Mḻopaṟṟu grant attributed to Maṅgi Yuvarāja

Metadata

Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00054

Hand Description:

Halantas. Final T in l1 seems to be a slightly reduced ta with a headmark much like the regular one; it may also be an erroneous ta instead of T.

Original punctuation marks

Other palaeographic observations. The consonants ka and ra occur in both short and long forms. Anusvāra is usually above the character to which it belongs, but often to the right of that consonant and occasionally atop the next character (e.g. l8 maṁgi; l9 kuṭiṁbinas; l11 vedāṁga; l22, ṁjalir). Dependent i and ī are rarely distinguished and are read as expected where there is no clear indication of either. See also the commentary.

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

¹śrī-sarvvasiddhi

Plates

^{⎘ plate 1v}¹svasti[.] śrīm¿(ā)?⟨a⟩d-bhagava(T)-sv¿a?⟨ā⟩mi-mahāsena-pādānudhy(ā)t¿a?⟨ā⟩nā⟨ṁ⟩ m¿a?⟨ā⟩tr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ m¿a?⟨ā⟩-
²navya-sagotr(ā)ṇā(ṁ) hārit(ī)-pu(trā)ṇāṁ (k)auśikī-vara-prasā(da-labdha)-(r)ājy(ā)nāṁ (A)ś(vamedha-yā)jinā(m) a-
³¿(mvro)?⟨mbho⟩dhi-paryyanta-(p)ra(th)ita-(ya)śa(sāṁ) [ca]ḷu(k)yānāṁ (kula-ja)la(dhi)-sa(mud)it(e)[nd]o(r) nna(ya-vinaya-vikra)m(o)p¿a?⟨ā⟩-
⁴(r)jita◯-bhūri-kī(r)tt¿i?⟨eḥ⟩ kī(r)tti(va)[rm](ma)ṇa⟨ḥ⟩ sūn(o)r a(neka-sa)ma⟦saṁ⟧⟨⟨ra⟩⟩-sa(ṁ)ghaṭ⟨ṭ⟩opalabdha-(jaya-śrī)-lat¿i?⟨ā⟩-
⁵-pra¿ś?⟨s⟩ūta-ya⟨śaḥ⟩-prasūty-āmoda-gandhādhivāsita-sa(kala)-diṅ-maṇḍalasya śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārā-
⁶jasya priya-tanayaḥ tr(ailo)kya-vikramod⟨d⟩yotita-sakala-(lo)kāśr¿ā?⟨a⟩ya⟨ḥ⟩ bhu(ja?){bhu(ja)}-(bala)-bh¿ā?⟨a⟩-
⁷ya-namit¿a?⟨ā⟩śeṣa-ripu-nr̥pati-makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭita-maṇi-kiraṇa-⟨rā⟩ga-ra(ṁ)j(i)ta-caraṇa-yuga-
^{⎘ plate 2r}⁸¡ḷ!⟨l⟩aḥ parama-bh¿a?⟨ā⟩gavata-śrī-(ma)ṁgi-yuva-vallabha-mahārājaḥ ca(vu?)ḻpallya-viṣaye rāṣṭra(kū)ṭa-
⁹-pramukhān kuṭ¡i!⟨u⟩(ṁbi)nas sarvv(ā)n itth¿ā?⟨a⟩m ¿a?⟨ā⟩(jñāpa)yati

viditam astu (vo) [’]s(mā)bhiḥ vanapaṟṟu-v¿a?⟨ā⟩stavy(ā)-
¹⁰ya va¡c(ch)!⟨ts⟩a-gotrāya ¡rinya(ke)si(ne)!⟨hiraṇyakeśine⟩ Agniśarmmaṇ¿e|?⟨aḥ⟩ pautrāya (guṇava?)[to] (Āḍ?)i(śa)rmma(ṇaḥ p)u-
¹¹tr¿a?⟨ā⟩(ya) ◯ maṇḍaśarmma(ṇe veda)-vedāṁga-p¿a?⟨ā⟩rag¿a?⟨ā⟩ya ṣaṭ-kar(mm)a-n(iratāya) ¿(Astiśahasana?)?-
¹²¿ma(ṁñcūdhūkaṁ?)? ma(ṁgi)-yuvarājaḥ sv(ā)mi-bhaktāḥ maṇḍaśarmmaṇe (Udaka-pūrvva)s sarvva-kara-par(i)h(ā)ra(M)
¹³Utt¿ā?⟨a⟩rāyaṇa-nimitta¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩ m(ḻ)opaṟṟu-nāmā grāmo (da)ttaḥ

