Sanskrit Text . * . svasti . tribhir api guṇair upeto nr̥ṇāv vidhāne sthitau tathā pralaye A-guṇa Iti yaḥ prasiddhas tasmai dhātre namas satatam· ⊙ A-gaṇita-vikrama-guruṇā praṇamya-mānas surādhipena sadā Api yas trivikrama Iti prathito loke namas tasmai ⊙ yas sthāṇur apy ati-tarāy yavthepsitārtha-prado guṇair jagatām· kalpa-drumam atanum adhaḥ karoti tasmai śivāya namaḥ ⊙ || ⊙ kīrtyākhaṇḍitayātayā karuṇayā yas strī-paratvan dadhac cāpākarṣaṇataś ca yaḥ praṇihitan tībraṅ kalaṅkaṅ kare yaś cāsac-carite parāṅ-mukhatayā śūro raṇe bhīrutāṁ svair doṣān bhajate guṇais sa jayatād erlaṅga-nāmā nr̥paḥ ⊙ Āsīn nirjita-bhūri-bhū-dhara-gaṇo bhū-pāla-cūḍā-maṇiḥ prakhyāto bhuvana-traye ’pi mahatā śauryyeṇa siṁhopamaḥ yenorvī suciran dhr̥tāmita-phalā lakṣmīś ca no gatvarī sa śrī-kīrti-valānvito yava-patiś śrīśāna-tuṅgāhvayaḥ ⊙ tasyātma-jākaluṣa-mānasa-vāsa-ramyā haṁsī yathā sugata-pakṣa-sadāvavaddhā sā rājahaṁsa-mudam eva vivarddhayantī śrīśānatuṅga-vijayeti rarāja rājñī ⊙ mandākinīm iva tadātma-samāṁ samr̥ddhyā kṣīrārṇavaḥ prathita-śuddhi-guṇāntarātmā tāñ cākarot praṇayinīn nayanābhinandī śrī-loka-pāla-nr̥patir nara-nātha-nāgaḥ ⊙ tasmāt prādur abhūt prabhāva-vibhavo bhū-bhūṣaṇodbhūtaye bhūtānām bhava-bhāvanodyata-dhiyām bhām bhāvayan bhūtibhiḥ Ābhiś cāpratima-prabhābhir abhayo bhāsvān ivābhyudyataś śatrūṇām ibha-kumbha-kumbha-dalane putraḥ prabhur bhū-bhujām· ⊙ śrī-makuṭa-vaṅśa-varddhana Iti pratīto nr̥ṇām anupamendraḥ śrīśāna-vaṅśa-tapanas tatāpa śatrūn pratāpena ⊙ tasyādhipasya duhitātimanojña-rupā mūrteva rāja-guṇato yava-rāja-lakṣmīḥ dvīpāntare ’pi subhagena babhūva pitrā nāmnā kr̥tā khalu guṇa-priya-dharmma-patnī ⊙ Āsīd asāv api viśiṣṭa-viśuddha-janmā rājānvayād udayanaḥ prathitāt prajātaḥ tāṁ śrīmatīv vidhivad eva mahendra-dattāv vyaktāhvayo nr̥pa-sutām upayacchate sma ⊙ śreṣṭhaḥ prajāsu sakalāsu kalābhirāmo rāmo yathā daśarathāt svaguṇair garīyān· sambhāvitonnata-gatir mahasā munīndrair erlaṅga-deva Iti divya-sutas tato ’bhūt· ⊙ śrī-dharmma-vaṁśa Iti pūrva-yavādhipena sambandhinā guṇa-gaṇa-śravaṇotsukena Āhūya sādaram asau sva-sutā-vivāhan drāk sarvathā prathita-kīrttir abhūn mahātmā ⊙ Atha bhasmasād abhavad āśu tat-puram puru-hūta-rāṣṭram iva – dya – ⏑ – kalinā khalena khalu kiṅkarair vinā sa narottamena sahito vanāny agāt· ⊙ śākendre śaśa-lāñchanābdhi-vadane yāte mahā-vatsare māghe māsi sita-trayodaśa-tithau vāre śaśiny utsukaiḥ Āgatya praṇatair janair dvija-varais sāśvāsam abhyarthitaś śrī-lokeśvara-nīralaṅga-nr̥patiḥ pāhīty apātāṅ kṣitim· ⊙ samrājya-dīkṣitam iman nr̥patin niśamya śaktyā jitāri-nikaran nivaho ripūṇām· Adyāpi tad-bhuja-bhujaṅga-talasya śaśvad abhyasyatīha capalatvam abhūta-pūrvvam· ⊙ bhūyāṁso yava-bhū-bhujo bubhujire pr̥thvīv vipakṣe ’rthinas sāmarthyān nr̥pa-janmano na bubhujus tajjā narendrāsane kintu śrī-jalalaṅga-deva-nr̥patir vaṁśyo ’dhirājāgraṇīr bhobhuṅkte sa bhunakti kevalam arin dvandvam bhraman bhūtale ⊙ bhū-bhr̥n-mastaka-digdha-pāda-yugalas siṁhāsane saṁsthito mantrālaucana-tat-parair ahar-ahas sambhāṣito mantribhiḥ bhāsvadbhir lalanānvito niviśate vīraiḥ parīto bhr̥śaṁ jyotis tasya parājaye vijayavac citrīyate santatam· ⊙ — enāsya / — air asya / — bhir yasya putrān mām ativatsalo ’pi sahasā tyaktvā madīyaḥ patis svarga-strī-gamano ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ to h/py ājñā-vidheyas tava khyātas tvam bhuvane dayālu-hr̥dayaḥ stainyā pravr̥ttiḥ kathaṁ hā rājan· kva kr̥pety arer vanitayā rājāpy upālabhyate ⊙ kaś cin mumukṣu-pa ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – – vāptaye dhana-malāni mahān arātiḥ kaś cit tri-viṣṭapa-mukhān nr̥-varasya mantrān samprāpya śiṣya Iva tena kr̥tas sa Āsīt· ⊙ tuṅgāsau bhuvana-trayasya maha – – – ⏑ – – ⏑so kiṁ bandhāna cikīrṣayā kṣa ⏑ ⏑ – ṅ kiṁ tadyutesterasaḥ kiṅ krīḍā-rasa-lipsayā rabhasuyā yasyoddhatiḥ kīrttitā kīrttiḥ śuddhi-karīndradā dhavala – – mānyate ’har-niśam· ⊙ Indro nareṣu mati-vāk-cariteṣu dharmmo vaśyeṣu pāśabhr̥d asau dhana-do ’rthi-sārthe saṁhr̥tya hanta nr̥pa-rād iti loka-pālān eko bahum pra ⏑ ⏑ – v vriyate sma dhātrā ⊙ Āsīn nr̥po ⏑ ⏑ purī-pralayaṁ sa – – viṣṇu-prabhāva iti tasya suto mahātmā tañ candra-bhūta-vadane śaka-rāja-varṣa Ekādaśī ⏑ daka – cu ⏑ phalguṇe vān· ⊙ Anyaś ca kaś cid adhamaḥ parudābhidhānas sākṣād daśānana Ivāvyathayaj jaganti – – ⏑ – sya ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – narendro rāmātviramya-carito nyavadhīt tam āśu ⊙ tataś ca tad-anantaran nr̥pa-sutañ jigīṣur gatas tad-ālayam aśeṣam eva sahasābhyadhākṣīn nr̥paḥ punaḥ punar athāgni-bhūta-vadane śakābde gate varo nara-patis tadīya-nagarāṇy adandahyata ⊙ Abhavad api bhuvi strī rākṣasīvogra-vīryyā vyapagata-bhayam asyās saṅkaṭāṅ gām ayāsīt· jala-nidhi-śara-randhre śāka-samvatsare ’smin· nr̥patir abhinad etān tat-kṣaṇaṅ khyāta-kīrttiḥ ⊙ jvalana Iva narendro lelihāno dahat tān diśam adhikam ajayyān dakṣiṇān dakṣiṇatvāt· dhanam atibahu labdhvā tac ca datvātmabhr̥tye dvijapatimunisaṅghe kīrttim evāharat saḥ ⊙ mānitvād atha śailabhūtalapane śākendravarṣe gate bhadre māsi sitatrayodaśatitho vāre budhe pāvane udyuktair balibhir balair agaṇitair gatvā diśam paścimāṁ rājānav vijayāhvayaṁ samajayad rājā jagatpūjitaḥ ⊙ Atha mukhaśararandhre śākavarṣe ṣṭamākhye suragurusitipakṣe kārtike māsi tasmin· nijabalanigr̥hīto vaiṣṇuguptair upāyais sapadi vijayavarmmā pārthivo dyām agacchat· ⊙ mukha-śara-vivarākhye śāka-rājasya varṣe hata-śaśi-guru-vāre kārtike pañcadaśyām· ripu-śirasi mahātmā śrī-yava-dvīpa-rājo jayati nihita-pādo ratna-siṁhāsana-sthaḥ ⊙ pūrvvādi-dig-vijayinaṁ hata-sarvva-śatrum ekāta-patram avaner jalalaṅga-devam· nānyan nirīkṣitum alaṁ subhujopapīḍaṅ gāḍham pariṣvajati samprati rāja-lakṣmīḥ ⊙ nirjityātha ripūn parākrama-dhanāc chau[r]yyair upāyair api śaktyākhaṇḍitayā khalu bratitayā vā devatārādhanaiḥ rantuñ jāta-mahā-kra/śramas sa kurute puṇyāśramaṁ śrīmataḥ pārśve pūgavato girer nara-patiś śrī-nīralaṅgāhvayaḥ ⊙ śr̥ṇvanto rājakīyāśramam asamam iman nandanodyāna-deśyaṅ gacchantas santatan te py ahamahamikayā vismayālolanetrāaḥ mālābhiprīti-kārās stuti-mukharamukhā mukhyam enan nr̥pāṇām mānīnam manyamānā manum iva mahasā mānanīyav vruvanti ⊙ sādhūnām pathi yātu paura-samitir dharmyā gatir mantriṇām bhūyād bhūta-hiteṣiṇo muni-janā Itthan na me prārthanā yasmiñ jīvati rājñi rakṣati bhuvan dharmeṇa siddhyanti te tasmāc chrī-jalalaṅga-deva-nr̥-patir dīrghaṁ sa jīvyād iti ⊙ // ⊙

