Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00057
Hand Description:
Halantas. Final T (e.g. l1, skandhāvārāT) is a slightly reduced and simplified ta with an elongated stem and no headmark.
Original punctuation marks.
Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is atop the next character in the Telugu form caityaṁbu in line 27, but above its "proper" character in the adjacent kṣetraṁ.
No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1spiralR svasti śrī-vi(ja)ya-skandhāvārāT[.] śrīmatā⟨ṁ⟩ mānavya-sago(t)r(ā)ṇā(ṁ) hārītī-putr(ā)ṇāṁ
mātr̥-gaṇa-(pa)-
2ripālitānāṁ bhagavan-nārāya(ṇa)-prasāda-samāsādita-varāha-lāñchanekṣa⟨ṇa⟩-vaśīkr̥tā{(ma?)}-
3śeṣa◯-mahībhujāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitr¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥ta-gātrāṇāṁ caḷukyā(nāṁ)
4kula◯m alaṁkariṣṇor aneka-samara-sāhasāvamardda-labdha-vijayasya śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-
5-mahārājasya pautraḥ śrīmad-ind⟨r⟩a-bhaṭṭāraka-mahārājasya priya-tanayaḥ pravarddhamāna-
6-pratāpopanata-samasta-sāmanta-maṇḍalaḥ manv-ādi-praṇīta-dharmmaś{r}āstra-pracarita-vr̥ddhiḥ
⎘ plate 2r 7 yudhiṣṭhira Iva satya-sandhaḥ br̥haspa(t)i(r) iva naya-jñaḥ (ma)nur iva vinaya-jñaḥ
mātā-pitr̥-
8-pādānudhyātaḥ śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājaḥ (mud)inī-grāmāyyaṇa-kula-tilakasya pr̥thivī-
9-valla◯bha-nāmadheyasya putreṇa bhaṭṭāraka-mañcirāj(e)na ponnikal(l)-yāpanī-
10ya-vr̥◯kṣa-mūla-saṁgheṣu dramiḷa-viṣaye purucai nāma grāmam adhivasataḥ
11gihanandy-ācāryyasya śiṣyaḥ kanakanandy-ā⟨cā⟩ryyopadeśa-labdhena vijñapitaḥ Eva-
12m ājñāpayati minuṁbāka-viṣaye kasimi nāma rājadhānyām adhivasataḥ
⎘ plate 2v 13 (senā)pati-rājapuru[ṣā]d(ī)¿ni?⟨N⟩ (k)(uṭumb?)¿ī?⟨i⟩[na]ś ca
(tā)[ṁ]bra(śā)sanam ida(ṁ sa)[ṁ]pr¿a?⟨ā⟩pta (viditam astu va)⟨ḥ⟩
14pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsare dvitīye pravarttamāna-jyeṣṭh¿ā?⟨a⟩-mā(se?) [śu](kla?)(-pa)-
15kṣe tra◯yodaśyāṁ candra-dine kavi-Alambu-kṣetra-nivarttana-dva(y)aṁ tasya (kṣ)etra(s)ya
(pū)-
16rvvataḥ ◯ toṭa-kṣetrañ ca (k)ra(mu)ka-sahasra-vr̥kṣāva(ropa)¡n!⟨ṇ⟩a-mātraṁ tasya sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩-(pramā?)-
17ṇāni pūrvva-dakṣiṇ¿o?⟨e⟩ viḷaṭ(ṭu?)ra-kuṭi-kṣetraṁ paścime kasimi ¿Īdaḥ? Uttare brah(m)a-(deya?)[.]-
18bhaṭṭāra-mañci-vihārāya Arhad-āyatanāya Asmat-puṇyāyur-ārogya-ya(śo)-[’](bhivr̥ddha)⟨ye⟩
⎘ plate 3r 19 sarvva-kara-parih(ā)r(ī)-kr̥tya dattavāN[.] na kaiścid bādhā karaṇīyā
(Ā)jñaptis (sv)a-mu(kh)aM
namo [’]rhat(e) circleConcentric
⎘ plate 3v 25 pūrvva-sīma(M) kaṁsārivāda dakṣiṇa-sīmaM cāki Illu
26paścima-sīmaM taruvu Uttara-sīmaM (nob)ipā
27ka(de?)veluvu vr̥kṣamūla-caityaṁbu kṣetraṁ spiralR
1-13Greetings from the majestic encampment of victory.↓1 The grandson of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana, who attained victory by quashing the aggression (of enemies) in many battles and who was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra, who are sons of Hārītī, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who have conquered the entirety of rulers by means of the [mere] sight of the Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose limbs have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice—; the dear son of the majestic King (mahārāja) Indra Bhaṭṭāraka, His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (II), who was deliberately appointed [as heir] by his mother and father and whose ever-increasing valour forces the entire circle of subordinate