Pamiḍimukkala plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II, year 3

Metadata

Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00088

Hand Description:

Halantas. Anusvāra is typically omitted, but in some places where an anusvāra would be expected, there are small raised characters resembling a Latin S, which I take to be final M-s (e.g. l3 rājyānāM, l5 vapuṣāM). The two instances on 3r are increasingly sketchy, with that in l23 phalaM looking like a small question mark, and that in l27 °kākinaM like a completely plain daṇḍa. Where actual anusvāra is used, its placement is haphazard: in l23 datāṁ it is above the next character, while in l26 goraṁ it is to the left of ra.

Original punctuation marks. What seems to be a space filler symbol at the end of line 9 is about half a character tall, floating at the midline, shaped like a Latin Z with very short arms, or a vertical line with a top serif to the left and a bottom serif to the right. It is by and large identical in shape to the punctuation mark in line 14.

Other palaeographic observations. Consonants other than y are generally not doubled after r.

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

¹śrī-(viṣama)[s](i)[ddhi]

Plates

^{⎘ plate 1v}¹svasti[.] śrīmatā⟨ṁ⟩ sakala-bh¿ū?⟨u⟩vana-j¿ā?⟨a⟩gad-abhiṣṭūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇā⟨ṁ⟩ (h)ā-
²riti-putr¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇā⟨ṁ⟩ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānā⟨ṁ⟩ kauśik¿i?⟨ī⟩-vara-prasāda-la-
³bdha-rājy¿a?⟨ā⟩nā⟨ṁ⟩ sapta-māt¡ri!⟨r̥⟩bhir abhiva⟨r⟩ddhita-rājy(ā)nā(M) bhagava{na}n-n(ā)rāyaṇa-vara-pra(sā)-
⁴da-sa◯māsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanānā(M) Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-(pa)-
⁵vitr¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥ta-vapuṣā(M) caḷukyānā⟨ṁ⟩ kula-jala(dh)i-samuditend(or na)ya-vina(ya)-