tasy(ā)vadhayaḥ[.] _ pūrvva(taḥ) (ve?)l(ḻ?)(a)vaṟṟu[.]
¹⁴dakṣiṇataḥ pulgoṭlapabulūru[.] paścimataḥ A(g)ūnakṣayyaṁ[.] Utt¿ā?⟨a⟩rataḥ k(ḻ?)(o)cce ḍoḍu
^{⎘ plate 2v}¹⁵(ca?)[.](Ete)ṣām madhya-vartt¡iḥ!⟨ī⟩[.] (Asyopari na ke)nacid bādhā k¿ā?⟨a⟩raṇīy¿a?⟨ā⟩[.] yaḥ k¿ā?⟨a⟩r(o)t(i) sa(ḥ) pañca-
¹⁶-mahāpātaka-sa(ṁ)yukto bhavati[.] vyā(senā)py ukt¿ā?⟨aM⟩

I. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā

bahubhiś cānu¹⁷pālit¿a?⟨ā⟩

yasya (ya)sya yadā bhūm¿a?⟨i⟩s

tasya tasya tadā phala(ṁ)

II. Anuṣṭubh

sva-(da)ttā⟨ṁ⟩ para-dattā⟨ṁ⟩ vā

y(o)¹⁸hare◯ta ⟨va⟩sundh¿a?⟨ā⟩r¿a?⟨ā⟩(ṁ)

ṣaṣ¿ṭh?⟨ṭ⟩i-varṣa-sahasr(āṇi)

viṣṭhāyā(ṁ) jāyate kr̥mi(ḥ)

III. Anuṣṭubh

gavāṁ koṭi-pra¹⁹dānena

Aśva⟦(śe)⟧⟨⟨(me)⟩⟩dha-śatena (ca)

(ta)ṭākānā(ṁ) sahasreṇa

bhūmi-ha(rt)tā na śu¿d?⟨dh⟩yati

IV. Anuṣṭubh

na vi²⁰ṣa⟨ṁ⟩ viṣam ity ¿a?⟨ā⟩hu⟨r⟩

brahma-sva(ṁ) viṣam u(c)ya⟨te⟩

(viṣa)m (e)kākina⟨ṁ⟩ hanti

(b)ra(hma)-sva⟨ṁ⟩ putra-pautra²¹ka(ṁ)

V. Vasantatilakā

mad-vaṁśa-jāḥ para-mahīpati-(v)aṁśa-jā(ś) ca

(pāpā)d apeta-manaso bhuvi bh¿a?⟨ā⟩vi-bhū^{⎘ plate 3r}²²pā⟨ḥ⟩

ye p(ā)la(ya)nti mama dharmmam ima(ṁ) samastaṁ

t(eṣāṁ ma)y(ā) viracito [’]ṁjalir eṣa ²³mū⟨r⟩dhni

VI. Indravajrā

yān(īha da)ttā(n)i (p)ur¿a?⟨ā⟩ narendra

dān¿a?⟨ā⟩(ni) (dha)rmm(ā)rttha-yaśas-karāṇi

nirmm¿a?⟨ā⟩(l)y¿ā?⟨a⟩-vā²⁴nti-pra◯tim¿a?⟨ā⟩ni tāni

k(o) n¿a?⟨ā⟩ma s¿a?⟨ā⟩dhuḥ punar ādadīta{ḥ}

VII. Śālinī

sarvv(ā)n et¿a?⟨ā⟩n bhāvinaḥ pā(r)tthivendr¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨N⟩

²⁵bhūyo bhūyo y¿a?⟨ā⟩ca(te) r(āma)devaḥ

s(ā)m(ā)nyo [’]ya(ṁ) dharmma-(se)tu⟨r⟩ nr̥p¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇāṁ

kāle kāle pālanīyo ²⁶bhavadbhiḥ

VIII. Indravajrā

Ājñaptir as(min gha)narāśir ī(śaḥ)

(śrī)-bh¿a?⟨ā⟩nuśa(k)ti⟨r⟩ hitavān praj¿a?⟨ā⟩n¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩

śā¿ś?⟨s⟩an¿ā?⟨a⟩sya li(spiralL?)