Old Javanese Text . * . svasti śaka-varṣātīta 963 kārtika-māsa, tithi daśamī śukla-pakṣa, ha, va, śu, vāra vayaṁ-vayaṁ, caāra graha bāyabyastha, Uttarabhadravāda-nakṣatra, Ahirbudhna-devatā, bajrayoga, garaḍi-karaṇa, bāruṇya-maṇḍala,

Irikā divaśany ājñā śrī mahārāja rakai halu śrī lokeśvara dharmmavaṅśa Airlaṅgānantavikramottuṅgadeva, tinaḍaḥ rakryān· mahāmantrī I hino śrī samaravijaya dhama suparṇavāhaṇa tguh uttuṅgadeva, Umiṅsor· I rakryān· kanuruhan· pu dharmmamūrtti narottama dānaśūra kumonakən ikanaṁ ri pucaṅan·, Iṁ barahəm·, Iṁ bapuri, lmaḥniṁ varggāpiṅhe susukən·, mapaknā paṅadəganani dharmma karṣyan· śrī mahārāja,

sambandha, An·hana Iṣṭaprārthanā śrī mahārāja ri kālaniṁ pralaya riṁ yavadvīpa, Irikāṁ śakakāla 939 ri prahāra haji vuravari An· vijil· saṅke lva rām·, Ekaārṇava ruūpanikāṁ sayavadvīpa rikāṁ kāla, Akveḥ sira vvaṁ mahāviśeṣa pjaḥ, karuhun· An· samaṅkana divaśa śrī mahārāja devatā pjaḥ lumāḥ ri saṁ hyaṁ dharmma parhyaṅan i vvatan·, riṁ cetra-māsa, śaka-kāla 939 sḍaṁ vālaka śrī mahārāja Irikāṁ kāla, prasiddha nam blas· tahun· vayaḥnira, tapvan· dahat· kr̥ta-pariśramanireṁ saṁgrāma, makahetu rarainira, tapvan enāk· baṅətni denira ruməgəp· pasarikəpany āyudhanira, kunaṁ ri sākṣātnniran· viṣṇumūrtti, rinakṣaniṁ sarbvadevata, Inahākən tan ilva kavaśa deni paṅavaśaniṁ mahāpralaya, maṅantīri himbaṁniṁ vanagiri, makasambhāsana saṁ tāpaśa suddhācāra, meriṁ lāvan· hulunira saṅ ekāntapratipatti manaḥniran· dāśabhūta-tanuūpacāran· bhaktiprahva ri lbūni pāduka śrī mahārāja, pu narottama, saṁjñānira, sirādini hulun· śrī mahārāja Atisayeṁśayeṅ dr̥ḍabhakti, tumūt tan sāḥ I saparān· śrī mahārāja, milu valkaladhara pinakarovaṁ śrī mahārāja makāhāra sāhāra saṁ bhikṣuka vanaprastha, tātan· vismr̥dti śrī mahārāja ri kārādhanan· bhaṭāra riṅ ahorātra, nimittani mahābhāranyāsiḥniṁ sarbvadevata I śrī mahārāja, An· sira pinratyayaniṁ sarbvadevata kalpapādapa Umə:bana bhuvana, kumaliliranaṁ kulit kaki, makadrabyaṁ rājalakṣmī, muvahakna sāśvatāniṁ rāt·, munarjīvāknaṁ saṁ hyaṁ sarvvadharmma humariṣṭākna hanituniṁ bhuvana, maṁkanābhamataniṁ sarbvadevata I śrī mahārāja,

huvus ta śrī mahārāja kr̥tasaṁskāra, pratiṣṭa riṁ siṅhāsana, mvaṁ An· kapadasthāniṁ pituṁ śrī mahārāja haji devatā saṁ lumāḥ riṅ īśānabajra Ikanaṁ halu pinakakapadasthān· śrī mahārāja, mataṅyan· rakai halu śrī lokeśvara dharmmavaṅśa Airlaṅgānantavikramottuṅgadeva saṁjñā kāstvan· śrī mahārāja, de mpuṅku sogata maheśvara mahābrāhmaṇa Irikāṁ śakakāla 941 tātan· pahīṅan de śrī mahārāja lumarisakən· sābhamataniṁ sarbvadevatā I sira, kapva kakalimbaṅ ikaṁ kriyā vāhyāntara denira, tan· kasalimur i kadamlaniṁ pūjā, prāyaścitta mahābhāraniṁ kasiṅheśvaranira, maravaśākən· sakveḥnikāṁ kalaṅka satumuvuh i hyaṁ, sapinakahanituniṁ yavadvīpa, prabheda druha ṅ inaranan· si śuvukal·, mantu hajīnadgakn iṁ kaṭula mvaṁ si laḍiṁ, niravaśeṣa I tta sama nya de śrī mahārāja, ṅuni-ṅuni haji tṅaḥ sapuluḥ tahun· An· paṁdiri, pinakarovaṁ madvandva yuddhacakra vvat· pinjahan iṁ vaṅuntur· mvaṁ saṅ ibu Irikāṁ śakakāla 951 lumampaḥ ta śrī mahārāja dumon ikāṁ paradāraputra hyaṁ maṅṅadg i vuru tumuṁgal i maddhyadeśaniṁ vurahan·, Atiśayeṁ mahābalaparākrama sumorakən haji vəṅkər· saṅa ta hajy an· pahaR̥p=haR̥pan· mvaṁ haji vaṅkər·, kavnaṅ ata Ikā de śrī mahārāja Irikāṁ śakakāla 952 mvaṁ tinuluy hanihanituni tumiṅgalakən karājyanira muvah akaḍatvan i L̥ca, tinūtnikāṁ deśa galuḥ mvaṁ deśa barat·, An· tinkān· sināhasan irikāṁ śakakāla 953 de śrī mahārāja, muvaḥ hana ta putra haji vaṅkar· maṅadg i vuru rtu pjaḥ Ata Ikā de śrī mahārāja Irikāṁ śakakāla 954 sahanani vargga laṁḍiṁ rāk·, mvaṁ hiR̥ṁ-hiR̥ṅan·, Iṁ maṁdon·, lāvan· sahananikāṁ makira-kirāpāyāmutra hyaṅ amanaḥnya de śrī mahārāja, haji vuravari tuvi śrī mahārāja Ata makapuruṣakāra kahilaṁnira, Usaṁṅ-usaṁ śrī mahārāja mvaṁ rakryān· kanuruhan· pu narottama, rakryān· kuniṅan pu nīti, ri kāla śrī mahārāja hane magəṁ ha hīṅanyan· śrī mahārāja saṅkani hilaṁniṁ sahanani haniihanituniṁ yavadvīpa, kunaṁ kramani kahilaṁ haji vəṅkər· de śrī mahārāja, mūla kaḍatvanira ri kapaṁ sira naṁ pratiniyata hinārohara deśanirāṅkən· Asujimāsa de śrī mahārāja, muvaḥ Irikāṁ śakakāla 9577 vvay ata, samaṁkana tata sirar kaparājaya ri kapaṁ de śrī mahārāja, sirāmriḥ manusup amet· deśa durgga, matiṅgal· tanaya dāra tka riṁ rājadrabya rājavāhana prakāra, ri kahləmanya Irikāṁ śakakāla 959 vaR̥gg anusup· haji ri kapaṁ mvaṁ balanira samāsiḥ ri sira, kavnaṁ ta sira ri sarasa ratu vani pa paṅan·, ha pinakatapakan· taṇḍasnira de śrī mahārāja Ar paliṅgiḥ moḍoḍa ri siṅhāsana,

sampun· saṁkṣipta ta Ikāṁ pralaya ri yavadvīpa, matlasan ikā saṁgrāma, tan hana saṅśayani manaḥnikāṁ rāt· An· ppaṅəb· makapārāyanaparāyaṇa cchāyāni pāduka śrī mahārāja, mataṅ yar siddhākən· pratijñānira, madaməl· yaśa patapān iṁ pucaṅan· Inusan·-Usan· raghu, yāṅkən· mantrastavanamaskāra śrī mahārāja ri bhaṭāra sāri-sāri, mvaṁ paṁliṅgānanikāṁ rāt·, karuhun saṅ anāgataprabhu hlam i dlāhaniṁ dlāha, ri kramani de śrī mahārāja munarjīvākən· sāśvatāniṁ sayavadvīpa, Āpan· saṅ anādi prabhu sakveḥnira sinivi riṁ yavadvīpa, ka sadbhāva han denira, tkāmaṅgiḥ hayunira kabeḥ riṅ anādi, tātan· maṅkana śrī mahārāja syaniṁ nira mvaṁ abhimata śrī mahārāja mayva thāni vatək· maṅaran i hino, dr̥bya haji mā su 1 ni nikāṁ yaśa patapān· I pucaṅan·, mantən· ta Ikāṁ lmaḥ ri pucaṅan·, I barahəm·, I bapuri ya · saṁ hyaṁ yaśa patapān i pucaṅan· [tan katamāna deniṁ] vinava saṁ māna [katrīṇi,] paṅkur·, tavan·, tirip·, mvaṁ saṁ nāyakapratyaya, piṅhai vahuta rāma, mvaṁ sakveḥ saṁ maṅilala drabya haji m sukhaduḥkha, sakveḥ lviranya sahīṅani lmaḥ saṁ hyaṁ yaśa patapān i pucaṅan· [saṁ maṅilāla] drabya haji vulu-vulu mvaṁ siṅ ata lviranya, luməbura saṁ hyaṁ yaśa patapān i pucaṅan·, yan· brāhmaṇa kṣatriya veśya, sudra, caṇḍāla, nāyaka, partyaya, piṅhai vahuta rāma umulah-ulaha kaśvatantrān· saṁ hyaṁ dharmma patapān i pucaṅan· mvaṁ sahīṅaniṁ lmaḥni nanira I hino saṁ hyaṁ yaśa patapān·, jaḥ tasmāt· kabvatkarmmāknanya, [bhukt]inira [pañca]mahāpātaka citralekha I pāduka śrī mahārāja sira saṁ hyaṅ ājñā haji praśāsti

