Koṇḍakaṟipḻola grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III

Metadata

Current Version: draft, 2025-01-14Z

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00061

Hand Description:

Halantas.

Original punctuation marks.

Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

¹śrī-viṣamasiddhi

Plates

^{⎘ plate 1v}¹svasti[.] śrīm¿ā?⟨a⟩tā⟨ṁ⟩ sakala-bhuvana-saṁst¿u?⟨ū⟩yamāna-mānavya-sagotr¿a?⟨ā⟩-
²ṇāṁ ¡hariti!-putr¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇā⟨ṁ⟩ māt¡ri!⟨r̥⟩-gaṇa-paripālit¿aṇa?⟨ānā⟩M sv¿a?⟨ā⟩mi-ma-
³h¿a?⟨ā⟩sena-p¿a?⟨ā⟩d¿a?⟨ā⟩nudhy¿a?⟨ā⟩tānāM bhagavan-n¿a?⟨ā⟩r¿a?⟨ā⟩ya(ṇa)-prasāda-samāsādita-
⁴-vara-⟨varāha⟩-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥t¡aṇaM śeṣa!-maṇḍa-
⁵lānāM ¿ma?⟨A⟩śvamedhāvabhr̥¿t?⟨th⟩a-sn¿a?⟨ā⟩na-pavitr¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥ta-vapuṣā-
⁶M caḷukyān¿a?⟨ā⟩M kulam alaṁkariṣṇo⟨ḥ⟩ śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mah¿a?⟨ā⟩rāj{y}asya A-
⁷nanya-nr̥pati-sā¿ya?⟨dhā⟩raṇa-guṇa-traya-sampādi⟨ta⟩-¿samr̥?⟨sāmrā⟩jya-
^{⎘ plate 2r}⁸sya pautr¿āya?⟨aḥ⟩ tad-anuśapita-pitr̥guṇavva sampannasya śrī-sa-
⁹rvva-lokāśraya-mah¿a?⟨ā⟩r¿a?⟨ā⟩jasya putra⟨ḥ⟩ ya⟨ḥ⟩ śakra Iv¿a?⟨ā⟩pratihata-śā-
¹⁰sano ravir iva tejasv¿i?⟨ī⟩ mataya Iva mano-nandana-kara⟨ḥ⟩ nārāyaṇa
¹¹Iva śrīm¿a?⟨ā⟩N śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mah¿a?⟨ā⟩rāja⟨ḥ⟩ parama-
¹²-brahmaṇya⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨ājñāpayati⟩

ya¿dhe?⟨thā⟩ viditam astu vo [’]smābhi⟨ḥ⟩ vaṁgīpura-v¿a?⟨ā⟩-
¹³stavy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya ¡khaṇva!⟨kāṇva⟩-¿dh?⟨g⟩otr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya ¡tahitriya!⟨taittirīyāya⟩ nandiśarmmaṇa⟨ḥ⟩ putr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya (du)-
¹⁴[4*]ṇa⟨ḥ⟩ ¡pauvutrāya!⟨pautrāya⟩ nandi¿s?⟨ś⟩a⟨r⟩mmaṇ¿a?⟨e⟩ [’]sm¿a?⟨ā⟩bh¿e?⟨i⟩⟨r⟩ nn¿a?⟨ā⟩tav¿a?⟨ā⟩ -
^{⎘ plate 2v}¹⁵¿ḍh?⟨ḍ⟩hi-viṣaye koṇḍakaṟipḻola n¿a?⟨ā⟩ma {ma} grāma[3*]
¹⁶¿Akneyantisi?⟨Āgneyyān⟩ diśi p¿u?⟨ū⟩⟨r⟩vva¿d?⟨t⟩a⟨ḥ⟩ kṟokiyūru kaṟāru (panta) s¿i?⟨ī⟩-
¹⁷m¿a?⟨ā⟩[.] dakṣiṇata[ḥ] ¿sila?⟨śilā⟩ sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩[.] pa¿c?⟨ś⟩c¿a?⟨i⟩mata[ḥ] ¿sila?⟨śilā⟩ sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩[.] Ut⟨t⟩arata[ḥ]-
¹⁸koṇḍakaṟipḻola padakaṁkūru panta sīm¿aḥ?⟨ā⟩[.] Ete-
¹⁹ṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁ madhye ¿tva?⟨dvā⟩daśa-kodrava-khaṇḍik¿a?⟨ā⟩v¿a?⟨ā⟩pa-kṣetra⟨ḥ⟩ pravarddhamā-
²⁰na-vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsare pañca varṣe prava(rddhamā)-
²¹ne candra-grahaṇa-nimitte sodaka-pūrvvaṁ (mātā-pitro)-
^{⎘ plate 3r}²²r ātmanaś ca ¿ś?⟨s⟩va-puṇy¿a?⟨ā⟩v¿a?⟨ā⟩ptaye {ta} datta¡ḥ!⟨ṁ⟩[.] Uktañ ca bhagavatā vyāse-
²³na

I. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhir vvasudhā bhuktā

bahubhiś cānupālitā

yasya yasya ²⁴yadā bhūmi⟨ḥ⟩

tasya ⟨tasya⟩ tadā phalaM

II. Anuṣṭubh

sva-dattāṁ ⟨para-dattāṁ⟩ v¿a?⟨ā⟩

yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ vasundharā⟨ṁ⟩

²⁵ṣaṣṭi-va¡ruṣ!⟨rṣ⟩a-sahasrāṇi

viṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩āyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ

III. Anuṣṭubh

²⁶sva⟨ṁ⟩ ¿dandā?⟨dātuṁ⟩ sumaha¡⟨T⟩ śa!⟨c cha⟩kyaṁ

duḥ¿k?⟨kh⟩am anyasya pālana⟨ṁ⟩

d¿a?⟨ā⟩naṁ vā pāla²⁷na⟨ṁ⟩ veti

d¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨nā⟩¡⟨T⟩ śr!⟨c chr⟩eyo [’]n¿a?⟨u⟩p¿a?⟨ā⟩la⟨na⟩M

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

^4–5 -vaśīkr̥t¡aṇaM śeṣa!-maṇḍa/lānāM • NR suggests the emendation -vaśīkr̥tāśeṣārāti-maṇḍalānām. However, this form does not seem to occur in related grants. In later grants of the dynasty, -vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānām is standard, while several grants issued by the first few generations of rulers have -vaśīkr̥tāśeṣa-mahībhr̥tām or -vaśīkr̥tāśeṣa-mahīkṣitām. I suspect that one of these had been intended here, and though scribal error may well be present, I believe that at least some characters must have been misread by NR. If the word maṇḍalānām is indeed present, then NR’s restoration is plausible.
⁷ guṇa-traya • It may be better to emend this to guṇasya śakti-traya; see note to the translation. — ⁷ -sā¿ya?⟨dhā⟩raṇa- • I wonder if ya is a typo in the Devanagari edition and the received reading is in fact dha.
⁸ pautr¿āya?⟨aḥ⟩ ◇ pautrāya NR • I cannot tell what combination of scribal error, editorial misreading and typographic error we have here. I emend to the form I expect here, but compare the note on putraya in the next line. — ⁸ tad-anuśapita-pitr̥guṇavva sampannasya • Again, I cannot guess the levels of scribal error, editorial misreading and typographic error here. NR tentatively emends to pitr̥guṇaiṣca (sic), but makes no other alteration. anuśapita is probably a Devanagari typo for anuśayita. Several grants (e.g. the Nutulapaṟu grant and London plates of Maṁgi Yuvarāja) describe Maṁgi with the words samatiśayita-pitr̥-guṇa-śakti-sampanna (where I prefer to emend to -guṇaḥ, separating this phrase from the next). It is very likely that something much the same was intended here, and I believe that the received reading is in fact closer to this expected phrase than NR’s edition.
⁹ putra⟨ḥ⟩ ya⟨ḥ⟩ ◇ putra⟨ḥ⟩{ya} NR • I do not find ya superfluous; assuming that yaḥ was intended, this is a perfectly normal way to connect to the subsequent string of qualifiers for the reigning king. However, if the received reading is indeed pautraya in the previous line, then it is also possible that the dative forms pautrāya and putrāya had been intended here, incorrectly, to describe the king.
¹⁰ mataya • NR tentatively emends to manmadha (sic, probably intended as manmatha). I believe that a word meaning "moon" must have been intended here; compare śaśalāñchanasyeva sakala-jagan-mano-nayanānandana-karasya (of Viṣṇuvardhana I in the Niḍupaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha I) and candra Iva sarvva-jana-mano-nayana-nandanaḥ (of Jayasiṁha II in the Cendaṟa grant of Jayasiṁha II). Being immediately subsequent to a comparison to the sun also makes the moon likely here, and the word kara could well have been used punningly if the object of the comparison were indeed the moon. I am, however, unable to suggest a plausible word with this meaning.
¹² ⟨ājñāpayati⟩ • The text omitted here may well have been longer. NR only notes that ‘some portion seems to be missing’ at this point.