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

¹ -bhagava(T)- ◇ bhāgavata RM
² hārit(ī)- ◇ h¿a?⟨ā⟩ritī- RM — ^2–3 a /¿(mvro)?⟨mbho⟩dhi- ◇ a/mbhodhi- RM
³ sa(mud)it(e)[nd]o(r) nna(ya-vinaya)- ◇ -samudita [?6×] RM • Compare the Nutulapaṟu grant and London Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, both of which use the same wording, though for Jayasiṁha rather than Kīrtivarman.
⁴ -(sa)ma⟦saṁ⟧⟨⟨ra⟩⟩- ◇ -samara- RM • According to RM’s note, ra ‘looks like ru. However, the ū sign is curved upwards.’ In fact, it looks like saṁ was first engraved, then corrected to ra. In addition to this character, there may be something added below the line at this point, just to the right of the descender of ra. The strokes are quite conspicuous in the estampage, but not visible at all in the photos. No insertion seems to be required either here or in the next line at this point. I cannot read the inserted text, if that is what it is. Its first character may be a small ṇa, and this may be followed by one to three further small characters of whose shape nothing can be discerned. — ⁴ sa(ṁ)ghaṭ⟨ṭ⟩opalabdha- • The engraved text may in fact be saṁghāṭopalabdha-. — ^4–5 -(jaya-śrī)-lat¿i?⟨ā⟩ /-pra¿ś?⟨s⟩ūta-ya⟨śaḥ⟩-prasūty-āmoda- ◇ (jayaśilat)¿(i)?⟨ā⟩/-pra¿ś?⟨s⟩ūtāya [praroha]-prasūty-āmoda- RM • The characters taya are at the lower edge of the binding hole, and are therefore reduced in size and slightly distorted in shape. I cannot fully reconstruct RM’s reading and emendation. At the end of line 4, he apparently reads jayaśilati and emends the final vowel to ā. A footnote by his editor completes this emendation to jayāsi-latā. In line 5 it is also clear that RM emends śū to sū, but I fail to understand what he intends with the word praroha, shown in his edition in round parentheses. He probably means this to replace the preceding word he reads as praśūtāya, but if so, then I do not see why he first emends that to prasūtāya. No matter what RM intended, we have a close parallel in lines 10-11 of the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II, which describe Jayasiṁha I as °āneka-samara-saṁghaṭṭa-labdha-vijaya-śīlatā-prasūta-yaśaḥ-prasūtāmoda-gandhādhivāsita-sakala-dig-maṇḍalasya (where -prasūtāmoda- is probably erroneous for -prasūty-āmoda-). The phrase jaya-śrī-latā in place of jaya-śīlatā is unexpected, but the subscript r is unmistakeable in the photo even in its worn state. It is possible that all of praśūtaya at the beginning of line 5 was intended to be cancelled, in which case we are left with a more elegant compound involving jaya-śrī-latā; but the text is interpretable with the above minor emendations even if all characters are retained.
⁶ -(lo)kāśr¿ā?⟨a⟩yaḥ ◇ -lokāśraya- RM • I am certain that the compound ending here is not subordinate to the one beginning after this point. — ⁶ -bhu(ja?){bhu(ja)}- • I follow RM in dismissing the second bhuja as superfluous dittography. There is a slight possibility that the first bhuja is in fact a different word beginning with bhu, and thus the second is not redundant. It is also possible that the second bhuja is not simply a product of dittography, but an erroneously engraved word influenced by the first bhuja. The Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II has sakala-lokāśraya-bhuja-yugaḷa-bala-namitāśeṣa- (describing Jayasiṁha), and the composer’s intent may have been -bhuja-yuga- here.