⁶-vikramā⟨r⟩ji(ta)-cāru-bhūri-k¿i?⟨ī⟩rtt¡i!⟨eḥ⟩ śrī-jayasi⟨ṁ⟩¡gh!⟨h⟩a-vallabha-mahā(rāja)-pri(yā)-
⁷nujasyendra-samāna-vikramasy¿a?⟨e⟩ndra-bhaṭṭārakasya (sūno)r a¿ṇ?⟨n⟩eka-samara-[saṁ-]
^{⎘ plate 2r}⁸ ghāṭopalabdha-yuddha-vijaya-yaśa⟨ḥ⟩-pras¿u?⟨ū⟩ty-¿a?⟨ā⟩moda-gandhāvāsita-sakala-¿(mbi)?⟨di⟩-
⁹⟨ṅ⟩-maṇḍalasya nānā-¿s?⟨ś⟩āstr¿a?⟨ā⟩bhy¿a?⟨ā⟩sopabr̥⟨ṁ⟩hita-vipula-vimala-¡v!⟨b⟩uddh(eḥ) ty¿a?⟨ā⟩g¿o?⟨au⟩¿dh?⟨d⟩āryya- |
¹⁰-¡dhaiyi!⟨dhai⟩ryya-g¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩bh¿i?⟨ī⟩(ry)ya-kān(ty)-¿a?⟨ā⟩d{dh}i-guṇ¿a?⟨ā⟩la⟨ṁ⟩kr̥tasya vikramopā⟨r⟩jita-mah¿i?⟨ī⟩-maṇḍa-
¹¹lasya ◯ kali-timira-nirasano¡d!⟨dd⟩yotita-śr¿i?⟨ī⟩-pralayādityasya{ḥ} ¿Upubr̥ṁh?-va-
¹²stavyasya vāj¡i!⟨a⟩⟨saneyi⟩-cara¿n?⟨ṇ⟩asya va¡cca!⟨tsa⟩-gotr¡āya!⟨asya⟩ (v)eda-v¿a?⟨e⟩dā⟨ṁ⟩ga-pārag¡(ā)ya!⟨asya⟩ya rudraśar(ma)-
¹³na⟨ḥ⟩ pautr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya japa-ho(ma)⟨-yama⟩-niyama-ṣa¿ṣ?⟨ṭ⟩-karmma-nirat¡āya!⟨asya⟩{ḥ} reva-śa⟨r⟩maṇa⟨ḥ⟩ p(utrā)-
¹⁴ya ⟨ya⟩jana-yājana-<...> ¡dve!⟨dvive⟩dāya bhavaśa⟨r⟩mmaṇe| varanāṇḍu-viṣaye pa(ṇḍimu?)-
^{⎘ plate 2v}¹⁵ ku nāma grāme[.] Uttara-diśāy¡e!⟨āṁ⟩[.] p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvva-diśāy¡e!⟨āṁ⟩ vya(gr)(a?)[2×](pe?)[1×](ma?)[1×. da-]
¹⁶(k)ṣiṇa-diśāy¡e!⟨āṁ⟩ śam¿i?⟨ī⟩ śul(b?)a-vālm¿i?⟨ī⟩ka⟨ḥ⟩[.] paścima-diśā(y)¡(e)!⟨āṁ⟩ ta(ṭāka)⟨ṁ⟩[.] (U)t⟨t⟩ara-di-
¹⁷śāyā⟨ṁ⟩ lākulika-vālm¿i?⟨ī⟩ka⟨ḥ⟩[.] Evañ catur-avadhi-madhya-gata-rā¡c!⟨j⟩a-mā¡(ṇ)!⟨n⟩a-dvā-
¹⁸daśa◯¿gva?⟨kha⟩ṇḍi-¿g?⟨k⟩odrava-b¿i?⟨ī⟩ja-vāpa-paripramā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-(kṣ)e(tr)aḥ (grā)ma-madhy¿a?⟨e⟩ g¡ri!⟨r̥⟩(ha)-
¹⁹-kṣetra⟨ṁ⟩ grāma-¿paścimatayatā pu(ṣ)pakatoṭā? ca(ndra-graha)ṇa-nimi(t)⟨t⟩a⟨ṁ⟩ [sa-]
²⁰rvva-k¿ā?⟨a⟩ra-parih¿a?⟨ā⟩ropeta⟨ḥ⟩ Udaka-p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvva⟨ṁ⟩ datta(ḥ?)