nr̥ṇāv vidhāne One expects nr̥ṇāṁ vidhāne. Of this idiosyncratic sandhi, of which several more examples will follow below, we have seen one other instance in the Campā inscription C. 167, st. IV (§1.3). See also Kern's remark (1917:87). ALSO BAN NAXONE LAOS Api Api In fact only a part of the p is actually visible, but the shape of the lacuna certainly allows conjecturing Api. yas sthāṇur ya sthāṇur atitarāy Norm. atitarāṁ. For this idiosyncratic sandhi see our note on nr̥ṇāv vidhāne in pāda b of stanza I. yavthepsitārtha- yathepsitārtha- The akṣara in question quite clearly seems to be v and not th, but the two akṣaras are very similar and the latter was almost certainly intended, so we translate yathepsita-. °tayā dhiyā The reading included in Crawfurd 1816 seems to be kayā at this place. lakṣmīś ca no gatvarī lakṣmīn dadhau gatvarī We initially read dorgatvarī, because something that resembles a repha/layar seems discernible above the ga, but we are unable to come up with any justification for why the author would have invented a unique expression ‘going from the arms’ or ‘going from arm to arm’ to mean ‘fickle’. It is more likely that he used no, a metrically conditioned equivalent of the negation na (cf Raghuvaṁśa 11.60: diśo no babhūvur avalokanakṣamāḥ). For gatvarī as an attribute of śrī (meaning ‘riches’ in this case), see Kirātārjunīya 11.21: abhidroheṇa bhūtānām arjayan gatvarīḥ śriyaḥ ‘The man who amasses transient wealth by injuring creatures…’ (tr. Peterson). sadāvavaddhā sahābhavadyā mudam The reading sudam in Kern 1917 is a misrepresentation of the original Devanāgarī edition. -vibhavo -viśado -dhiyām bhām bhāvayan -dhiyā kṣmām bhāvayan Ābhiś śauriś śatrūn śubhram -rupā -rūpā It seems impossible to read here the metrically required long vowel ū. See another case of rūpa spelt rupa in line 5 of face B. rāja- bhāva (?) mahendradattāv Regarding the idiosyncratic sandhi, see our note on nr̥ṇāv vidhāne in pāda b of stanza I. -rāṣṭram iva – dya – ⏑ – -rāṣṭram iva mudyutaṁ ciraṁ (?) -rāṣṭram avasādya taṁ ciram· We have considered several possibilities to complete this line but none of them seemed satisfactory, e.g. -m iva madyavādhitaṁ, ‘afflicted by intoxicating drinks’ (for another instance of writing v instead of b see stanza V. -valānvito, and stanza VI. sadāvavaddhā), -m iva māndyasāditaṁ, ‘destroyed by indolence’, -mavasādya pārthivaḥ, ‘having ruined it, the king’, etc. Arjunavivāha 1.3 might possible be related to this passage: (daitya Nivātakavaca) sumyūhaṅ indrālaya ‘(the demon Nivātakavaca) was about to destroy Indra’s abode’. kalinā khalena talinā ⏑ lena kalinā jhalena See Damais (1952: 90–91, n.1): “Nous dirons dans une étude consacrée à la stèle de Pucangan pourquoi il nous est impossible de lire avec Purbatjaraka un jha”. Alas, Damais never published this study. vinā viśāāṁ narottamena sahito narottamair upahito śaśalāñchanābdhivadane tha ⏑ locanāgnivadane The first syllable of line 13 is almost illegible in all sources available to us. For the middle chronogram word, the choice to read bdhi (4 oceans, abdhi) instead of gni (3 fires,agni) is made on the ground that the specified thirteenth tithi of the waxing fortnight of Māgha fell on a Monday (vāre śaśini) in 941 Śaka, while in 931 it did not; moreover, in line 15 on face B, the same episode is dated to 941. See on this verse and Damais' reading of the chronogram n. 4 (p. 66) in Boechari's article on the Mūla-Maluruṅ inscription = Boechari 2012: 430 n.4. pāhīty apātāṅ pāhītyutāntāṅ Other possibilities we have taken into consideration include: pāhīty anantāṅ / adāntāṅ / aśāntāṅ kṣitim, pāyāt samantāṅ kṣitim, pāhi tvam asmatkṣitim, pāty adya śāntāṅ / dāntāṅ kṣitim. None seemed satisfactory. samrājya- the intended word is sāmrājya-. But it is imaginable that for our author, samrājya- was an acceptable form. śaśvad bibhyad abhyasyatīha abhyasyatīva capalatvam mukhalatvam Other conceivable readings would be kuśalatvam, mr̥dulatvam and musalavam. If we read capalatvam, it might be an allusion to the term hastacapala, found frequently in OJ inscriptions and sometimes in other textual sources. CHECK Boechari. Pāṇicapala is also found in dharmaśāstra texts, e.g. Manusm r̥ti 4.177, where it refers to “someone conducting himself in a fickle manner with his hands” (cf. O livelle’s translation p. CHECK). Here in the inscription, however, the meaning of this expression is probably more positive. pr̥thvīv Regarding the idiosyncratic sandhi, see our note on nr̥ṇāv vidhāne in pāda b of stanza I. na nu (?) bubhujus bubhujas Damais writes an u above the a tajjā ta – r This reading is proposed by K in the note to his translation, where he observes that an appropriate reading would be tuṣṭiṁ, but that it cannot be adopted because no u is visible. It indeed seems hard to read a tu; for the following akṣara, something with j or ṣṭ would be possible, but these are not the only possibilities judging by what little remains identifiable of the akṣara. kintu tiktaṁ dhirājāgraṇīr – irājāgraṇīr dhināthāgraṇīr bhobhuṅkte bho caṅkte / bhaṅktve bho aṅge -digdha- – kta- -sakta Cf. K. 263 C, st. XV = K. 669 A, st. VI, pāda a: āsīd bhūpālamaulisphuritamaṇiśikhārāgadigdhāṅghrijaśrīr. For a slightly different expression of the same idea in Old Javanese, see face B lines 29–30. -laucana- -locana- The word -locana- is surely intended, but the stone shows lau instead of lo. to hy ājñāvidheyas tāmpyājñavidheyas –ājñāvidheyas -hr̥dayaḥ stainyā -hr̥dayastenyā One of the problems with our reading is that this inscription elsewhere prefers the sandhi -s st-. rājāpy upālabhyate rājampyupālanyate – – ⏑ yā lapyate The possibility of reading as we do was proposed to Arlo Griffiths by the late Abhijit Ghosh, when they discussed the stanza in January 2011. The UI estampage seems indeed to show these akṣaras. – vāptaye dhanamalāni – – ptapo vanasamāni tuṅgāsau tuṅgāho tuṅgā sya maha – – – ⏑ – – ⏑so Maybe it is possible to read ... jijñā ⏑ so? cikīrṣayā kṣa Maybe it is possible to read kṣi or kr̥? Or cikīrṣayārkṣi ...? rabhasuyā K states in a note that the reading is unmistakable to him, but that what is expected is rabhasayā. śuddhikarīndradā śuddhikarī ⏑ dā nareṣu mareṣu The first syllable of this word is completely illegible on the UI estampage . mativāk- K states in a note that he guesses the stone has pr̥thuvāk. Our conjecture is based on the assumption that we must have here an expression of the triple 'thoughts, words and deeds'. An alternative would be to conjecture mata. dharmmo dhr̥ṣṭo pāśabhr̥d bhāgakr̥d hanta nr̥parād hanta ⏑ rarāḍiti Kern notes that the syllable after hanta clearly bears a u, but supposes this has been misplaced, and believes the intended reading is hantu mararāḍ iti. To us, the akṣara supposedly bearing a u rather seems to be the one before rā. Instead of hanta, we could also read hasta. Understand -rāḍ. nr̥po ⏑ ⏑ purīpralayaṁ sa – – nr̥ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – prala – ⏑ – – viṣṇu- bhīṣma- tañ candrabhūtavadane śakarājavarṣa this entire pāda, except the last three syllables, was unreadable for Kern. ekādaśī ⏑ daka – cu ⏑ phalguṇe (v)ā(n)· – – ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ lokāt adhamaḥ parudābh- adhamāpanudābh- Would parujābh° (including OJ word parujar) somehow be possible? Ivāvyathayaj jaganti vādhyadhamāṅgatantiḥ narendro nagendre rāmātviramyacarito nyavadhīt tam āśu K only read from nyavadhīt onwards. Emend rāmāti-. Or is it possible that what looks like subscript -v- is actually an accidental scratch in the stone? jigīṣur gatas jigīṣur bhuvās varo varo It would also be possible to read gate or gato. etān tatkṣaṇaṅ etal lakṣaṇaṅ As is clear from the Leiden estampage, Kern's reading must already have been partly conjectural. His interpretation of lakṣaṇaṅ as meaning ‘prize’ seems impossible, for one would then have expected lakṣyaṅ or lakṣaṅ. ajayyān anāryyān Neither ā-mātra on the second syllable nor repha above y are discernible. labdhvā luṇṭaṁ -saṅghe -madhye bhadre Kern notes that bhadre is to be corrected to bhādre, but this is probably unnecessary. Damais reads caitre, but the estampages seem to favor Kern’s reading; neither reading yields a Wednesday. -titho -tithau Of course one must understand -tithau. Atha mukha- atha muni- What has been read as mu looks more like pr̥ or possibly pu. Virtually no trace of the last syllable in this line is actually preserved. vijayavarmmā vijayanāmā mukha- maka- See Kern 1917: 96 n. 4 for details. As Kern observed, the passage in line 29–30 of face B makes clear that the year in question was 959, and hence that the word we are dealing with here had to have the value 9.Judging by the visual material at our disposal, we doubt that the reading maka- was ever as “perfectly clear (volkomen duidelijk)” as Kern claimed. We find it likely that the same word with value 9 was used in stanza XXIX and XXX. nihitapādo it seems that the e-mātrā of do stands at the end of line 30, but if this is correct, we probably have to assume that it was repeated by the stone carver, or that some other error was made at the beginning of l. 31, for there are traces of more signs than dā before ratna-. The hypothesis of redundant e-mātrā is to be preferred, for there is an analogous case in face B, lines 14–15. -pīḍaṅ We cannot distinguish the ḍ with certainty from a d. In all likelihood, the stone carver spelled -pīdaṅ. bratitayā vratitayā devatārādhanaiḥ rantuñ devatārādhanairantru/añ devatā rādhanai rantuñ A pausa form is expected at the end of pāda b. The Leiden estampage seems to show the expected visarga. -mahākra/śramas -mahādtvamuas -mahānr̥pas The second ma seems relatively clear. -netrāāḥ This was no doubt intended by Kern’s netrāḥ. mālābhiprītikārās rās mālādiprītikārās enan etan na me nr̥pe jīvyād the supposed ī-sign is not clearly distinguishable from a short i. va, śu pa, bu va, śa caragraha This term is anomalous. Elsewhere, one finds grahacāra. See Gomperts 2001: 107–110. -Uttarabhadravāda-nakṣatra -rabhadravānākṣatra -ra( )dratanakṣatra -rabhadrava(da) nakṣatra -budhna- -budha- garaḍi-: We tentatively follow D’s suggestion for the name of the karaṇa; dadhi- P. B and K leave the syllables in question open. rakai rake dhamasuparṇavāhaṇa tguh uttuṅga- dhamma suparṇa – hana tahutuṅgadeva dhamma suparṇa – haṇata hutuṅgadeva dharmmasuparṇacaraṇa tguh uttuṅga- dh(ā)ma suparṇavāhaṇa tguh uttuṅga- On the reading of the first element of the name, see Damais 1955: 66–7 n. 3. We reject Damais’ conclusion that the reading must be dhāma, because we see no trace in the RTI of the -ā suspected by Damais at the end of line 2. Although we thus read dhama instead of dhāma, on the grounds that the intended meaning of the name may have been ‘Viṣṇu (suparṇavāhana) in heaven (dhāma)’, we suppose that dhāma may indeed have been intended. dānaśūra janaśūra B and K leave these syllables blank. The long lacuna of ca. 8+32 akṣaras seems to be a case of intentional erasure. Iṁ barahəm· After dharmmamūrtti B leaves the syllables blank until niṅ barahəm·. K has dharmamūrti kə maṅan, iṅ barahəm. bapuri śapuri basuri 939 938 (928) 928 ri prahāra ri prahara mra?