⁸ -bh¿a?⟨ā⟩gavata- ◇ -bh¿a?⟨ā⟩gavataḥ RM — ⁸ śrī-(ma)ṁgi- • I endorse RM’s reading, which he prints as clear. In fact, the first character differs conspicuously from instances of ma in the same line: it has an exaggerated headmark and its right is attached too low. Given its closeness to the next character, it may be a correction from va. — ⁸ ca(vu?)ḻpallya- ◇ ca(nu)ḻpallyā-viṣaye RM • The ARIE report says the granted village is in canū(ṟpa)lli viṣaya, having probably read the locative ending pallyāṁ. On the testimony of the Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III, I prefer to read the partly effaced second character as vu. I believe there is neither an anusvāra nor an ā marker here; the dot at the top right of llya is simply a serif-like feature of the engraving, like the dot at the top right of the subscript p, or that at the top left of ṣa, both of which clearly lack a function.
⁹ itth¿ā?⟨a⟩m ¿a?⟨ā⟩(jñāpa)yati ◇ ittham ājñāpayati RM
¹⁰ va¡c(ch)!⟨ts⟩a- • The lower part of ccha is lost to the edge of the binding hole. It may also have been c. — ¹⁰ (guṇava?)[to] (Āḍ?)i(śa)rmma(ṇaḥ) ◇ ¿śu?⟨su⟩śarmmaṇe| vveṁgiśarmma(ṇaḥ) RM • Although RM prints most of this text as clearly legible, neither the estampage nor the photo confirms his reading. Though the syntax of the sentence is garbled, I expect only one name here (see the note to the translation). My own reading is largely conjectural, based on very faint and ambiguous vestiges. What I read as va looks in fact more like vā or ma. In the name, my tentatively read Ā (apparently ignored or read as a punctuation mark by RM) could, on its own, be dra or vra, and my tentative ḍi (RM’s gi, which I find impossible) may also be di or dhi.
^11–12 ¿(Astiśahasana?)? /¿ma(ṁñcūdhūkaṁ?)? ◇ Astivihasana/-maṇḍūṟūre RM • I am unable to propose a meaningful reading here, and show what I deem to be the most likely reading on the basis of the vestiges. This is unlikely to be exactly what was inscribed on the plates, and an examination of the original may reveal some further clues. I cannot agree with RM’s reading maṇḍūṟūre even though his editor in a footnote suggests that this is a toponym identifiable as the village Maṇḍūru near the modern village Mopaṟṟu, which he believes was ‘the camping place’ (presumably of Maṅgi Yuvarāja). I note that, on Google Maps at least, that village’s name is Manduru with a dental d. In line 11, what I and RM read as A us identifiable only by a large and curling tail; the body is fully effaced. In principle, almost any consonant with a subscript r is also conceivable. The second character is most likely to be sti, but a different subscript consonant is possible. Reading smai (for Asmai) is not entirely out of the question, although the vowel is unlikely to be anything other than i. The third character is almost certainly śa, discernible both in the estampage and the photo. What RM reads as an i marker is the subscript m of śarmmaṇaḥ in the previous line. After this, ha and sa are reasonably clear. The former could perhaps also be ḷa; the latter is badly worn, but not too ambiguous. At the end of the line, na might also be va. In line 12, the second character, which I read as ñcū, is definitely not ṇḍa: compare the very different ṇḍa further on in this line, and the very similar ñca in line 15. It is preceded by a conspicuous dot that may be an anusvāra or an irrelevant pit in the metal. The following character is somewhat distorted to fit in below the binding hole, and its upper part may be lost to wear at the edge of the hole. Assuming that it is fully preserved, its most likely reading is dhū, but ḻū is also possible. Compare dha in line 13 which, though slightly damaged, looks very similar. If the upper right part is lost to wear, then thū and ṟū are also conceivable. The upper part of the line’s fourth character is definitely lost to the widening of the hole, but it seems to have had a crossbar, so ka is a more likely reading than ra. It is followed by another possible anusvāra that may also be meaningless damage, but since the next character is inscribed at some distance, an anusvāra is more likely.
