Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00053
Hand Description:
Halantas. Final M looks rather like a check mark, at head height. Final T looks like a slightly reduced ta, possibly with a different stroke in place of its headmark (l18, l34), or clearly without a headmark in line 34. Final N is a slightly simplified na without a headmark (l26). Rare final Ḷ in l28-29 (3 times) and l37. All instances of the latter are unclear; those in l28-29 seem like regular ḷa with a curved horizontal stroke attached to the head, while that in l37 appears to be a reduced ḷa with a curved vertical stroke in place of a headmark.
Original punctuation marks, if present in the inscription, may be plain vertical bars and perhaps a median dot. See the apparatus to lines 14, 19, 28 and 33 for potential punctuation marks.
Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is normally on top of the character to which it belongs, but occasionally apparently atop the next character ((l19 muṁjuṇūru, possibly l37 °āśaṁ for °āṁśa).
The primary hand inscribing most of the text. Tends to be rather bold, using fairly simple and slightly cursive glyph forms. I cannot assert definitively that this is a different hand, but line 37 certainly includes a higher number of awkward characters than the rest of the text. In addition, the dependent vowel i may be formed differently here than elsewhere, and most importantly, the consonants b and especially y are drawn rather differently. My impression is that this is a less confident hand, which attempts to draw sophisticated characters with a varying degree of success, unlike the primary hand that simplifies boldly and confidently.No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
1śr(ī)matāM sakala-bhuvana-sa(ṁ)stūyamāna-mā(na)vya-sa(go)-
2tr¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇāM hārīti-putrāṇāM svāmi-mahāsena-p¿a?⟨ā⟩dānu(dhyā)-
3tānāM kauś¿ī?⟨i⟩kī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājy¿a?⟨ā⟩n(āM) bhagava(n-nārā)ya¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-pra-
4sāda-samāsādita-varāha-lāñchane(kṣa)ṇa-(kṣa)ṇa-va(śīk)¡(ri)!⟨r̥⟩tā(śe)ṣa-
⎘ plate 2r 5mahī(bhr̥t)āṁ (Aśva)m(e)dh(āvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavi)t(rīk)¡(ri)!⟨r̥⟩ta-m(ānasa)-(śarīrā?)-
6(ṇā)M s(v)a-yaśo-(v)iṣay(īk)¡(ri)!⟨r̥⟩(ta)-tr(ailokyā)nā(M) ca(ḷ)ukyānā(M) ku-
7lam ala(ṁk)¡(ri)!⟨r̥⟩tya ni(ja)-ja(n)man¿(aḥ)?⟨ā⟩ virājamān¿āḥ?⟨asya⟩ śrī-kī⟨r⟩ttivarmma-mahā-
8(rā)jasya naptā śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārāja¿ḥ?⟨sya⟩ raṇa-mukha-gata-ripu-
⎘ plate 2v 9-vijaya-samupalabdha-śrī-vadhū-nivāsāyamāna-vipula-vakṣ¡a!⟨aḥ⟩-sthala-
10sya putraḥ śakti-traya-samadhigat¿a?⟨o⟩ mahā-khyāti-vibhūti(ḥ) tri-
11vargga-sevā-nipuṇaḥ purāṇa-puruṣa Iva bahu-loka-stu-
12taḥ purārātir iva bhūta-gaṇa-priyaḥ dvitīya Iva makaradhvajaḥ
⎘ plate 3r 13pañcama Iva lokapālaḥ ¿pridhagra?⟨pr̥thāgra⟩-suta Iva satya-sandhaḥ śar¿ā?⟨a⟩(t)-k(ā)la (I)va
14kr̥◯ta-bandhu-jīvotsava(ḥ) pūrvvācal⟦o⟧⟨⟨e⟩⟩ndra Iva mitrodayānukūla-
15-mahim¡ā!⟨aḥ⟩ mahīpati-makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭita-mahā-ratna-marīci-ma-
16ñjarī-rañjita-caraṇāravinda-yuga¡ḷ!⟨l⟩aḥ śrīndrava⟨r⟩mma-mahārājaḥ tyā-
17ga-dhen¿yā?⟨v-a⟩para-nāma-dheyaḥ Udaka-pūrv(v)akaṁ sarvva-karā!a-parihāropetaM
⎘ plate 3v 18(b)rahmad¿a?⟨e⟩y(ī)k(r̥)tya koṇḍaṇagūru-nāma grāma{grāma}M prādāT
tasya grāmasya