rulers (sāmanta) to bow, who achieves prosperity by (means in accordance with) the textbooks of moral duty (dharmaśāstra) composed by Manu and so on, who is true to his word like Yudhiṣṭhira, as versed in polity (naya) as Br̥haspati and as versed in discipline (vinaya) as Manu—having been petitioned by the son of the forehead ornament of the Ayyaṇa family of Mudinī village named Pr̥thivīvallabha, [namely] by Bhaṭṭāraka Mañcirāja, who had received instruction from Kanakanandi Ācārya, who was a disciple of Gihanandi Ācārya who inhabited the village named Purucai in Dramiḷa territory (viṣaya) [and was a member] in the Yāpanīya Vr̥kṣamūla congregation (saṁgha) ¿of? Ponnikall—(Viṣṇuvardhana II) commands ¿military officers (senāpati), royal agents (rāja-puruṣa) and other [functionaries] as well as householders? inhabiting the royal seat (rājadhānī) named Kasimi in Minuṁbāka district (viṣaya) as follows:↓2
13-19¿Upon receipt of this copperplate charter?, let it be known to you that in the ongoing second year of the victorious reign, in the course of the month Jyeṣṭha, in the bright fortnight, on the thirteenth, a Monday,↓3 in order to augment our merit, vitality, health and glory, [I] have given to the Bhaṭṭāra Mañci monastery (vihāra), [which is] a residence of the Arhats, with a remission of all taxes, the Kavi Alambu field [which has an extent of] two nivartanas and, to the east of that field, the Toṭa field which is of an extent [suitable for] the planting of a thousand betelnut trees. The extents of its↓4 borders [are as follows]. To the east and south, the Viḷaṭṭura Kuṭi field. To the west, Kasimi. To the north, a Brahmin’s granted [land] (brahma-deya).
19The authority (ājñapti) is [the king’s] own mouth.
24Homage to the Arhat!
25-27¿The eastern border is Kaṁsārivāda; the southern border is cāki illu; the western border is a tree (taruvu); the northern border is nobipā. The field of the Vr̥kṣamūla monastery (caitya) of Kadeveluvu.?↓5
PS reports the seal of this set as engraved with the legend śrī-viṣamasiddhi and depicting the sun and moon above it and the varāha and an aṅkuśa below it. I include the reported seal inscription in my edition, but note that the plates were loose when I inspected them in 2023 and no seal was attached to the bundle. It may have been misplaced in the meantime, or a seal may have been wrongly associated with the plates when PS studied them.
There has been some confusion about the identity of the issuer of these plates, which has now been cleared up on the basis of good photographs of the original. According to the ARIE report, the plates were issued by a ‘Maṅgi, son of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’, but the report makes no issue of the fact that no such ruler is known, and treats another set of plates, issued by Maṅgi son of Viṣṇuvardhana and grandson of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka as belonging to the same king. According to Padmanabha Sastry’s discussion, the issuer is ‘the King Bhaṭṭāraka Maṅgi mahārāja, the son of Pr̥thivīvallabha (… pr̥thivīvallabha nāmadheyasya putriṇa bhaṭṭāraka Maṅgirājan…)’. Even before photographing the original plates in 2023, I had proposed that this person may rather have been the instigator of the grant, and the issuing king is more likely to be Viṣṇuvardhana II, whom the plate introduces in regular succession as the grandson of Viṣṇuvardhana (I) and son of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka.