¹² -bhaktāḥ ◇ -bhakt(āya?) RM • The plate is worn here, but the reading is unambiguous. — ¹² -par(i)h(ā)ra(M) ◇ -parihāraṁ RM
¹³ -nimitta¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩ ◇ -nimittaṁ RM — ¹³ m(ḻ)opaṟṟu ◇ mḻoṁpaṟṟu RM • The ARIE report reads the name as mṟōpaṟṟu. I see no anusvāra here. The subscript part of the first character is more likely to be ḻ than ṟ. — ¹³ -n(ā)mā ◇ -nāma RM — ¹³ (ve?)l(ḻ?)(a)vaṟṟu ◇ I(l)avaṟṟu RM • Although this is in all probability the modern village Yellavarru identified in an editorial footnote in RM’s edition, RM’s reading cannot be right. The first character is probably ve. The subscript part of the second looks like ḻ, but could be ṟ or th. A clumsily reduced l cannot be excluded, but it is definitely not the usual cursive simplification of subscript l.
¹⁴ pulgoṭlapabulūru ◇ pulgoḷḷipa(ṟu)[2×] RM • These characters are quite effaced in the estampage, but all are reasonably clear in the photo. The name is attested in the as yet unedited Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III. — ¹⁴ A(g)ūnakṣayyaṁ ◇ Agūnakṣayya RM — ¹⁴ Utt¿ā?⟨a⟩rataḥ ◇ Uttarataḥ RM — ^14–15 k(ḻ?)(o)cce ḍoḍu / (ca?)[.](Ete)ṣām madhya- ◇ k(ṟ?)(o)cce (d)o(p?)u / [3×]mmadhya- RM • If RM’s reading at the end of 2r is interpretable, then it may be correct. Both the estampage and the photo are quite clear, but many of the characters can be ambiguous. The first may perhaps also be kṣo. The first character on 2v seems to belong to this phrase, but it may be va rathre than ca. The Sanskrit words from the second character onward are reasonably clear in the photo.
¹⁵ k¿ā?⟨a⟩rot(i) ◇ karot¿a?⟨i⟩ RM
¹⁷ °pālit¿a?⟨ā⟩ ◇ °pālitā RM — ¹⁷ bhūm¿a?⟨i⟩s ◇ bhūmis RM
¹⁸ ⟨va⟩sundh¿a?⟨ā⟩r¿a?⟨ā⟩(ṁ) ◇ ⟨va⟩sundharā⟨M⟩ RM — ¹⁸ ṣaṣ¿ṭh?⟨ṭ⟩i- ◇ ṣaṣṭir RM — ^18–19 koṭi-pra/dānena ◇ koṭi/-pradānena RM
¹⁹ Aśva⟦(śe)⟧⟨⟨(me)⟩⟩dha- ◇ Aśvamedha- RM • In this place, śe or ge was first inscribed, then the right-hand side of the consonant was incorporated into an m, but the left and top parts were left in place.
²⁰ ¿a?⟨ā⟩hu⟨r⟩ ◇ āhuḥ RM — ²⁰ hanti ◇ ha¡ṁ!⟨n⟩ti RM
²¹ bh¿a?⟨ā⟩vi- ◇ bhāvi- RM
²² p(ā)la(ya)nti ◇ pālayaṁti RM — ²² ima(ṁ) ◇ imāṁ RM
²³ mū⟨r⟩dhni ◇ mūrddhni RM — ²³ narendra ◇ narendr¿a?⟨aiḥ⟩ RM • Since the text is meaningful as received, I prefer not to emend to the standard version of this stanza. — ²³ dān¿a?⟨ā⟩(ni) ◇ dānāni RM — ²³ (dha)rmm(ā)rttha- ◇ dharmārttha- RM — ^23–24 nirmm¿a?⟨ā⟩(l)y¿ā?⟨a⟩-vā/nti- ◇ nirmāly¿ā?⟨a⟩-¿m?⟨v⟩ā/nt¿i?⟨a⟩- RM
²⁴ -pra◯tim¿a?⟨ā⟩ni ◇ -pratimāni RM — ²⁴ n¿a?⟨ā⟩ma ◇ nāma RM — ²⁴ s¿a?⟨ā⟩dhuḥ ◇ sādhuḥ RM — ²⁴ sarvv(ā)n et¿a?⟨ā⟩n ◇ sarvān etān RM — ²⁴ bhāvinaḥ pā(r)tthivendr¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨N⟩ ◇ bhāv-naḥ (pā)ratthivendrā⟨N⟩ RM • Seems to be a typo in RM.
²⁵ y¿a?⟨ā⟩ca(te) ◇ yācate RM — ²⁵ r(āma)devaḥ • Since the reading is clear, intelligible and metrically correct, I do not emend. However, this stanza normally has Rāmabhadra here. — ²⁵ dharmma- ◇ dharma- RM — ²⁵ -(se)tu⟨r⟩ ◇ -setur RM — ²⁵ nr̥p¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇāṁ ◇ nr̥pāṇāṁ RM
²⁶ as(min gha)(gha)narāśir ◇ asmin dhana-rāśir RM • The problematic is quite worn and faint, but is quite certainly ngha, especially from the photo. Since RM does not mention Dhanarāśi in his discussion, this is probably not a typo in his edition. — ²⁶ -bh¿a?⟨ā⟩nu° ◇ -bhānu° RM — ²⁶ praj¿a?⟨ā⟩n¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩ ◇ prajānāṁ RM — ²⁶ śā¿ś?⟨s⟩an¿ā?⟨a⟩sya li(spiralL?) ◇ śā¿ś?⟨s⟩anasya li RM • The last symbol on the page may be a circle with a concentric dot instad of a spiral.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