(prava)(rddha?)(māna)-vija[ya-rā-]
²¹jya-sa⟨ṁ⟩va¡c!⟨ts⟩are ¡tri!⟨tr̥tīye⟩ va¡ruṣe!⟨rṣe⟩| Api ca vy¿a?⟨ā⟩sa-g¿i?⟨ī⟩t(au) śl(o)k(au)

I. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhi⟨r⟩ vasu^{⎘ plate 3r}²² dhā dat⟨t⟩ā

bahubhiś cānupāl¿a?⟨i⟩tā

yasya yasya yadā bhūmis

tasya (ta)²³sya tadā (pha)la(M)

II. Anuṣṭubh

sva-dat⟨t⟩āṁ para-dat⟨t⟩ā¿bva?⟨m vā⟩

yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ va(su)ndharā⟨ṁ⟩

ṣa(ṣṭi)²⁴-va¿ruṣa?⟨rṣa⟩-sahasr¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi

viṣ¡ṭ!⟨ṭh⟩āy¿a?⟨ā⟩ñ j¿a?⟨ā⟩yate k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩(miḥ)

III. Anuṣṭubh

(bh)¿u?⟨ū⟩(mi)-dā⟨nā⟩t para⟨ṁ⟩ dā²⁵na⟨ṁ⟩

na ◯ bhūta⟨ṁ⟩ na bhaviṣyati

tasy¿a?⟨ai⟩va haraṇ(ā)⟨t⟩ pā(pa)n

na bh¿u?⟨ū⟩tan na {(na)}²⁶bhaviṣyati|

IV. Anuṣṭubh

¡braṁmaṁ!⟨brahma⟩-sva⟨ṁ⟩ ⟨tu⟩ viṣa⟨ṁ⟩ ¿g?⟨gh⟩oraṁ

na viṣa⟨ṁ⟩ viṣam (uc)yate

viṣam e²⁷kākina(M) hanti

bra¡mha!⟨hma⟩s¿y?⟨v⟩a⟨ṁ⟩ put⟨r⟩a-¿pavi?⟨pau⟩trika⟨M⟩

Ājñap(t)i[r a]sya dharmmasya pa-
²⁸ram¡i!⟨e⟩śvara⟨ḥ⟩ ¿sa(ṁ?)sārā-sarva-bhūbhuvāḥ?

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

⁹ -¡v!⟨b⟩uddh(eḥ) • All of the genitives from this point on to line 11 may have been intended for instrumentals. See also the translation and the commentary.
¹¹ ¿Upubr̥ṁh?- • The reading is clear, but this is all but impossible as a place name. The final h is conjoined to the following va, which in turn is part of the word continuing in the next line, so if eyeskip omission has taken place, then it was more than simply skipping some words at the end of the line. The toponym Urpuṭūru occurs in some cognate grants and may have been conflated with upabr̥ṁhita (as in l9). The ASI devanagari transcript shows this as Upubraṁh.
¹³ -ho(ma)⟨-yama⟩-niyama • The text is of course acceptable without my restoration, but niyama is normally paired with yama, so I suspect eyeskip omission. — ^13–14 p(utrā)/ya ⟨ya⟩jana- • Eyeskip omission is certain here.
¹⁴ -yājana-<...> • See the translation. — ^14–15 pa(ṇḍimu?)/ku • In the plate’s present condition, the last two characters are effaced. The penultimate character is most probably ṇḍi or ṇṭi, while the last is completely effaced. I restore the name on the basis of Pamiḍimukkala plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II, where it is quite clear. According to the ARIE report, the village of both these grants is named Paṇṭimuku. While ṇṭi cannot be excluded, the consonant component is in the other grant exactly identical to other instances of ṇḍ. In the ASI devanagari transcript, the name has been corrected from Paṇṭimuku to Paṇḍimuku.
¹⁵ vya(gr)(a?) • The ASI transcript shows nyagro here (and nothing else in the rest of this line). While it would be tempting to restore nyagrodha, the initial vya is clear. — ¹⁵ śam¿i?⟨ī⟩ śul(b?)a-vālm¿i?⟨ī⟩ka⟨ḥ⟩ • The ASI transcript shows śamagullavālika.
¹⁸ ¿paścimatayatā pu(ṣ)pakatoṭā? • The reading is clear. The intent may have been paścimenāyatā puṣpa-vāṭikā or something along these lines. Compare paścitatoṇḍa in the same context in line 20 of Set 2: perhaps toṇḍa and toṭā are both renditions of a vernacular word meaning garden.
²⁸ ¿sa(ṁ?)sārā-sarva-bhūbhuvāḥ? • The reading is clear, except for the anusvāra. A conspicuous dot is certainly present above the gap between ra and sa. It may have been meant to go with ra, or it may be part of the weirdly formed final M in the previous line. The composer’s actual intent may have been svasty astu sarva-bhūtebhyaḥ. The text from Ājñaptir asya may also be a mutilated anuṣṭubh stanza describing the executor, in which case the end might be restored as sarva-bhūbhujāṁ.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

^1-11Greetings. From the ocean that is the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire universe [and] world, who are sons of Hāriti, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, whose kingdom is fostered by the Seven Mothers, who acquired the Boar emblem as a boon by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice—had arisen a moon [who was] His Majesty King (mahārāja) Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I), who earned his great good reputation by his political acumen (naya), discipline (vinaya) and valour. His dear younger brother [was] Indra Bhaṭṭāraka whose valour equalled Indra’s. His son [is] His Majesty Pralayāditya (Viṣṇuvardhana II),^↓1who perfumes the complete circle of the quarters with pleasant fragrance from the efflorescence of his glory [achieved by] martial victory attained in the clash of many a battle, whose vast and flawless intellect is heightened by the study of various textbooks (śāstra), who is ornamented by virtues such as selflessness, generosity, perseverance, profundity and charm, who has achieved [mastery of] the disc of the earth through his valour, and who is luminous through his dispersal of the darkness of the Kali [age].