– – B leaves these syllables blank. An· vijil· masə: mijil -ruūpa- -rūpa- vālaka vālajaka vāla, ka dahat· dahat iṁ enāk enak· baṅətni baṅəṅgi ruməgəp· One detects what seems to be a character to the right of mə, which could theoretically be a vestige of an akṣara rə or R̥, or else be a space filler such as one often finds in later inscriptions but never in original stone inscriptions from Airlangga’s time. Although a form rumərəgəp could theoretically be justified, it is unattested. We hence believe that we must be dealing with an accidental scratch. pasarikəpany pasariṅkəpany sapariṅkəpany sākṣātniran sākṣāt iran sakṣātiran Inahākən Innahakən kavaśa livaśa paṅavaśaniṁ paṅavananiṁ paṅavara niṁ maṅantīri maṅanti ri -niṁ vanagiri -ni vanagiri -iṅ vanagiri lāvan· lavan saṅ ekāntapratipatti nta pradipatti nta pratipatti samekāntapratipatti dāśabhūta-tanuūpacāran· bhaktiprahva ri tanu – – n – – pra – ri – tanu n – – prahva ri Umaṅga tatan upakaran bhakti sraddha ri For -tanupacāran, one must either understand -tanūpacāran, or emend -tanupracāran. We tentatively opt for the former. The whole passage from ekāntapratipatti to pāduka śrī mahārāja is reminiscent of the Adulengen charter, where we read in 2r1–3: tan· kapālaṅalaṁ suṣṭubhakti I pāduka śrī mahārāja, lot kahudanan·, kapyayān·, An paṅekānta I pāduka śrī mahārāja they were undisturbed in their extreme loyalty to his Majesty the Great King, steadfast [despite being] exposed to rain and sun, as they had but one aim, [namely] his Majesty the Great King. pu narottama saṁ narottama mpu narottama sirādini sirādiniṁ Atisayeṁśayeṅ Atiśayeṁ tumūt hambak humbat (?) tan sāḥ tansaḥ tan sah saparān· Ayunan saparan makāhāra Iā hāra maṅāhāra vanaprastha vanapraṣṭha tātan· vismr̥dti yataniviṣadi tatan vismr̥ti ri kārādhanan· rikā bhavanan· ri kāradhanan· The Sanskrit text on face A also uses the word ārādhana: see st. XXXII. ahorātra ahoratra kalpapādapa Umə:bana Alpapādi padamə:lana –lpapādi padamə:lana kalpapādapa ṅahə:bana kumaliliranaṁ kumalilirana makadrabyaṁ makadrabya muvahakna sāśvatāniṁ muvaḥakna haṣa nikanaṅ muvahakna harṣanikanaṅ The RTI clearly shows sā instead of ha. Cf. the parallel passage in line 33: de śrī mahārāja munarjīvākən· sāśvatāniṁ sayavadvīpa. The word recorded in OJED as śāśvata is intended in both passages. munarjīvāknaṁ munarjīvākna maṁkanābhamataniṁ maṁkanābhimataniṁ The reading of the previous editors suggests that an -i was visible to them in the reproductions they used. It seems rather that none was ever engraved atop bh, and that it needs to be inserted by emendation. Another instance of the same scribal error occurs below in l. 16. -devata -devatā kapadasthāniṁ pituṁ ka gə:ṅniṅ pitu kapūja(?) pitu kapadasthaniṁ pitu haji devatā haridevatā lumāḥ lumāh lumah īśānabajra iśānabajra pinakakapadasthān· pinakakapratisthān· pinakakapratiṣṭhān· -vikramottuṅgadeva the e-element (taling) of mo is written first at the end of line 14, and then redundantly repeated at the beginning of line 15. See identical case on face A, in st. XXX. mahārāja, de mahārāja de Irikāṁ irikaṅ tātan· pahīṅan de śrī tatan pahīṅan śrī I tan pahiṅan· śrī – tan pahīṅan· śrī All previous editors ignore the presence of de. lumarisakən· kən manarīrākən sābhamataniṁ K and P have proposed the emendation sābhimataniṁ which underlies our translation. See the emendation maṁkanābhamata to maṁkanābhimata in l. 13. It is very curious that the same error is made twice; normally, this would impose taking the reading seriously as it is, but we see no other way than to assume that the word abhimata was really intended in both cases. kapva kakalimbaṅ ikaṁ kriyā vāhyāntara kapva kalimba – – kri phala – hyantara kapva kakal imban (?) iṁ kriyā vāhyāntara kapva kakalimbaṅ ikaṅ kriya vahyāntara Several factors conspire to make the reading rather uncertain here. First, there is interference with the descender (itself rather unclear) of ṅku in the preceding line; what previous scholars have read, and what we read after them, as mb could possibly be ṅk or jb; the squiggle to its top left, which might be taken as -ā on mb pushed to the left by the descender from line 15, seems indeed to be an -i on the preceding akṣara, as previous editors assumed, and as we find confirmed by an apparently parallel passage in the Kamalagyan inscription, lines 21–22: yāvat kavaṅunaniṅ yaśa donanya, an kapva kinalimbaṅ juga denira, sahana saṅ hyaṅ sarvvadharmma kabeḥ ‘As many constructions of foundation as were his aim, they were all simply carried out by him, absolutely all holy foundations’. The li seems to be endowed with descender to make -u (lu), but this must be an accidental scratch. denira, tan· kasalimur i kadamlaniṁ pūjā denira tan· kapalimura I dharmma dhi – jā denira tansalimur i kadharmmaniṁ prajā prāyaścitta mahābhāraniṁ kasiṅheśvaranira jro mrā nikaṅ siṅho nira mahārāja nika siṅho nira riṁ bhaṭara, deni kasiṅheśvaranira maravaśākən· mara ni mara ni sakveḥnikāṁ kalaṅka satumuvuh i sakveḥnikāṅ maṅhyaṅgadrabya sakveḥ nikāṅ sakveḥnikaṅ kalaṅka satumuvuh P’s reading breaks off after this point. hyaṁ for the gap of two akṣaras, satva or mata would seem to be possible readings judging from the UI estampage and the RTI, but the resulting meaning in either case is not sufficiently persuasive to allow us to make a choice. sapinakahanituniṁ sapinakahanituni prabheda druha prabheda prabheda ṅ inaranan· ṅinarani A possible restitution of the illegible akṣaras at the end of line 17 would be salvirani, to give the words salviraniṅ inaranan. si śuvukal·, mantu hajīnadgakn iṁ kaṭula nakekale kekale si laḍiṁ si baḍiṁ Brandes’ note indicates his hesitation between sibaḍing and silaḍing. niravaśeṣa naravaśeṣa I tta sama nya ikā ikā de śrī mahārāja, ṅuni-ṅuni haji tṅaḥ sapuluḥ de śrī mahā de śrī mahārāja ṅuni ṅuni haji paṁdiri, pinakarovaṁ madvandva yuddha cakravvat· pinjahan iṁ rika nasikanaṅ sarat pinjahaniṅ diri (?) rika ikanaṅ sarat pinjahan, iṅ vaṅuntur· mvaṁ saṅ ibu Irikāṁ mvaṅ – – – irikāṅ mvaṅ irikāṅ 951 951 ri kanaṁ pitu Kern translates “in the seventh month”. This corresponds to nothing in stanza XXIII (Phalguṇa is not the 7th month by any reckoning). The akṣaras in question can but by no means need to be read as B and K did. ikāṁ paradāraputra hyaṁ maṅadg i vuru tumuṁgal i maddhyadeśaniṁ -ikaṅ parada guru tumaṅgal caddhya deśani -ikāṅ para guru tumaṅgal – ddhya deśa ni We tentatively take paradāraputra as a tatpuruṣa compound, although a dvandva or sequence of two coordinated words is also a possibility (cf. tanayadāra in l. 28). We consider that a toponym is required after hyaṁ, and since we are reminded of the well-attested Vuru Tuṅgal (Damais 1970: 584–4), we read vuru tumuṁgal where both B and K read guru tumaṅgal: the first consonant is extremely damaged, and can easily be read v or g; a faint trace of -u seems visible on the RTI below the m, but it must be admitted that the prima facie reading is tumaṁgal. vurahan· –ratan· vu?ratan· See Dharma Pātañjala 314:4 (ed. Acri 2017), for an occurrence of vurahan, taken as ‘confusion’ by the editor but potentially a toponym, indicating the opposite of a deśa rahayu. -parākrama sumorakən haji vəṅkər· B and K left these syllables blank. saṅa ta hajy an· san samāhvayan A problem with our tentative reading is that we don’t really expect sandhi to be applied to haji An. vaṅkər· vaṅkir· vəṅkər· B’s note “vaṅkir-vəṅkər” suggests the emendation he had in mind, which was adopted by K into his text as such. It is possible to read i or ə on top of the ṅk, but there really is no vocalization sign on the v. In a damaged part of line 23, it seems the text may have had the spelling vaṅkar. kavnaṅ ata kavada ta kavaśa ta mvaṁ tinuluy hanihanituni maṁkinakuyanahani ḥ maṅkin hanitu ḥ The ostensible conjunct yh is hard to recognize and perhaps not so likely. If, as seems nevertheless quite likely, the passage is parallel to the one in line 26, we can fill in the first part of the gap with hanihanituniṁ yadadvīpa, leaving about 4 akṣaras unaccounted for. muvah akaḍatvan i L̥ca, ṅu – ha kaḍatvaniL̥va mulihe kaḍatvan i – vā tinūtnikāṁ bunutnikāṁ tinūt? nikāń sināhasan sināhsan sināhāsan de śrī mahārāja śrī mahārāja mahārāja muvaḥ hana ta putra haji vaṅkar· maṅadg i vuru rtu pjaḥ ḥ ḥ vargga laṁḍiṁ rāk· va laṁ vargga la hiR̥ṁhiR̥ṅan·, Iṁ haR̥pi, bu haR̥p, maṁdon· lāvan· bn· – – – – lāvan· sahananikāṁ makirakirāpāyāmutra hyaṅ amanaḥnya sahananikaṅ – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – sahana nikaṅ Two epigraphic passages, both contemporary with our inscription, contain the sequence amutra hyaṅ. See Turun Hyang, face A, line 6: ... nikanaṅ amutra hyaṅ kāvaḥ dūdu kika.... maṅabhayā manambu sarāt nakavāmaṇa rara bilṣani pāduka śrī mahā ...; plate MNI E.91, verso, lines 6–7: an tan dumaṇāta