^1-9Greetings. From the ocean that is the lineage of the Caḷukyas—who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by the Divine Lord Mahāsena, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who are of the Mānavya gotra, who are sons of Hāritī, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who perform the Aśvamedha sacrifice, and whose fame has spread as far as the oceans—had arisen a moon [who was] Kīrtivarman, who earned his great reputation by his political acumen (naya), discipline (vinaya) and valour. His son [was] His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana, who perfumed the complete circle of the quarters with pleasant fragrance from the efflorescence, which is glory, sprouting from the liana that is the victory goddess attained in the clash of many a battle. His son, His Majesty the supremely pious Junior Vallabha King (yuva-vallabha-mahārāja) Maṅgi, a shelter to the complete world (sakala-lokāśraya) illuminated by his valour [unique] in the three worlds, whose pair of feet are tinted by the hues of the rays from the gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of all the enemy kings bowed down by fear of the power of his arms, commands all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—in Cavuḻpallya district (viṣaya) as follows.

^9-13Let it be known to you [that] on the occasion of the winter solstice we have given the village named ¿Mḻopaṟṟu? with exemption from all taxes, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water, to Maṇḍaśarman, who is thoroughly versed in the Vedas and Vedāṅgas and devoted to the six duties, ¿and who is the grandson of Agniśarman, a hiraṇyakeśin of the Vatsa gotra residing in Vanapaṟṟu and the son of ¿the talented Āḍ?iśarman?^↓1—to [this] Maṇḍaśarman ¿who is? ... (astiśahasana maṁñcūdhūkaṁ)^↓2 devoted to ¿his? lord Maṅgi Yuvarāja.

^13-16Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, Velḻavaṟṟu. To the south, Pulgoṭlapabulūru. To the west, ¿Agūnakṣayyaṁ?. ^↓3 To the north, ¿Kḻocce and Ḍoḍu?. [The donated land is] situated in between these. Let no-one pose an obstacle (to the enjoyment of rights) over it. He who does so shall be conjoined with the five great sins. Vyāsa too has said:

Many (kings) have granted land, and many have preserved it (as formerly granted). Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit {reward (accrued of granting it)} belongs to him at that time.

II.

He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.

III.

A seizer of (granted) land cannot be purified [even] by donating ten million cows, nor by [performing] a hundred Aśvamedhas, [nor by constructing] a thousand tanks.

IV.

It is not [actual] poison that is [properly] called poison: it is the property of a Brahmin that is said to be poison. Poison kills just the one man, while [seizing] the property of a Brahmin [destroys] his progeny.

Hereby I offer my respectful obeisance (añjali) to [all] future kings on earth, born in my lineage and in different royal lineages, who with minds averted from sin observe this ruling (dharma) of mine in its integrity.

VI.

O king, those donations given by kings in the past to generate merit (dharma), wealth (artha) and fame, are [now] comparable to discarded garlands or vomit. What decent man would ever partake again of them?