19(d)ig-(v)ibhāgā(ḥ)[.] Uttarataḥ muṁjuṇūru nāma grāma⟨ḥ⟩[.] pūrvvataḥ pagu(nū)ru nāma
grā-
20maḥ[.] dakṣiṇa-vibhāg¿a?⟨ā⟩vasthitaḥ ceṟupūru nāma grāma⟨ḥ⟩[.] pa(ś)c(i)mataḥ Irb(u)-
21(l)i nāma gr¿a?⟨ā⟩maḥ[.] Eteṣāṁ grāmāṇāṁ maddhye{ṁ} niv¿a?⟨ā⟩sī-kr̥taḥ[.] vājasaneya-ca-
22(ra)ṇasya du⟨r⟩ggaśa⟨r⟩mmaṇaḥ brahma-vihita-karmma-niratasya Iṟṟaḷ(ūr)-boya nāma
⎘ plate 4r 23(brāhmaṇa?)sya pautrāya Abhijana-v¿ī?⟨i⟩dyā-v¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ttavataḥ bhāradvā(ja)-sa(go)tra-
24sya viṣṇuśarmmaṇaḥ putrāya vedavid-vipra-saṁstūyamāna-caritā(ya)
25ceṇḍiśarmmaṇe mātā-pitror ātmanaś ca puṇy¿o?⟨ā⟩vāptaye
Iti (ca)
26bhāvino rāja⟨r⟩ṣīN yathopacāra-purassaraM sammānayati
Āryy(ā)-
27hū-va(ṁ)śa-gagana-tilaka-bhūta-(r/k)oṇ(ḍi)varmmaṇo mahārājasyāgra-sut¡a-I!⟨a-I⟩-
⎘ plate 4v 28ndrava(r)mma{(ṇa?)}-(n)āma-dheya-vi¿ñj?⟨jñ⟩āpanayā[.] tasyā¿ñjā?⟨jña⟩ptir ¿o?⟨e⟩vaM Ālapāka-(boḶ)
29[2×](ppi-boḶ) somayājula-veḷḷekki-boḶ māraṭa-boḶ
Api ca mohā(l lobhā)-
30d vā yaẖ kaścid vighna-karttā{ra} sa pañca-mahāpātaka-yukto bhaviṣyati[.] Iti ca
31veda-vyā⟨sa⟩sya ślok¿a?⟨ā⟩ś cātra
Iti
kanakarāma-li(kh)i-
36te śā¿ś?⟨s⟩ane catu⟨ḥ⟩ṣaṣ¿ṭh?⟨ṭ⟩y-¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨ṁ⟩ś¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ[.] Eteṣā⟨ṁ⟩ nāmānāM Ekaikā⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ spiralR
37[?2×](pājñā?) ¿kuṁḷḷ? ekāṁśa(ṁ? c/vo?)ḍa-boḶ t¡ri!⟨r̥⟩t¿i?⟨ī⟩yā¿śaṁ?⟨ṁśa⟩⟨ḥ⟩
1-18Greetings. The grandson of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Kīrtivarman, who by [the mere fact of] his birth shone [like an ornament] adorning the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, to whom all kings instantaneously submit at the [mere] sight of the Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, whose ¿minds and? bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice, and who have subjected the triple world to themselves by their inherent glory—; the son of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (I), the wide face of whose chest became the dwelling-place of Lady Majesty acquired by defeating enemies who had positioned themselves at the battlefront: His Majesty King (mahārāja) Indravarman (Indra Bhaṭṭāraka)—whose other name is Milchcow of Liberality (tyāga-dhenu), who is endowed with the three powers (śakti-traya), whose fame and might are great, who is adept in serving the three goals (trivarga),↓1 who is praised by many people as the Primeval Man (purāṇa-puruṣa, i.e. probably Viṣṇu) {is praised by many worlds}, who is the beloved of hosts of creatures as the Enemy of Pura (Śiva) {is the beloved of troops of ghosts (bhūta)}, who is like a second Crocodile-Bannered (Kāma), like a fifth Guardian of the World (lokapāla), who is true to his word like the firstborn son of Pr̥thā (Yudhiṣṭhira), who creates a feast for his kinsmen and for living beings (in general) like the autumn season {which creates a feast of bandhujīva flowers}, whose power is inclined toward the elevation of his friends, like the Lordly Mountain of the East {whose bulk is inclined toward the rising of the sun}, whose pair of lotus feet are tinted by clusters of rays from great gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of kings—(this King Indravarman) has donated the village named Koṇḍaṇagūru, converted into a Brahmanic gift (brahma-deya) and with a remission of all taxes, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water.