sira sumaṅgaha ikaṅ vaṅ sahayaniṅ amutra hyaṅ mvaṅ katibān tulis kaṅāśvāsa. Alas, the published readings of these two inscriptions are insecure, and we are unable to translate them. makapuruṣakāra makapuruṣa – – mako (?) puruṣa – – Usaṁṅ-usaṁ saṅ The initial akṣara can easily be read as U, but could also be a vocalization -e. The entirely lost akṣara, indicated here as ṅu, may equally well have been another U. Whatever its precise spelling, we are unsure that the intended word here was usaṅ-usaṅ to begin with. If it was, then we guess that it is a so far unattested form of the word recorded as usəṅ in OJED. See our note on p.XX below. hane magəṁ ha – – haneṁ matiha – – haneṁ magəhan (?) – – The syllables tentatively represented here as magəṁ seem rather clear, but they are somewhat difficult to make sense of, even if we presume that they are the first element of a toponym. hīṅanyan· śrī mahārāja saṅkani hiṅanya – – mahārāja maṅkana hīṅan ya – mahārāja, saṅkani We feel quite uncertain about the readings hīṅanyan· and saṅkani, but believe the punctuation sign read by Kern cannot have been present if the text really contained both these words. However, there does seem to be enough space for such a punctuation sign or even for a whole extra akṣara between the ja and the akṣara restored as sa. hilaṁniṁ sahanani hilaṁ sahanani hanihanituniṁ hanihanituni kramani kahilaṁ kramanika hilaṁ mūla kaḍatvanira Iṅakaḍatvanira – sva?kaḍatvanira Another possible reconstruction for the first word, whose initial syllable is lost, would be kāla. But since kāla is not used as conjunction elsewhere in this text, nor even recorded in that function in OJED, we tentatively prefer mūla. kapaṁ sira naṁ tapa sira pratiniyata pratinayaka hinārohara deśanirāṅkən· hina – ro – – deśani raṅkən vvay ata, the punctuation sign after ta was ignored by B and K; in the light of its undeniable presence, and of the likely presence of ta in the next sentence, B and K’s reading vvaya ta in an area where the surface of the stone is now obliterated, is very suspicious. For in all occurrences known to us (see OJED s.v. wwaya), the sequence vvaya ta stands at the beginning of a sentence. For our tentative interpretation see note 257. ta sirar kaparājaya ta sira – – rājaya ta sira parājaya kapaṁ tapa deśa de– rājavāhana rājavahana vaR̥gg anusup· – rəp manusup kavnaṁ ta sira kavnaṁ sira ha – – – pinakatapakan ha – – s panaka ta pa kan – – – pinaka ta pakan taṇḍasnira kaṇḍa sira Ar paliṅgiḥ Apaliṅgiḥ The g in ṅgi has wrongly been carved as a full circle. saṁkṣipta ta Ikāṁ saṁkṣipta Ikāṁ Both previous editors have omitted the particle ta. tan hana nhana tan hana rāt· An· paṅəb· makapārāyana cchāyāni pā – yanacchāyāni maka – – yan acchāyā ni mataṅ yar siddhākən· mataṅya siddhākən pratijñānira prājīnānira Inusan·-Usan· raghu, yāṅkən· san· rake yāṅkən· Ista – – s an· rake yāṅkən· Both previous editors ignore the punctuation sign after raghu, which they misread as rake. Our restoration Inusan·-Usan (there seems to be too much space for restorting Inusan·-Usan) is based on the assumption that we have a typical Old Javanese-Sanskrit dyad and that usan-usan is a variant spelling for OJED’s usən-usən. mantrastavanamaskāra mantrasta – namastāra Brandes’ note “( )namastāra-vana sangskāra” reveals that he had really not understood the present passage. śrī mahārāja ri bhaṭāra śrī bhaṭāra sārisāri hari sāri paṁliṅgānanikāṁ paliṅgānanikāṁ paliṅgānanikaṁ Both previous editors ignored the first anusvāra, which is crucial to get the correct sense. We are dealing with an irrealis of the word paṅliṅgan. Cf. Sumanasāntaka 37.3c: paṅliṅgāna savaṅsavaṅni hayunīdəmanira səmuniṅ varāpsarī ‘This was clear because the young girls, whose beauty was on the point of blossoming, resembled divine nymphs’ (ed. and transl. Worsley et al. 2013). anāgataprabhu aṅāgataprabhu hlam i tkā ri kramani de śrī kramani – śrī munarjīvākən· munajikakən· Cf. line 12. yavadvīpa, ka sadbhāva han denira yavadvīpa nenira yavadvīpa nira tkāmaṅgiḥ tkā, maṅgiḥ hayunira B leaves open an amount of space between hayu and nira, implying that Brandes thought there were some illegible akṣaras in the gap. But K indicates no such gap. abhimata the reading has become unverifiable, because the surface of the stone has been lost since their time. In view of the fact that the text twice showed abhamata instead of expected abhimata (lines 13 and 16), one may wonder if that is what was actually engraved here too. thāni vatək nāni – ti – – – ni – – – Our reconstruction is based on the occurrence of the sequence thāni vatək in other inscriptions of Airlaṅga, e.g. Terep I XX. maṅaran i hino, – dr̥bya ti hino – madrabya hino madrabya ni This akṣara, rather clear in the RTI, was not read by B and K, whose reading resumes with nikāṁ at the end of the line, where the surface of the stone has by now entirely peeled off. mantən· ta mantən· tā bapuri basuri Even though these akṣaras have peeled off by now, we emend the reading of our predecessor by comparison with our reading of the same toponym in line 3. ya · saṁ B and K were unable to read any akṣaras in the damaged stretch before saṁ. [tan katamāna deniṁ] The restoration was made by Kern (1917: 106: n. 1), while Brandes left open a gap for the illegibly damaged akṣaras. mvaṁ saṁ nāyakapratyaya mvaṁ – nāyaka, partyaya mvaṁ nāyaka, partyaya The two words nāyaka and pratyaya are normally not separated by a punctuation sign (although see n. XX below), and are quite often preceded by saṁ, which we can faintly make out in the gap left open by Brandes that was ignored by Kern. m – – – – sukhaduḥkha, – khaduḥkha, sukhaduḥkha, In B’s reading, line 39 ends with a substantial lacuna after haji m, while 40 starts with khaduḥkha; in K’s, there is a lacuna of five akṣaras after haji m at the end of 39, while line 40 starts with sukhaduḥkha. In cases where it could be verified, we have seen that K’s edition is not very precise in dealing with the distinction between preserved and conjectured text; moreover, the amount of space before the first legible akṣaras on line 40 suggests that B’s reading of the beginning of this line has a more plausible number of akṣaras. We therefore conjecture that the necessary akṣara su stood at the end of line 39. If we may otherwise rely on K’s edition, it means the lacuna between m and su extends over four akṣaras. If this estimation is exaggerated, then we could conjecture a reading like haji mvaṁ sukhaduḥkha, inspired by OJO XLIX 2b. [saṁ maṅilāla] drabya haji vuluvulu mvaṁ drabya haji vuluvulu mvaṁ [saṁ maṅilāla] drabya haji vuluvulu mvaṁ We are unable to confirm any of the sequences of akṣaras that our predecessors have discerned on this line. We see a fairly clear ṅi around the 12th position in the line, but what remains of the surrounding akṣaras cannot be matched with Kern’s conjecture maṅilāla; three positions to the left of this ṅi stands a clear na which may also have been a ne. The number of illegible akṣaras indicated by Kern implies that there were only 25 akṣaras on this line which must be far off the mark as completely preserved lines higher up show around 55 akṣaras per line. But we are unable to propose an alternative estimate because we are unable to situate the string of akṣaras read by B and K anywhere on the line. Note that B’s text suggests mvaṁ stood at the end of the line, whereas K’s suggests a short lacuna stood between this word and the end of the line. siṅ ata lviranya siṅa – lviranya siṅa ta lviranya K’s translation suggests that he was thinking of a word like asiṅ, an idea that receives some support from the Cane inscription, faces C and d, line 30: kita kamuṅ hyaṅ yāvat ya hana umulahulaḥ ikeṅ sīma ri cane asiṅ lvirani kavvaṅanya jaḥ tasmat kabvat kārmmāknanya ... But if this passage is indeed a relevant comparison, it also implies that Kern's word division is unlikely to be correct. This is why we tentatively divide the words as asiṅ ata. luməbura luməbu It is tempting to conjecture further luməburāta or luməbura ta, and to assume no further loss of akṣaras before saṁ hyaṁ, but this issue depends on whether K’s estimate of 3 lost akṣaras between luməbu and saṁ hyaṁ is reliable or not. nāyaka, partyaya, We are unable to verify any part of this sequence, but expect that the stone rather showed pratyaya before it got damaged, and that there was no punctuation sign separating this from nāyaka. See n. XX above. vahuta rāma umulahulaha Almost all of this line is now lost. While B, as usual, only leaves open a large gap, K estimates the lacuna between rāma and umulahulaha to extend over 7 akṣaras. Taking the expected entire number of akṣaras for this line into account, and estimating the distance between the akṣaras that are still preserved today, we estimate that the gap which was already present in our predecessors’ time extended over at least 14 akṣaras. –nanira nira It might be possible to read the first akṣaras as sthā, conjecturing sthānanira. But ṅhananira or ṅkānanira also seem to be possible readings. bhuktinira pañcamahāpātaka caṇḍinira mahāpātaka The word caṇḍi in our predecessors’ reading is so unlikely that we feel forced to reject it, and the word pañca cries out so hard to be read before mahāpātaka that we feel obliged to conjecture it. Although we have found no exact parallel for the wording we propose here, assuming that nira was correctly read by B and K, our conjecture is based among numerous other comparable passages on Baru (Cd, lines 39–40), Cane (C, 26) and Patakan (C, 26), where we read: salvirniṅ pañcamahāpātaka bhuktinya. mahārāja mahāraja citralekha I pāduka śrī mahārāja sira K estimates a gap of 17 akṣaras between pātaka and citralekha, then gaps of 3 akṣaras each after mahārāja and sira. The total number of akṣaras on the line would thus be 41 akṣaras, which is far too few. We are unable to verify any akṣaras after pātaka, and so are unable to propose our own estimates for the three gaps.