VII.

Over and over again, Rāmadeva begs all these future kings: “Each in your own time, you shall respect this framework of legality that is universally applicable to kings!”

VIII.

The executor (ājñapti) in this [matter] is the lord (īśa) Ghanarāśi. His Honour Bhānuśakti, beneficent to subjects

²⁶[is] the ¿writer? of this decree^↓6

Commentary

The text ends abruptly with the last line on 3r. I agree with RM that only a very small amount of text seems to be missing here, most probably identifying the writer of the text. RM believes a date was also lost here, but I do not find this likely on the basis of parallel grants. It is not clear whether the last bit of text in line 26 is prose or a garbled continuation of the indravajrā hemistich identifying the executor; nor is it clear whether Ghanarāśi and Bhānuśakti are two separate persons or only one. The intended text may for instance have been something like tac-chāsanasyāsya ca lekha-karttā. The photographs published by the National Museum include a picture of 3v, which bears no trace of writing there whatsoever. Perhaps the text was intended to be complete as it is. The last character, li, may have been intended as an abbreviation for likhita, and the symbol after it might be an abbreviation marker. Assuming that the second hemistich intended by the composer was shortened meaningfully by the scribe to fit the text on the plate, it seems most likely that Ghanarāśi was the executor and Bhānuśakti was the writer.

The issuer of these plates was identified in the ARIE report as Jayasiṁha I on the grounds that the seal bears the legend sarvasiddhi and only Kīrtivarman and Viṣṇuvardhana (I) are mentioned as ancestors in the genealogy. RM, however, asserts that maṅgi-yuva-vallabha-mahārāja is clearly the donor. While neither instance of the name maṁgi is entirely clear, the reading is indeed quite secure. RM adds that, since Maṅgi Yuvarāja’s seals have the legend vijayasiddhi, the seal may not be the original seal of this grant. He further supposes that reference to the closer ancestry of Maṅgi Yuvarāja was apparently ‘left out by oversight’, which I find preposterous. His editor in EI (probably K. G. Krishnan) adds in a footnote that there may have been ‘a mix up of two different plates at a distant time’, which is even more preposterous. Moreover, RM notes that the donor’s epithet is sakala-lokāśraya in line 6, but says only that this ‘means the same’ as Maṅgi Yuvarāja’s regular epithet sarvalokāśraya. However, the two epithets are evidently not interchangeable. It is now known that Jayasiṁha II also used sarvasiddhi on his seals, but no other ruler of the dynasty did. The question of the issuer needs further study.

Some details to consider are the following.

1, The phraseology of the grant has much in common with known grants of Maṅgi Yuvarāja. However, it has just as much in common with grants of Jayasiṁha I and Viṣṇuvardhana II, most especially with the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that all grants of Maṅgi known to me commence with a more mature version of the stock text śrīmatāṁ sakala-.
2, The genealogy begins with Kīrtivarman, whereas grants of Maṅgi known to me begin either with Jayasiṁha I or with Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana. Genealogies beginning with Kīrtivarman are found in practically all grants of Jayasiṁha I, the single known grant of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka, and one grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II (of the seven that I know).
2, The genealogy begins with Kīrtivarman, whereas grants of Maṅgi known to me begin either with Jayasiṁha I or with Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana. Genealogies beginning with Kīrtivarman are found in all grants of Jayasiṁha I that I know, one grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II (of the two I know), and the single known grant of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka.
3, The exhortatory verses are uncommon. The first five are identical (down to their details and their sequence) to those in the Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III and the Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III, and each of the five (or a variant thereof) also occurs, not necessarily in the same order, in the Ciṁbuluru plates of Vijayāditya III (with the lines in a different sequence). Variants of stanza 4 occur sporadically in grants of Viṣṇuvardhana II and Vijayāditya I, but the first closely related variant is in a grant of Kali Viṣṇuvardhana, and its only exact parallels are in the above grants of Vijayāditya III. Stanza 6 is common in the grants of the Bādāmi Cālukyas, but in the Veṅgī corpus it is only paralleled in the Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II and the Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I. Variants of stanza VII occur sporadically in the corpus, but variants where the speaker is named Rāmadeva rather than Rāmabhadra only occur in grants of Vijayāditya III.
4, I have not verified this, but the elaborate headmarks of this inscription (usually long horizontal lines with the ends curved up) seem late to me. It may be that a later scribe was attempting to imitate an earlier style of writing, but 9th-century production without any attempt at a different writing style seems most likely. A more detailed study of the palaeography is warranted.