Having now studied the photographs, I can ascertain beyond a shadow of doubt that this is indeed the case. Further, the instigator is named Bhaṭṭāraka Mañcirāja, not Maṅgirāja. Indeed, the Jain institution receiving the donation bears his name (line 18), which was correctly read for the ARIE report and printed almost correctly in PS’s edition, but the connection between this name and that of the instigator has not been made previously. The reason for the confusion, apart from the similarity of the names Maṅgi and Mañci, may have been that Mañcirāja is the son of a person named Pr̥thivīvallabha. It is, however, not uncommon for subordinates to be named after sovereign kings. This Pr̥thivīvallabha is clearly stated to belong to the Ayyaṇa family, and not the Cālukya royal house.
The name of the Ayyaṇa family has not been read previously in this grant, but it is known from the Musinikuṇḍa grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III according to which a Cālukya queen originating from this family supported a Jain monastery. (See also my commentary to that grant: there may even have been two such queens, one of Viṣṇuvardhana I and another of Viṣṇuvardhana III.) A man (with royal titulature) belonging to this family (spelt Ayyaṇa) was the executor of the Cendalūr Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, royal territorial officers belonging to this family are mentioned in the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II, and a woman of the Ayāṇa or Āyāṇa family, possibly unrelated, appears in the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa.
The locality Kaṁsārivāda mentioned in line 25 is reminiscent of a Kaṁsāryya mentioned in the second Kondavidu set of Pr̥thvīśrīmūla (EIAD 0188). Together with the possible parallel between the same grant’s Taṁgodunaruva and the first Peddāpurappāḍu set’s Taṅgomanūṟuvu, this might be an indication that the Jain monastery mentioned in the three Peddāpurappāḍu sets in fact lay in the vicinity of Tāṇḍikoṇḍa. Peddapurappadu, where the plates are supposed to have been discovered, is in Krishna district, but there is a Pedakurapadu northwest of Guntur, as well as a Kasipadu nearby which may perhaps be Kasimi, so I wonder if the findspot has been correctly recorded. Even if it has, the findspot is of course no guarantee that the charter concerns land in the same region.
It is not clear to me what function the boundary description on 3v serves. It may be the case that in the main body of the grant, the boundaries of the totality of the granted land were specified, and the more specific boundaries of the smaller field are stated here. It is also possible that this is a supplementary grant, or the description of the plot for the precincts of the institution. The location of this passage on an outer face, after the closing prayer and a closer symbol, suggests a subsequent addition. Both the lines and the characters of each line are more widely spaced here than in the main body of the text, and the space above, below and to the left of the hole is not utilised. The hand, however, is not distinguishable from the hand responsible for the rest of the charter.
Reported in ARIE 1990-1991: pages 20–21, appendix A/1990–91, № 2 with some further details at ARIE 1990-1991: 4. Edited from inked impressions by C. A. Padmanabha Sastry (1994: № B), without facsimiles and without 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 Padmanabha Sastry’s edition. That edition contains such an inordinate number of typographic (or other) mistakes, that I cite it in the apparatus only when it differs from my established readings in a way that I consider to be significant.
↑1. Or perhaps, “the encampment at Vijayavāṭa.” See the apparatus to line 1.
↑2. Both the reading and the interpretation of the text is problematic at the end of this
passage. See the apparatus and the commentary for my reasoning.
↑3. PS in his discussion of the grants translates candra-dine as Wednesday.
↑4. I assume that the boundaries pertain to the field and the orchard as a combined entity,
but this is not clear from the text.
↑5. I do not understand the details of this passage, which use some Telugu words and forms;
nor the function of this passage. See also the commentary.