¹³ ¡khaṇva!⟨kāṇva⟩- • The ARIE reporter reads the gotra as khaṇḍi and emends to kauṇḍinya. — ¹³ putr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya • I wonder if in fact pautrāya was intended here. This would result in a more typical formulation of the donee’s descent, and would also eliminate the strangeness of father and son bearing the same name. — ^13–14 (du)/[4*]ṇa⟨ḥ⟩ • NR prints four dashes for the lacuna, which I suppose indicates four akṣaras. See also the translation and the commentary.
¹⁴ ¡pauvutrāya!⟨pautrāya⟩ • I wonder if putrāya was in fact intended here; see the note to putraya in the previous line. — ^14–15 [’]sm¿a?⟨ā⟩bh¿e?⟨i⟩⟨r⟩ nn¿a?⟨ā⟩tav¿a?⟨ā⟩ /¿ḍh?⟨ḍ⟩hi- ◇ [’]sm¿a?⟨ai⟩ ¿bh?⟨p⟩enn¿a?⟨ā⟩tav¿a?⟨ā⟩/¿ḍh?⟨ḍ⟩i- NR • The ARIE reporter gives the name of the district as (penn)atavāḍi. Although my emendation results in two iterations of asmābhiḥ in the sentence, given the typical formulation of related grants I am certain that NR’s emendation is inappropriate. The district names Nātavāḍi and Pennātavāḍi are both mentioned in several related grants; NR claims that they are identical, but I do not know whether this has been established.
¹⁵ koṇḍakaṟipḻola • I am unsure of this village name. NR’s accompanying text uses ‘Koṇḍakariplola’ in transliteration, while his edition in a mixture of Devanagari and Telugu script may have ‘कोण्डक ఱిपो ೞल’; in fact I am uncertain in identifying the second Telugu character in this string, as it looks similar (but not identical) to ೞ in this line, but seems to be టి in line 18. I assume that his transliterated text is correct apart from the lack of diacritics. — ¹⁵ {ma} NR • This ma may well be superfluous, as judged by NR. It also seems possible that mahā- had been intended.
¹⁶ p¿u?⟨ū⟩⟨r⟩vva¿d?⟨t⟩a⟨ḥ⟩ • While the intended word is straightforward, I am not sure of the received reading here. NR’s edition prints literally ‘पु(पू)व्व‘द’(पूर्व्वतः?)’; I cannot interpret the apostrophes. — ¹⁶ kṟokiyūru • Again, I cannot determine the original spelling of this word. NR’s article uses ‘Krokiyuru’, while his edition has ‘कु ఱి कियूरु’. I assume that the transliteration in the edition is more reliable except for the diacritical marks. — ¹⁶ kaṟāru • This name or word is even less certain than the previous one. NR’s article uses ‘Karuru’, while his edition has ‘कఱాरु’. In this case I prefer to assume that the edition is correct.
¹⁷ ¿sila?⟨śilā⟩ NR • I endorse NR’s emendation but the composer’s intent may have been something else.
¹⁸ koṇḍakaṟipḻola • See the note on this word in line 15 above.
^20–21 prava(rddhamā)/ne • I strongly doubt that this word was correctly read by NR. Perhaps pravarttamāne would be more appropriate, but I do not think this would have been used in conjunction with pravarddhamāne. Could the month have been specified here, for instance śrāvaṇa-māse or kārttika-māse?
²¹ bhuktā • Although this word occurs in grants of Pulakeśin II, all Eastern Cālukya grants except the pre-royal Sātārā plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I use this stanza with dattā.
²⁷ d¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨nā⟩¡⟨T⟩ śr!⟨c chr⟩eyo • I believe that the inscribed text may have been daśreyo as a scribal error for dānāT śreyo, which I normalise to dānāc chreyo. Compare sumaha śakyaṁ in line 26 above. However, the received text may be something else here. NR’s edition literally reads, ‘द(दानात्)ध्के यो’, where I assume that ध्के is a typographic error for श्रे.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