18-25The demarcations of directions for that village [are as follows]. To the north, the village named Muṁjuṇūru. To the east, the village named Pagunūru. The village named Ceṟupūru is established as the southern demarcation. To the west, the village named Irbuli. [The donee] has been allocated a residence amidst these villages. [The donation has been made] to the grandson of the Brāhmin Durgaśarman (also) named Iṟṟaḷūr-boya, who belonged to the Vājasaneya caraṇa and was dedicated to the rituals (karma) ordained for Brahmins; the son of Viṣṇuśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, who possessed a high birth, knowledge and (virtuous) conduct; (namely,) to Ceṇḍiśarman, whose demeanour is praised by Brahmins knowledgeable in the Vedas. [The donation has been made] in order to acquire merit for [my (Indravarman’s)] mother and father as well as for myself (Indravarman).
25-26He (Indravarman) further respects (i.e. respectfully informs) future kingly sages (rājarṣi) with all due courtesy as follows:↓2
26-29[The donation has been made] at the petition of the firstborn son, named Indravarman, of King (mahārāja) Koṇḍivarman↓3, who was an ornament of the sky↓4 of the ¿Āryāhū? lineage.↓5 The executor (ājñapti) of that (decree) is thus Ālapāka-boḷ, [...]ppi-boḷ, Somayājula-veḷḷekki-boḷ (and) Māraṭa-boḷ.↓6
29-31Moreover, whosoever would pose an obstacle (to the donee’s rights) out of a lack of discernment (moha) or out of greed shall be conjoined with the five great sins. In addition, there are also the following verses of Veda-vyāsa on this matter.
35-36With regard to this decree written (likhita) by Kanakarāma, there are sixty-four shares. One share each for these ¿names?. ↓7
35-37[...] ... one share. Coḍa-boḷ, one third share.↓8
The opening text svasti level with (or slightly above) line 2 of the body text, placed on the left (beginning around 1 o’ clock of the binding hole), so that the body text of line 2 is indented by about 3 character widths.
On most pages, lines next to the binding hole are indented to avoid the hole, but occasionally (where the hole is indicated in my edition), a character is inserted into the narrow space before the hole.
I feel quite sure that nāma grāmagrāmaM in line 18 is dittography, where the scribe engraved grāma, then skipped believing he was still at nāma and re-engraved grāma. Hultzsch 1925-1926: page 4, note 11 believes otherwise and thinks grāma-grāma is deliberately used, meaning perhaps a large village or a chief village. He points out a parallel in line 18 of the Peṇukapaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha I (where, however, the original editor of that grant, Fleet, deems the repetition to be dittography).