All in all, it seems likely that the plates were inscribed at a time several generations after Maṅgi Yuvarāja. Given the elegant execution of the writing and the plates’ overall similarity to those of Vijayāditya III, it is in my opinion likely that the present grant was legitimately produced in Vijayāditya III’s chancellery, and is probably a reissue of a damaged earlier grant.^↓7 Given the presumably original seal and the archaic preamble, the original on which the text is based probably hailed from the time of Jayasiṁha I, whose genealogy is correctly presented and who is also known to have used the epithets sakala-lokāśraya and trailokya-vikrama, applied to the issuer in the present text. The name of Maṅgi Yuvarāja may have been inserted into the new text at the insistence of the owner of the earlier grant, but this insertion has rendered the genealogy inaccurate, and the repeated mention of Maṅgi in lines 11-12 is unintelligible. The exhortatory stanzas would have been added according to the custom of the day (there may have been none or much fewer in the original), and the mutilated colophon may be the best copy of a damaged original that the latter-day scribes could manage.

Another fanciful way to explain the inconsistencies would be to assume that the original grant on which this text is based was issued by Jayasiṁha I’s younger brother who subsequently reigned as Indra Bhaṭṭāraka. Although there is no evidence for this, his birth name may have been Maṅgi and he may have been his elder brother’s yuvarāja. If so, then yuvarāja may have stuck to him as a permanent epithet, explaining to some degree why his grandson bore the name Maṅgi Yuvarāja even as a crowned king.

Bibliography

Reported in ARIE 1919-1920: page 12, appendix A/1919–20, № 9 with discussion at ARIE 1919-1920: 99. Edited from inked estampages by S. S. Ramachandra Murthy (1986), with facsimiles,^↓8 without translation. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Ramachandra Murthy’s edition with his facsimiles and with photographs published by the National Museum.^↓9

Primary

Ramachandra Murthy, S. S. 1986. “Ipuru Plates of Mangi-Yuva-Vallabha-Maharaja.” EI 40: 235–38.

[siglum RM]

Secondary

ARIE 1919-1920. Page 12, appendix A/1919–20, № 9.

ARIE 1919-1920. 99.

Notes

↑1. Although the case endings in the text indicate otherwise, I am quite certain on the basis of the structure of the sentence that the donee is Maṇḍaśarman, son of Āḍiśarman and grandson of Agniśarman. According to RM’s commentary, there are three donees: Agniśarman, Suśarman (read by RM where I show a lacuna) and Maṇḍaśarman. This matches the syntax implied by the endings. However, by this reading, only Agniśarman would have a residence, gotra and school; moreover, the next person (the ostensible Suśarman) would be the grandson of Agniśarman with no other family ties specified, while Maṇḍaśarman would (as in my interpretation) be the son of Āḍiśarman (whose name RM reads as Veṁgiśarman), again with no other family ties specified. It is much more logical in my opinion to assume a single Brahmanical lineage of three generations, with residence, gotra and school recorded only for the grandfather, as commonly done in related grants.
↑2. I cannot interpret this phrase; see the apparatus to line 11.
↑3. Could akṣayya mean a previously granted Brahmanical holding (akṣaya-nīvī)?
↑4. The name in this stanza is normally Rāmabhadra.
↑5. Or, given the ending of his name rāśi, perhaps īśa should be understood to mean that Ghanarāśi is Śiva, i.e. a fully initiated Śaiva.
↑6. The text ends abruptly here. See the commentary.
↑7. Vijayāditya III also donated the adjacent village in his Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant.
↑8. No image of the seal has been published.
↑9. http://museumsofindia.gov.in/repository/record/nat_del-56-151-1-8727; http://museumsofindia.gov.in/repository/record/nat_del-56-151-2-8728; http://museumsofindia.gov.in/repository/record/nat_del-56-151-3-8729; accessed 31 March 2021.