Eternal homage to the Creator (Brahmā), who, even though he is endowed with the three qualities (of rajas, sattva and tamas) in the creation, maintenance and destruction of men, is famous as being worthless — [or rather] as free of qualities!The stanza contains an apparent contradiction (virodhābhāsa): two statements appear to contradict each other, and the contradiction is resolved by understanding one of them as a pun (cf. Gerow 1971: 268).

Homage to Him (Viṣṇu) who, though famous in the world to have (only) three acts of valour — [or rather,] who is known as Three-Step,This stanza, too, contains an apparent contradiction (virodhābhāsa). Cf. n. 10. is always bowed down to by the chief of the gods, (i.e. Indra, who is) esteemed because of countless acts of valour!

Homage to that Śiva, who, despite being an (immovable) stump — [or rather,] being Sthāṇu, the Stable,Another virodhābhāsa. Cf. n. 10. with his qualities abundantly gives people whatever they wish for, and [thus] abases the huge (a-tanu) wish-yielding tree

He who has an obsession for women — [or rather] for feminine grammatical gender by his fame of unimpeded progress [and] by compassion;The words for fame and compassion are both grammatically feminine. The at first sight paradoxical meaning of this pāda is produced by misleading the reader into understanding kīrtyā khaṇḍitayātayā akaruṇayā, ‘with reputation of impeded course and with lack of compassion’, and thinking that strīparatvam is a vice. and who has severe disrepute in the matter of taxation — [or rather] a sharp mark on his hand caused by stretching the bow; and who has fearfulness by turning away as a hero in battle — [or rather] apprehensiveness by turning away from unbecoming behavior in pleasure: he partakes of (apparent) vices by his own good qualities. May that king called ErlaṅgaOn the name Erlaṅga, see Stutterheim 1929 CHECK PAGE be victorious!The poetic figure here is parisaṁkhyā or niyamavat śleṣa, in which a double-entendre is explicitly limited to its further or irregular sense (Gerow 1971: 298). The stanza thus becomes a nindāstuti or vyājastuti, praise which appears to be criticism.

There was a crest-jewel among kings, who defeated numerous hordes of (enemy) kings, famous throughout all three worlds, comparable to a lion by his great prowess, who long held the Earth, of unlimited fruits, as well as Lakṣmī (Fortune), not fickle [at all in his case]. He was the king of Yava (i.e. Java), endowed with fortune, fame and power, called Śrī Īśānatuṅga.This is King Sindok, also called Śrī Īśānavikramadharmottuṅgadeva. His inscriptions are dated to the first half of the tenth century and come from the lower, middle and upper Brantas Valley. For a summary of colonial-period research, see Cœdès 1975: 128. For more up-to-date information, see De Casparis 1988.

His daughter was like a she-goose: she was charming with her pure mind and attire as a she-goose is charming when she stays at pure Lake Mānasa;On rājahaṁsa see Vogel 1962:10; on mānasa, ibid. p. 3. she was always attached to the doctrine of the Buddha, as the she-goose is always equipped with well-moving wings. She, increasing only the joy of the king,Her husband, who is identified in the next stanza. her he-goose, was radiant as queen Śrī Īśānatuṅgavijayā.

And then the king Śrī Lokapāla,We assume, with Krom 1914, who argued that the Kancana inscription, internally dated to 782 Śaka and issued by a king called Śrī Mahārāja Śrī Bhūvaṇeśvara Viṣṇusakālātmaka Digvijaya Paraākramotuṁgadeva Lokapaālalaāñcana, must in fact be dated to 872 Śaka, and that the king intended in that inscription could thus be the same one as the one intended here. We would oppose to Damais’ argument (1955: 26) that the dating elements that he took to confirm the date in 782 Śaka may well have been calculated a posteriori for that year, once the inversion 872/782 had been made, intentionally or unintentionally. For details, see Griffiths 2020: 133–135. elephant among kings, who caused pleasure to the eyes, made her his wife: he, a milk-oceanWe are not certain why the poet refers here to the milk-ocean, unless he means the regular ocean by kṣīrārṇava. On the other hand, the conventionally white colour of the Gaṅgā matches the color of the milk-ocean. whose inner self was famous for its quality of purity; she, like the Mandākinī (i.e. the Ganges), equal to himself in prosperity.

In order for an earth-ornament (i.e. a king)For bhūbhūṣaṇa referring to kings, cf. e.g. Kṣemendra's Daśāvatāracarita 1.48b: śauryotsāhamahodayāḥ kva bata te bhūbhūṣaṇaṁ bhūmipāḥ ‘Those kings, the ornaments of the earth, who had the pre-eminence of valour and energy — alas, where are they?’. to appear, a son arose from him, whose wealth constituted his majesty and who generated with riches (bhūti)This might also allude to the sacred ashes (vibhūti) used by Śaiva ascetics. the splendor of those living beings whose minds were disciplined in meditating on Bhava (i.e. Śiva). And by these [riches] of incomparable radiance he had become undauntedly prominent, like the sun having risen benevolently, (a king) able (prabhu) to shatter the frontal globes of the elephants of enemy kings as if they were pots.The stanza is a virtuosic example of anuprāsa (alliteration, see Gerow 1971: 102ff).

Known as Śrī Makuṭavaṁśavardhana, an incomparable chief (indra) of men, sun in the lineage of Śrī Īśāna, he scorched the enemies with his splendor.

The extremely beautiful daughter of that king was, thanks to the king’s virtues, like the embodied royal fortune of Java, even though on another island; she was clearly made by her fortunate (i.e. happily married) father “the lawful wife of the one who is fond of virtues” by her name.This probably means that her father gave her the name Guṇapriyadharmapatnī, and thus he made her the person denoted by that name, that is the future wife of a virtuous king, already when she was born. Other interpretations of this verse are also possible, e.g. “The extremely beautiful daughter of that king was like the royal fortune of Yava (i.e. Java) incarnate thanks to her royal virtues, even though her father was fortunate (i.e. by being happily married) on another island. She was clearly made by him Guṇapriyadharmapatnī by name.” Guṇapriyadharmapatnī could be interpreted as “the lawful wife of one who is fond of virtues” or “a lawful wife who is fond of virtues”, or even “the wife of Dharma, who is fond of virtues”, Dharma being shorthand for Dharmodayanavarmadeva? Inscriptions of Guṇapriyadharmapatnī and Dharmodayanavarmadeva are known from Bali from around the turn of the first millennium (see Damais 1952: 86–7); an inscription of Dharmmodayana Warmmadeva alone is dated to 1011 CE (cf. Damais 1959: 682, Coedès 1975: 129).

There was also that Udayana, of distinguished and pure birth, born from a famous royal lineage. True to his name,Udayana might have been vyaktāhvaya because his name was well-known from the Br̥hatkathā. Or because udayana means ‘rising’, he might have had an ‘explicit name’, a name that corresponded to his rising in status by marrying the Javanese princess. he married that illustrious princess Mahendradattā (= Guṇapriyadharmapatnī) with proper rites.

From him was born a divine son called Erlaṅgadeva, as Rāma was born from Daśaratha. He was the best among all people, delightful because of the arts [he mastered], even more venerable than him because of his good qualities, whose exalted career was predicted by the best sages because of his majesty.The poetic figure in this verse is antādika yamaka (Gerow 1971: 225): the repeated elements are the last half of the first pāda and the first half of the second. If we pronounced the name of the son as Airlaṅga, we would get another antādika yamaka.

When the previous king of Java called Śrī Dharmavaṁśa, his in-law,If Dharmavaṁśa intended to give his daughter to Erlaṅga in marriage, the word sambandhin could be interpreted as “future in-law”. Another possibility is that Dharmavaṁśa was the husband of another daughter of Makuṭavaṁśavardhana. Then his daughter was Erlaṅga’s cousin. who delighted in hearing of his many virtues, invited him respectfully to the wedding of his daughter, he quickly became famous in all respects as Śrī Dharmavaṁśa,Since Dharmavaṁśa was the name of both Təguh and Airlaṅga, we have translated śrīdharmavaṁśa iti twice. Cf. line 2 in the Old Javanese part of the inscription. a man of noble nature.The verse could be, and indeed has been, interpreted in two different ways: Dharmavaṁśa invited Erlaṅga to marry his daughter, or he invited him simply as a guest to the wedding of his daughter marrying someone else. See discussion in Boechari 1962: 78–79 n. 43 = 2012: 79–80, n. 24. One might think that the former meaning would have been expressed with a different, clearer construction, e.g. with an infinitive or an Artham-construction (“to marry his daughter”), and perhaps our poet would have been capable of finding a less ambiguous solution to express this. On the other hand this verse might continue the parallelism with Rāma, who was invited to Sītā’s svayaṁvara by Janaka.

Then his (Dharmavaṁśa Təguh’s) city suddenly turned to ashes, … like the kingdom of Indra. Clearly because of the rogue Kali (Age), he went to the forest without servants, together with Narottama.Airlaṅga went to the forest just as Rāma did, both with just a few companions: Rāma with Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa, Airlaṅga with Narottama. Or did Airlaṅga also take his wife with him? Was that wife the daughter of Dharmavaṁśa? The stanza does not seem to allude to this.