^11-14[He, Pralayāditya, has made a grant] to the grandson of Rudraśarman, who was a resident of ¿Upubr̥ṁh?^↓2 belonging to the Vājasaneyi caraṇa and the Vatsa gotra who mastered the Vedas and Vedāṅgas; the son of Revaśarman, who was intent upon performing silent recitation (japa), oblations (homa), [on following] ¿the restraints (yama)?^↓3 and observances (niyama) and [on performing] the six duties (of a Brahmin); [namely to] Bhavaśarman, a master of two Vedas ¿engaged in?^↓4 sacrificing and being commissioned to perform sacrifices.

^14-20[The granted land is located] in Varanāṇḍu district, at the village named Paṇḍimuku, in the northern direction (of that village). In the eastern direction (of the land) ... . In the southern direction is a śamī (tree) [and] a termite mound ¿named Śulba?. In the western direction is a tank (taṭāka). In the northern direction is a termite mound ¿named Lākulika?. Thus situated amid four boundaries, a field of an extent [sufficient for] sowing twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed [as well as] a homestead plot within the village [and] ¿a flower garden extending to the west of the village?^↓5 has been given on the occasion of an eclipse of the moon, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water.

^20-21In year three of the years of the progressive triumphant reign. [There are] also these two ślokas sung by Vyāsa.^↓6

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.

There has never been and will never be a gift superior to the gift of land, nor has there ever been or will ever be a sin [superior] to the seizing of the same.

IV.

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

^27-28The executor (ājñapti) of this ruling (dharma) is Paramiśvara.^↓7 ¿May there be wellbeing for beings?.^↓8

Commentary

There is some confusion in the ARIE report as to the numbering of the two Pamidimukkala plate sets. According to the reported contents (ARIE 1916-1917: pages 113–114, §20), the issuer’s father is Jayasiṁha in No. 14 and Indra Bhaṭṭāraka in No. 15; and No. 14 is not dated while No. 15 is dated to the year 3. On the basis of this information, the plates I call Set 1, year 3 correspond to No. 15, and those I call Set 2 correspond to No. 14. However, according to the same report, the seal of No. 15 has a preserved lotus flower, while that of No. 14 does not. This is the opposite of the above, as a lotus flower is visible only on the seal of Set 2. A Devanagari transcript of Set 1 in the ASI headquarters in Mysore bears the title ‘CP No XV of 1916-17’, where “XV” has been corrected from “XIV”. The post-correction number is thus consistent with how the contents of the plates are reported, and thus I have equated Set 1 to No. 15 and Set 2 to No. 14. The fact that the transcript’s title has been corrected indicates that there was already some confusion about the numbering of these sets in the ASI office. The discrepancy about the reported seals may be a mistake of the ARIE report, or the seals (with the ring now cut) may have been swapped between the sets.