By my interpretation of the rather ellpitical and vague passage in lines 26-29, the Eastern Cālukya king Indravarman is hereby issuing a grant at the request of (or endorsing a grant made by) a petty ruler likewise named Indravarman, the son of Koṇḍivarman/Roṇḍivarman. The four boḷs listed here were probably persons of note in the territory concerned, which was ruled by the petty Indravarman as a vassal of the Cālukya Indravarman, and were therefore (evam in the text) given the task of conveying the grant to the village and publicising it. It is also conceivable that they were, in the first place, the messengers sent by the vassal Indravarman to the suzerain Indravarman’s court to ask for this grant to be made or endorsed. Hultzsch, however, interprets the passage differently. He believes that the subordinate who petitioned for the grant was Koṇḍivarman, and the Indravarman mentioned in this passage was the son of the Cālukya Indravarman, who was appointed as the executor of the grant at the request of Koṇḍivarman. As for the four boḷs, according to Hultzsch they were probably witnesses to the grant, which he sees as being implied by the word evam, “thus”, in the text. I find his interpretation unconvincing for the following reasons. 1) it requires two emendations (nāma-dheya to nāma-dheyo and °ājñaptir to °ājñaptiḥ|) , whereas my proposal only assumes a lack of sandhi at a point where the writer may well have preferred hiatus for the sake of clarity. 2) even with Hultzsch’s emendations, the resulting syntax is extremely awkward and staggered, with the possessive phrase koṇḍivarmmaṇo … vijñāpanayā split into two widely separated parts, containing another possessive phrase in the intervening text, whereas the text as I read it involves only the minimal awkwardness of a long and not-quite-regular compound. 3) I perceive my own scenario as quite coherent, while I do not see such coherence in Hultzsch’s scenario. Why would the vassal have requested that the suzerain’s son be appointed as executor? Why is the text not clearer if the vassal actually made two requests, one for the grant to be made, and another for the prince to be appointed as executor? Why would witnesses need to be involved at all, and—since I am not aware of witnesses being named in any Eastern Cālukya grant—why is their function and the reason for their inclusion not clearly stated? 4) I believe that the reason why Hultzsch did not choose to interpret the text along lines similar to my thinking was the fact that by my interpretation, both the vassal and the suzerain bear the style mahārāja, whereas by his understanding, only the suzerain gets this style. Since mahārāja is often used as a title of subordinate rulers, I see no difficulty in understanding this to refer to the vassal Koṇḍivarman here; and conversely, Eastern Cālukya grants frequently use mahārāja (as well as even more unassuming styles) for their kings without any implication of inferior status.
The meaning and purpose of the last line is obscure. It may have been added subsequently, since it comes after the closing sign at the end of line 36 and it seems to be in a different hand. If I am correct in reading the word ājñā in line 37, then it may be that the executors were also granted shares in the donated land, and if so, Coḍa-boḷ may have been another agent instrumental to the implementation of the grant.
Reported in ARIE 1921-1922: page 9, appendix A/1921–22, № 2 with some further details at ARIE 1921-1922: pages 96–97, §4. Edited from inked impressions by E. Hultzsch (1925-1926), with facsimiles↓9 and an abstract of the contents. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Hultzsch’s edition with his facsimiles.
↑1. I assume that trivarga refers here to the three puruṣārthas: dharma, artha and kāma. Compare verse 14 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II. However, some other group of three may have been meant, e.g. the three higher orders
of society.
↑2. I construe iti at the beginning of this passage to refer to the following text. See also the apparatus
to line 25.
↑3. Or Roṇḍivarman.
↑4. Although tilaka, “ornament” and gagana, “sky” are not normally associated, I believe the composer’s intent was to say that
this ruler was a moon (“sky-ornament”) to the sky that was his dynasty.
↑5. Or possibly the lineage named Ārya.
↑6. The word boḷ probably means either a village officer or the landlord of a village. It is thus
likely that four persons are listed here not by name but by their titles (except probably
for Somayājula, who seems to have both a name and a title); but since ājñapti appears in the singular, it is also possible that a single unnamed person was boḷ of four villages. See the commentary for my interpretation and how it differs from
that of Hultzsch.
↑7. This passage is again obscure. Hultzsch tentatively emends the text to mean “One share
each for these Brahmins” and believes that the Brahmins referred to may include the
four boḷs mentioned in lines 28-29 above, in addition to the principal donee Ceṇḍiśarman. He
further assumes that the pronoun eteṣām, “these”, implies that the Brahmins in question would have been assembled in the
king’s presence when he made the grant. I have no opinion pro or contra, except that
the required emendation is a major one (not the rectification of a scribal error),
and that is the assumption that the donees were assembled is correct, this gathering
would probably have taken place at the village in question and not in the king’s presence.
I wonder if the donees were in fact listed on an additional plate that is now lost.
↑8. See the commentary.
↑9. A photograph of the seal is included in the plate showing the seal of the Niḍupaṟu
grant of Jayasiṁha I, between pages 56 and 57.