In the elapsedyāte ◇ here translated as though equivalent to the term atīta which is a standard element of Old Javanese dating formulae. See also gate in stanzas XXV and XXVIII. Kern in all these instances translates as locative absolute with the participle indicating little more than ‘in’. This was also how French scholars interpreted similar dating formulae in Cambodia inscriptions (K. 50/589 ś., ISC, p. 73; K. 154/656 ś., IC II, p. 123). Śaka year 941, in the month of Māgha, on the 13th day of the waxing fortnight, on Monday, having been approached by zealous people who bowed down, Śrī Lokeśvara, king Nīralaṅga was requested by the best of brahmins in a way that inspired confidence: “Protect the unprotected earth.”As de Casparis pointed out (de Caparis 1992:490, n. 16), the last line of this verse is reminiscent of verse 4 (line 8) in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta (fourth century CE), where Candragupta I addresses Samudragupta with the words nikhilāṁ pāhy evam urvvīm iti. CHECK REF Another parallel, also noticed by de Casparis, is the case of Harṣavardhana (seventh century CE), who, according to Xuanzang, was exhorted by the ministers to become king (Great Tang Record, p. 123f.) CHECK

The multitude of enemies, having heard that this king, after being consecrated to emperorship, had defeated by his power the horde of foes, here even today constantly study the unprecedented swiftness of the palm of his serpent-like arm.

Very many kings of Java enjoyed / ruled the earth while being petitioners / beggars with respect to their opponents / enemies (indebted to their enemies?). By force of their royal birth their sons enjoyed [the earth] in succession (reading anububhujus) on their thrones. But his Majesty, king Jalalaṅgadeva who was born in a good family and is the foremost of emperors, does very much enjoy [it]. Only that enemy (reading arir ddvandvam) experiences strife / fight wandering on the surface of the earth.

OR

Their sons did not enjoy [it] by force of their royal birth on the royal throne.

OR

Very many kings of Java ruled the earth while being supplicants with respect to their opponents, by force of their royal birth. Their sons did not rule on the throne. But his Majesty, king Jalalaṅgadeva, who was born in a good family and is the foremost of emperors, does very much rule. Only that enemy (reading arir ddvandvam) experiences fight as he wanders on the surface of the earth.

madvandva yuddha occurs in face B, l. 19, in the meaning ‘meet in battle’

He is seated on the throne, while his pair of feet are smeared by the heads of kings. Every day he converses with his ministers who are engaged in reflecting upon counsel.Or “in counsel and discussion”. Accompanied by women and surrounded by splendid heros, he often takes a seat. In a defeat just as in victory, his effulgence incessantly causes wonder.

Bhaṭṭikāvya 17:64

tato ’citrīyatāstraughair dhanuś cādhūnayan mahat

rāmaḥ samīhitaṁ tasya nācetan sve na cāpare

comm. āścaryībhūtaḥ, citram āścarye

“My husband, though he is very tender / affectionate, suddenly left our sons [and] me, … going to the women in heaven … obeying your command. You are known in the world to have a compassionate heart, how can you behave like a thief? (read dayāluhr̥dayas stainyapravr̥ttiḥ, “practice of theft”; or does he use stenya / stainya as an adjective?) Ah, king, where is [your] mercy?” Thus the enemy’s wife reproaches even the king.

COMMENTARY

svargastrīgamana suggests death in battle, cf. Harivaṁśa 77:23–24, Raghuvaṁśa 7:51.

One would expect stainyapravr̥ttiḥ, a tatpuruṣa compound, because stainya does not seem to be used in an adjectival sense.

or stainyapravr̥ttiḥ is a bahuvr. from karmadhāraya: (you) having the practice which is theft

stainyā+ sg meaning lowly, vile + vr̥tti in compound

stainyātmavr̥ttiḥ ?

D and K read dayāluhr̥dayas te nyā pravr̥ttiḥ kathaṁ, how can your behaviour be different?

One great enemy … striving for liberation …to achieve … the dirt of riches / forest fruits, another one obtained the king’s spells / counsels that face heaven / the chief of which is heaven / beginning with heaven / which are the source of heaven, was made by him a pupil, so to say.

Xāvāptaye

tadāptaye / tasyāptaye

mumukṣur … jahāti mukteḥ / so vāptaye dhanamalāni ? vanaphalāni?

from the mouth of the king? which is (like?) heaven?

a, cannot end in o ; jijñāsita, jijñāsaka, jijñāsayā, jijñāsanaṁ, jijñāsavaḥ

-sya maharovi X jī(ba/jñā)sa

-sya maharo vi – ⏑ jijñāsayā

kiṅ — — bhuvanatrayasya mahato viśvasya jijñāsayā

b, kiṁ sandhānacikīrṣayā kṣitibhujas tībradyutes tejasaḥ (if it were bandhāna, a nonexistent form anyway, we would expect kim), “why would a king, whose splendour is fierce because of his majesty, wish to make peace / form alliances?” (tīvradyuti also means the sun)

c kiṅ krīḍārasalipsayā rabhasayā yasyoddhataiḥ / yasyodyataiḥ kīrtitā

d kīrtiḥ śuddhikarīndubhādhavalabhās sammānyate harniśam

What is the use of strong desire to obtain the pleasure of play for someone whose

purifying fame, which is celebrated by proud people and has a lustre white like moonbeams, is honoured day and night?

kiṅ krīḍāraṇa ? kiṅ śrī ?

‘Indra unto men (= narendra, king), dharma unto thoughts, words and acts

Varuṇa unto those who are to be subjected, Kubera unto supplicants — having assembled the world guardians, saying “Behold the ruler of kings!”, he was uniquely chosen by the creator to … many.’

c, hanta yavarāḍ ? nr̥parāḍ? bhr̥gurāḍ? hasta?

d, pra…tuṁ ? inf.

cf. RV 2:75cd

narapatikulabhūtyai garbham ādhatta rājñī

gurubhir abhiniviṣṭaṁ lokapālānubhāvaiḥ |

17:76

pañcamaṇ lokapālānām

17:79

indrād vr̥ṣṭir niyamitagadodrekavr̥ttir yamo 'bhūd

yādonāthaḥ śivajalapathaḥ karmaṇe naucarāṇām |

pūrvāpekṣī tadanu vidadhe kośavr̥ddhiṁ kuveras

tasmin daṇḍopanatacaritaṁ bhejire lokapālāḥ ||

cf. Manu 7

rakṣārtham asya sarvasya rājānam asr̥jat prabhuḥ 3

indrānilayamārkāṇām agneś ca varuṇasya ca

candravitteśayoś caiva mātrā nirhr̥tya śāśvatīḥ 4

yasmād eṣāṁ surendrāṇāṁ mātrābhyo nirmito nr̥paḥ

tasmād abhibhavaty eṣa sarvabhūtāni tejasā 5

There was a king … the annihilation of the city … his eminent son was called Viṣṇuprabhāva. Him in the Śaka year 951 … eleventh day … in phālguṇa …

% if śuklapakṣa: 16 Feb 1030, Monday; if kr̥ṣṇapakṣa: 3 March 1030, Tuesday

% http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/~yanom/pancanga/

On this stanza, see Boechari 1968: 13: n. 8.

ekādaśībadi

ekādaśīśudi

Another one, a very vile man called Paruda, tormented the people like an actual Ten-Faced (Rāvaṇa). The king, ..., whose conduct was more pleasurable even than that of Rāma, slew him quickly.

Immediately after that the king, who wished to defeat the king’s son, went from there and at once burnt down his whole residence. Then, again and again, when the Śaka year 953 had elapsed, the excellent king burnt his cities (nagara) completely.

There was also on the earth a woman, as terrible in might as a female rākṣasa. Without fear, he went to her narrow / dangerous territory. In this Śaka year 954 the king, whose fame is well-known, pierced her instantly.

EAST ?

Connection with Calon Araṅ in note of 1917 to transl. Kern.

Like a constantly licking fire, the king burnt that southern region, which had been utterly unconquerable, because he was able. Having obtained lots of riches and having given them to the community of chief brahmins and sages which was supported by him, he only took fame [for himself].

SOUTH

distributing all the loot: like Raghu

Note on strange expression dvijapatimunisaṅgha: is there a connection with Māheśvaras/Mahābrāhmaṇas mention in l. 15 of the OJ face?

Then, because he was proud, in the elapsed Śaka year 957, in the month of Bhādra, on the 13th day of the waxing fortnight, on an auspicious Wednesday, the king, who is worshipped by the world, went together with zealous, strong, innumerable forces in the Western direction and defeated the king called Vijaya.

% 19 Aug 1035, but this was a Tuesday !!

% kr̥ṣṇapakṣa 13 bhadra 957 = 3 Sep 1035, Wed; māsy asita ?

% 957 māgha śukla 13 would be 14 Jan 1036 Wed

%WEST

Then in the Śaka year 959, on the 8th of the waxing fortnight of the month of Kārtika, on Thursday, seized by his own forces by the stratagems of Viṣṇugupta, king Vijayavarman at once went to heaven.

% Reading the data as mukhaśararandhra, the date is verifiable: 20 Oct. 1037, Thursday. With Kern's reading muniśararandhra, the weekday is a Sunday.

% need note on Viṣṇugupta's = Kauṭalya's stratagems (sāman, dāna, bheda, daṇḍa)

AŚ 2.10.47ff.

On this stanza, see Boechari 1968: 13: n. 8.

NORTH ?

In the Śaka year 959, on the 15th of the waning fortnight of Kārtika, on Thursday, having placed his foot on the head of his enemy, the illustrious king of the island of Java is victorious, sitting on the bejewelled lion-throne.

% 10 Nov 1037, Thursday

Royal Majesty is now unable to look at anyone else as, pressing with her fair arms, she tightly embraces Jalalaṅgadeva, who has conquered the directions beginning with the East, who has killed all his enemies, and who is the single parasol-bearer of the earth.

digvijaya starting in the East: like in the Raghuvaṁśa

Having defeated his (wordly) enemies by heroic acts and also by stratagems, (flowing forth) from the wealth of his valour, (as well as the spiritual ones) by observance of vows unimpaired thanks to his power or by worshipping deities,Cf. st. XVI on śaktipāta. to enjoy himself when a great weariness is born in him, His Majesty, the king called Nīralaṅga, founds a holy hermitage on the flank of the majestic Pūgavat mountain / which has betel-nut trees.

Those who hear about this peerless royal hermitage, which resembles the Nandana grove, they too, going there continuously, vying with each other, their motionless / fixed with wonder, causing joy with garlands, their mouths shouting praises, considering him to be the foremost of kings, the lord of the high-minded / highly esteemed — they say he is to be venerated as Manu because of his majesty.