Although many of the early grants of the Eastern Cālukya dynasty are poorly composed and executed, the quality of this charter makes me suspect forgery. The plates may have been engraved more or less at the time they were supposed to be issued, but possibly by a forger who used one or more genuine grants as specimens to cobble together the present one. The use of anusvāra, visarga, final M characters and punctuation marks is entirely inconsistent (see also the palaeographic description); in fact, what look like (and are shown in my edition as) visargas seem to function as punctuation marks and may have been intended as such. In addition, the following items are worth noting:

in l1, sakala-bhuvana-jagad-abhiṣṭūyamāna is an unlikely variant: while the forms -bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna and -jagad-abhiṣṭūyamāna both occur in related charters, the combination does not (though the corrupt form jagadasaṁstuyamāna is found in the Cendaṟa grant of Jayasiṁha II);
in l3, nārāyaṇa-vara-prasāda is a conflation of nārāyaṇa-prasāda with kauśikī-vara-prasāda (this form is shared with the Pamiḍimukkala plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II);
the composition of the opening praśasti resembles slightly later charters such as the Nutulapaṟu grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja more closely than the other known grants of Viṣṇuvardhana II;
all Viṣṇuvardhana II’s known grants begin their genealogy with Viṣṇuvardhana I or further back (to the Bādāmi line), while the present genealogy commences with Jayasiṁha I (which is typical in grants of Maṅgi Yuvarāja);
the issuing king is not clearly introduced: if he is supposed to be a son or descendant of Viṣṇuvardhana II, then he is omitted altogether, while if he is supposed to be Viṣṇuvardhana II himself, then all the adjectives qualifying him are wrongly in the genitive (which would be appropriate in a grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, where Viṣṇuvardhana II would be introduced as the reigning king’s father), and he is not identified by any name other than Pralayāditya;
the formula in which the king notifies the residents is absent, which is very unusual in the corpus, although parallels do exist, including the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II.
in l11, after the issuing ruler’s abrupt and/or incomplete introduction, the village name upubr̥ṁh is beyond unlikely;
exact parallels of stanza 4 occur in the known corpus only in the grants of Vijayāditya I, while variants of this stanza occur in those of Viṣṇuvardhana II (Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 3) of Viṣṇuvardhana II), Vijayāditya I and Maṅgi Yuvarāja;
the colophon formula ājñaptir asya dharmmasya (with or without a complete anuṣṭubh stanza) does not occur in the known corpus before the time of Vijayāditya I.
the end of the colophon is garbled.

If the plates are assumed to be genuine, then the identity of their issuer is still doubtful. Either this is a grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II, in which case it is quite anomalous; or it is by a subsequent king, in which case it contains a major omission. Provided that the grant is genuine but not one of Viṣṇuvardhana II, the issuer is unlikely to be Maṅgi Yuvarāja, whose seal legend is Vijayasiddhi, but it could conceivably belong to Viṣṇuvardhana III who also used both the epithet Pralayāditya and the seal legend Viṣamasiddhi.

Bibliography

Reported in ARIE 1916-1917: page 7, appendix A/1916–17, № 15^↓9 with description at ARIE 1916-1917: pages 113–114, §20. I am not aware of a previous published edition. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs taken by myself in 2023 at the Telangana State Archaeology Museum, Hyderabad.

Primary

Secondary

ARIE 1916-1917. Page 7, appendix A/1916–17, № 15.

ARIE 1916-1917. Pages 113–114, §20.

Notes

↑1. The name of Pralayāditya is in the genitive case along with all the adjectives qualifying him. The instrumental would be expected, governed by the participle dattaḥ in line 20. I translate the text as if this were an innocuous mistake, but see also the commentary.
↑2. This name is absurd. See also the apparatus to line 11.
↑3. The word yama is not present in the text, see the apparatus to line 13.
↑4. Some words to this effect have been omitted in the original, possibly along with further items in the list of Brahmanical duties.
↑5. The received text is unintelligible here; I translate the presumed intent of the composer. See the apparatus to line 19.
↑6. It is not possible to say whether only the first two of the following four stanzas are attributed to Vyāsa, or if the composer (or forger) of the grant was simply inattentive and used the dual where the plural would have been appropriate.
↑7. If the grant is genuine, Paramiśvara may be identical to Parameśvaravarman, the executor of the Guḍivāḍa plates (set 1) of Jayasiṁha I.
↑8. I translate what I assume to have been the composer’s intent. See the apparatus to line 28.
↑9. See the commentary about a possible mistake in this numbering.