numbers 24 to 28 to the broken text of lines 56 to 62, allocating the end of a stanza to each punctuation mark including the one he reads in line 59 that I cannot make out in the estampage. It is indeed likely that this stretch of text was in verse, but the surviving text is not sufficient to determine its metre(s) or even the locations of stanza ends. I therefore assign stanza number 24 to the first clear remnant of verse beginning in line 63. This is stanza 29 in KR’s edition.
Reported in ARIE 1917-1918: page 13, appendix A/1917–18, № 15 with some further details at ARIE 1917-1918: pages 132–133, §5. Edited from inked impressions by B. V. Krishna Rao(1965), with facsimiles but no translation.↓19 The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Krishna Rao’s edition with his facsimiles.↓20
↑1. There are several difficulties with the reading of this stanza, for which see the
apparatus to lines 12 through 13. The meaning intended by the composer may have differed
in some details from what is translated here.
↑2. See the commentary and the apparatus to line 16 for some problems with this stanza.
↑3. KR in his commentary interprets the text to mean that Vijayāditya III’s reign lasted
44 and a half years, rather than 44 as usually recorded. I agree with his editor (Sircar)
that sārdham simply means “together with,” not “and a half.”
↑4. See the apparatus to line 23 for textual problems with this stanza. Vijayāditya IV’s
ascension of a balance scale is also mentioned in close proximity to his erection
of a victory pillar in Viraja in stanza 32 of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II. According to KR’s discussion, Vijayāditya ‘conquered king Vāsava’, but as his editor (Sircar?) bluntly points out, the text mentions no such king;
vāsavī qualifies āśā, meaning the eastern direction.
↑5. Or perhaps: with the brilliance of the heap of gold that had been weighed (in the
balance against him).
↑6. The second quarter of this stanza, part of which is lost, probably said that in addition
to Yuddhamalla, Bhīma II also vanquished other enemies, who apparently included people
regarded as barbarians.
↑7. The reading and interpretation of part of this stanza is problematic; see also the
apparatus to line 33. KR interpreted the text to mean that Amma II was ‘born with an ornament-like tissue around his neck’, but I agree with his editor (Sircar?), whose footnote says, ‘In fact ... Amma II was declared heir-apparent even when he was in the womb of his mother’. I translate the text as emended by me, and believe that the composer intended a
contrast between the yuvarāja’s locket, which was bestowed on Amma when he had no say in the matter, and the royal
turban, which he took as an act of will.
↑8. Some of this stanza is lost, and some details of the translation may be different
from the original composer’s intent. To make sense of the third quarter, I make a
tentative emendation (see the apparatus to line 36), believing that the composer had
intended to draw a parallel between Amma’s enmity to (and effectiveness against) elephants
and that of a lion (conventionally a vanquisher of elephants). As received, the text
means that he attained a fondness for elephants. It is also possible that this was
after all the composer’s intent, but in this case siṁhasya must be construed with the rest of the fourth quarter (“victorious through a leonine
valour”), which would be syntactically awkward.
↑9. Parts of this stanza are lost, and parts are illegible. It seems that at least part
of it is about Dānārṇava, as suggested by dvaimātura and agrajanman (the former being read with fair confidence, the latter with somewhat less). However,
25 years is the duration of Amma II’s reign, and it seems strange for the text to
mention this only after introducing Dānārṇava as Amma’s elder brother. It is also
possible that the first hemistich is about Amma II as an elder son (viz., of Bhīma
II), and only the second hemistich concerns Dānārṇava.
↑10. Compare verse 15 of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya.
↑11. According to KR, the same battle is referred to as dramiḷāhava in the Pabhupaṟṟu grant of Śaktivarman. Apparently (Krishna Rao 1965: 191), this grant has only been published in the Āndhra Sāhitya Parishad Patrikā, and neither the original nor any good facsimiles remain available. KR further notes
that bālya probably indicates an age up to 16 years, as defined in Dharmaśāstras.
↑12. I am not entirely certain about my interpretation of the third quarter of this stanza,
but believe that the composer’s idea was what I translate here. For this to work,
preṣita must be understood here as a substantive. KR, who apparently analysed the text with
parikṣata instead of my aparikṣata (see the apparatus to line 47), may have understood parikṣata-caro as a plural accusative of a kenning for arrow (literally, “that which goes into wounds”);
in this case, “going about unwounded” is not part of the message. I find this interpretation
more forced and less likely than mine.
↑13. Given the first hemistich, one would expect the stanza to say that Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa
laugs at the divine Nārāyaṇa because he does not need a false guise to defeat his
enemies. This is indeed how RK summarises the stanza, but I see no way to finding
that meaning in the text. The second hemistich is an awkward jumble of words. Most
jarringly, it lacks a verbal form to express the action. Moreover, it uses surprisingly
flattering terminology (īśa and śrī) for the enemy Coḍa-Bhīma, and even though api ought to imply a contradiction (“even though he had first cast down his enemies”),
I see no such thing, nor any need for a reference to enemies in general here. Conversely,
there is nothing in the second hemistich about Cālukya-Nārāyaṇa doing so in his own
form, nor is there a counterpart here to prāk, “in olden days.” The only point where the second hemistich matches the first is
that this human Nārāyaṇa defeats an enemy likened to Rāvaṇa, who was defeated by the
divine Nārāyaṇa in the form of Rāma. The text on the plate is quite clearly legible
and includes only one evident scribal mistake (°āṣāsta), where the composer’s original intent is quite straightforward (°āpāsta). I wonder if perhaps the fourth quarter belongs originally to a different stanza.
Two stanzas may have been either cobbled together badly by a clumsy composer, or a
quarter of the first and three quarters of the second may have been omitted by an
inattentive scribe.
↑14. I am somewhat baffled by the juxtaposition of vāraṇa and ibha, both normally meaning “elephant.” It may be that two different kinds of elephants
were meant by the composer, but neither of these words has the connotation of a particular
sort of elephant. I therefore prefer to take vāraṇa in the more literal, though uncommon, sense of “fending off,” i.e. armour, loosely
rendered in my translation as “caparison.”
↑15. Or perhaps, “named Satya*”.
↑16. Or perhaps, “named *āditya”.
↑17. Parts of this stanza are illegible. I am quite confident that the essence of the original
ran much as I reconstruct in my translation, but I cannot provide even tentative Sanskrit
readings for the words marked as supplied in the translation. The name Bhāradvāja
may refer to the patriarch Bharadvāja himself (with the first syllable lengthened
for the sake of the metre), or it may indicate a famous personage descended from him,
possibly Droṇa, the son of Bharadvāja, who in spite of being a Brahmin was famed for
his skill with weapons.
↑18. The Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava reportedly also read durggamān. If this can be confirmed from a facsimile, then the same reading may also be acceptable
here, but it should still be construed as a plural accusative (durggamān scil. deśān), not a singular ablative.
↑19. This article was published posthumously. EI received its manuscript in 1956. The editor
of EI (Sircar, according to the title page) thoroughly revised the text before publication.
↑20. The facsimiles are offset printed in small size, so in addition to the bad state of
the plates themselves, some of the detail in the estampages is obscured by the printing
technique. No image of the seal is available. Its legend is reported in ARIE, but
the seal itself had been apparently lost by the time Krishna Rao was working on his
edition.