^1-12The grandson of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (II), who attained sovereignty through his triad of virtues in which he was quite beyond other kings^↓1 and who 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 Hariti,^↓2 who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, to whom ⟨all kings⟩^↓3 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; the son of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Vijayasiddhi (Maṅgi Yuvarāja), ¿who surpasses the virtues of his father, and who is endowed with [the three] power[s]?:^↓4 His Majesty the supremely pious King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (III)—whose command is as incontrovertible as that of Śakra, who blazes like the sun, who gladdens the mind like ¿the moon?^↓5 and who is as majestic as Nārāyaṇa {possesses Śrī}—⟨commands as follows⟩

^12-23To wit: let it be known to you that to Nandiśarman, a resident of Vaṁgīpura of the ¿Kāṇva?^↓6 gotra and the Taittirīya [school], son of Nandiśarman and grandson of Du[...]n,^↓7 we have given [in] the southeastern direction [of] the village named Koṇḍakaṟipḻola in Nātavāḍi district (viṣaya)—To the east, the border is ¿the road between? Kṟokiyūru and Kaṟāru.^↓8 To the south, the border is ¿a cliff?. To the west, the border is ¿a cliff?. To the north, the border is ¿the road between? Koṇḍakaṟipḻola and Padakaṁkūru—in the midst of these [boundaries], a field (sufficient) for sowing twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed in order to acquire merit (puṇya) for our mother and father and ourselves, in the year that is the fifth year of our progressive victorious reign, on the occasion of an eclipse of the moon ¿being in progress?,^↓9 [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water. The reverend Vyāsa too has said:

Many (kings) have enjoyed the 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.

It is possible (i.e. easy) to give away what is yours, [even if it is] a great thing; [but] it is hard to preserve that [given away] by another. [When it comes to] the question, “donation or preservation [of previous grants]?”—[the answer is that] preservation is superior to donation.

Commentary

^13-14The name partly lost here may have been durgganandiśarmmaṇaḥ. This name occurs in the Uccāti grant of Jayasiṁha I found together with the present grant (and perhaps originally issued to members of a single family), and the name Dugamaḍiśarman in the Cendaṟa grant of Jayasiṁha II (also found together) may be a variant or corruption of the same name, as also observed by NR. The donee of the latter grant is Dugamaḍiśarman of Vaṅgipaṟu and of the Kāṇva gotra (though an Āpastamba), son of Maḍiśarman and grandson of Dugamaḍiśarman. Assuming that the present donee is Nandiśarman, son of Durganandiśarman and grandson of Nandiśarman (see also the apparatus note to putraya in this line), it is tempting to speculate that the present donee is the son of the donee of the Cendaṟa grant.

Bibliography

Reported in ARIE 1997-1998: page 18, appendix A/1997–98, № 4 without discussion of details. Edited from the original plates by N. Ramesan (1988: № C), without facsimiles and without translation. The present edition by Dániel Balogh thus follows the published edition, silently correcting only obvious typos and offering suggestions for improvement in the apparatus.

Primary

Ramesan, N. 1988. “Three Eastern Chālukyan Copper Plate Grants from Nandigāma.” Epigraphia Āndhrica vol V, edited by N. Mukunda Rao, 18–29. Epigraphical Series 19. Hyderabad: Govt. of Andhra Pradesh.

[siglum NR]

Secondary

ARIE 1997-1998. Page 18, appendix A/1997–98, № 4.

Notes

↑1. I do not know what triad of virtues (guṇa-traya) may have been intended here. Finding no similar phrase in related grants, I suspect that this may be a scribal omission (see the apparatus to line 7). With the emendation I suggest there, the meaning would be “whose virtues were quite beyond other kings and who attained sovereignty through the triad of his powers.”
↑2. The phrase “who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon” is practically universal at this point and was probably omitted here out of neglect.
↑3. See the apparatus to line 4 for the tentative restoration that I translate here.
↑4. See the apparatus to line 8 for the tentative restoration that I translate here.
↑5. See the apparatus to line 10.
↑6. See the apparatus to line 13.
↑7. The name partly lost here may have been Durganandiśarman, and father and grandfather may have been mixed up by the scribe. See also the commentary and the apparatus to lines 13 and 14.
↑8. Here and below in connection to Koṇḍakaṟipḻola and Padakaṁkūru, I assume without complete confidence that panta is a form of Sanskrit patha or pathin. The same form occurs in the Nutulapaṟu grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja in association of a (probable) village name. The form panthaḥ is used with a village name (explicitly specified as a village) in the Pamiḍimukkala plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II and the Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 3) of Viṣṇuvardhana II, where it is distinguished from a rathyā-mārgaḥ.
↑9. See the apparatus to line 20 for my doubts concerning the reading of this phrase.