May the collective of citizens walk on the path of good people, may the course of ministers be dharmic, [may] the sages desire the welfare of beings — I do not pray like this. They succeed as long as that king lives and protects the earth righteously, therefore may the king His Majesty Jalalaṅgadeva live long!

Hail! Elapsed Śaka year 963, month of Kārttika, tenth tithi, waxing fortnight, (day in the 5-day week being) Hariyaṅ, (in the 6-day week) Vagai, Friday, (the Vuku being) Vayaṅvayaṅ (i.e., the 6th of November 1041 CE), the caragraha residing in the North-West, the lunar mansion Uttarabhadravāda, the deity Ahirbudhna, the conjunction Bajra, the karaṇa Garaḍi, the maṇḍala being western.On the conversion of this date, see Damais 1955: 66–67 and Eade & Gislén 2000: 75, 146–147. Damais converted the date to Friday the 6th of November 1041. There is no indication of any problems under the entry for this inscription itself, but we learn much further on in his study (1955: 184) that to arrive at his result, he had to assume the occurrence of intercalation in the Śaka year 963. For reasons about which we are in the dark, Damais failed to mention this important fact under the inscription in question. The chart shown by Eade & Gislén shows that all calendrical and cyclical elements are in place if one assumes intercalation which implies that the inscription’s ‘Kārttika’ may be equated to ‘Mārgaśīrṣa’ in the Indian pañcāṅga ‘calender with five elements’ based on the Sanskrit astronomical treatise Sūryasiddhānta (De Casparis 1978: 7, 23, 53).

That was the time that the decree of the Great King Raka of Halu (named) Śrī Lokeśvara Dharmavaṅśa Airlaṅga Anantavikramottuṅgadeva was received by the lord Great Minister of Hino (named) Śrī Samaravijaya Dhāmasuparṇavāhana Təguh Uttuṅgadeva, coming down to the lord of Kanuruhan (named) pu Dharmamūrti Narottama Dānaśūra, ordering with regard to Pucaṅan, Barahəm [and] Bapuri, that the lands of the varga apiṅheThe term (a)piṅhe is discussed by Boechari 2012: 41–42, who shows that it is a synonym of patih; he mentions that the Kamalagyan inscription (959 Śaka) uses varga patih where we have varga apiṅhe, but does not give any interpretation of what varga apiṅhe/patih would mean. Boechari refers to Pigeaud, 1960–63, III, p. 149; IV, p. 385; 468). CHECK. ... be demarcated, for them to be proper to serve as the location of the Great King’s foundation for hermits.

The occasion was that the Great King had had a prayer in view of a desire at the time of the disaster on the island of Java in the [year of the] Śaka era 939, due to the attack of the king of Vuravari who came out of Lva Rām. At that time, the whole of Java resembled one great sea. Many distinguished men died. First and foremost did die at that time the late Great King who rests at the holy temple foundation in Vvatan. It was in the month of Caitra of the [year of the] Śaka era 939. The Great King was still a child at that time. In fact he was sixteen years of age. He was not very experienced in battle, because he was still young. He was not at ease at quickly grasping the ways of handling his weapons. But because he was manifestly an incarnation of Viṣṇu, he was the protégé of all the gods, destined not to be among those who succumbed to the force of the great disaster, as he stayed on the slope of the Vanagiri, conversing with the ascetics of pure conduct [and] being accompanied by his servant, whose mind had focused dedication as his bodily services were skilled [and] as he was bowed in devotion to the dust on slippers of the Great King. His name was Pu Narottama. He was the foremost of the servants of the Great King extraordinary in the steadfastness of his devotion, who followed inseparably to the Great King’s every destination, wearing bark garments like the Great King, and accompanying him in taking all the types of foodOr: ‘taking the same types of food...’. of monks and forest-dwellers. The Great King was never negligent in the propitiation of the gods by day and by night. It was the reason of the great weight of the love of all the gods for his the Great King, so that he became their confidant [in the form of] a wish tree to give the world shade, to succeed to his paternal lineage (kulit kaki) in owning Royal Fortune, to refresh the constant well-being (sāśvatā) of the world, to restore all holy foundations, [and] to destroy the evil powers (hanitu) of the world. Such was the intention of all the gods concerning the Great King.

The Great King had already undergone due rites, was installed on the lion throne, and, insofar as it was the appanage (kapadasthān) of the Great King’s great-great-grandfather (pituṅ), the deified king (haji devatā) who rests at Īśānabajra, Halu (also) was the appanage of the Great King,On pitu/pituṁ, see Boechari 1962: 79, n. 44, and pages 80–82. Like Boechari, Kern (VG VII, p. 114) also suggests connection of the toponym Īśānabajra with Sindok. Kern already refers to the colophon in Saṅ Hyaṅ Kamahāyānikan lontar, and to Deśavarṇana 20.1, but it seems he doesn’t discuss the issue that Sindok seems here to be associated with Halu, whereas elsewhere he is associated mainly/only with Hino. which was why the title Lord (raka) of Halu Śrī Lokeśvara Dharmavaṅśa Airlaṅga Anantavikrama Uttuṅgadeva was accorded to the Great King by the masters of the Buddhists, Śaivas and Mahābrāhmaṇas in [the year of the] Śaka era 941.

The way in which the Great King carried out all intentions of all the gods with regard to him knew no limits. All together the external and internal rites were performed by him.See our lexicographical notes on the base kalimbaṅ. His attention was not diverted from the performance of worship, ... expiation ..., the great weight of his Lion-Lordship. He subdued all of the stains that grow on ... of the gods, [and] all of the evil powers that the island of Java has. Division ... foe ... called Śuvukal, the royal son in-law (mantu haji) established at Kaṭula, and Laḍiṅ ... complete ... by the Great King, all the more so the king(s) (haji) of the middleIt is tempting to connect these haji tṅaḥ ‘kings in the middle’ with the parad[āra]putra hyaṁ ma(ṅ)adg (i v)uru tum(u)ṁgal (i) maddhyadeśaniṁ vurahan who appear in line 20. ... ten years that he reigned, and were his companions (or: opponents) when meeting in battle formations ... killed in the outer courtyard together with his/their mother(s) in [the year of the] Śaka era 951 ... the Great King went to seek out the sons of other wives (paradāraputra) of the deified one who used to reign at Vuru Tumuṅgal in the middle country of Vurahan.Maybe Vurahan = Vuravan (as in the Sima Anglayang inscr., Mula-Malurung) = Vuravari?

Exceedingly powerful and brave, he defeated the King of Vəṅkər. Nine were the kings who faced him together with the King of Vəṅkər. Still (ata) they were defeated by the Great King in [the year of the] Śaka era 952 and immediately the evil powers of ... left his kingdom and again settled a palace in Ləca,The suspected subject of this sentence is the king of Vəṅkər. being followed by the country of Galuh and the country of Barat, when they were assailed and attacked in [the year of the] Śaka era 953, by the Great King. And there was a son of the King of Vəṅkər who reigned at Vuru Rətu (?). He died due to the Great King. In [the year of the] Śaka era 954,We presume that the date 954 goes with what follows, because the Sanskrit text (st. XXVI) dates to the same year an event involving a woman, who can hardly be identified with the putra mentioned in the clause before that which opens with pjaḥ. all of the people of Laṅḍiṅ Rāk and of Hirəṅhirəṅan, due to their attacking (? iṅ maṅdon), along with those who were plotting for death and the next world of the godsOn the words used here, and the problem of what they mean, see n. 187. ... hitting with arrows (?) ... by the Great King. The king of Vuravari too, even his demise was orchestrated by the Great King orchestrated. The Great King resisted tenaciously together with the lord of Kanuruhan, Pu Narottama (and with) the lord of Kuniṅan, Pu Nīti, at the time that the Great King was in ... In short, the Great King was the cause of the demise of all the evil powers that Yavadvīpa had.

As for the manner in which the King of Vəṅkər perished because of his the Great King, originally his palace was in Kapaṅ. He naṅ (?),We don’t understand the word naṅ unless it can be a functional equivalent to ta. his land was consistently (pratiniyata) disturbed by the Great King every month of Asuji.TRY TO CONFIRM KERN’S CLAIM (V.G. VIII: 109 n. 4) THAT THIS IS AN ALLUSION TO THE DRY SEASON, SUITABLE FOR WARFARE. See email from Jiri. And in [the year of the] Śaka era 957, he was completely dissolved, when he was defeated at Kapaṅ by the Great King.The reading and the word division of the sequence vvayata is very uncertain. If indeed it must be read and divided vvay ata, the basic meaning is ‘just water’, and we would imagine a connection with the metaphor for destruction implicit in the word pralaya used elsewhere in this text for Airlaṅga’s own troubles. He tried to hide, looking for an unassailable country, abandoning sons, wives, even royal property, royal vehicles and suchlike. Subsequently, in [the year of the] Śaka era 959, the king of Kapaṅ had enough of hiding along with all of the troops loyal to him. He was allowed to ...,We translate kavnaṅ here differently from the occurrence in line 21, because in the present situation the subject of the verb form is already kaparājaya ‘defeated’ (lines 27–28). The passage that follows after kavnaṅ ta sira up to pinakatapakan cannot be interpreted, but the fact that Brandes and Kern read ratu suggest that the King of Vəṅkər was given the privilege of becoming Airlaṅga’s vassal king — could an expression like ratu sāmanta (= Sanskrit sāmantarāja ‘vassal king’, see OJED s.v. sāmanta) be restored in the problematic passage? ... His head was the Great King’s footstool (tapakan) when he was seated with pendant legs on the Lion Throne.

The disaster on the island of Java has been summarized. The war ended. There was no doubt in the minds of the people, as they took shelter, using as refuge the shadow of the sandals of the Great King. This is the reason why he fulfilled his promiseSee comparable passage re. pratijñā in the Baru and Terep inscriptions. by quickly, swiftly carrying out the meritorious work (yaśa) [of founding] the hermitage at Pucaṅan. It was like the Great King’s permanent homage with mantras and eulogies to the Lord and was to be evidence for the people, first of all the future kings, thereafter in the future’s future, regarding the specifics (krama) of the manner of Great King’s reviving the constant well-being of the whole island of Java. For all of the former (anādi) kings were served on the island of Java ... character ... by them, and they obtained all of their merit (hayu) from the past. The Great King was not like that at all ... and the Great King’s intention that be beautifulWe are unable to verify the reading mayva published by Brandes and Kern. Taking this uncertain reading at face value, we see no other way but to interpret it as a form derived from hayu, though it will be surprising if our text really spells maywa for what would be mahayva in contemporary texts. See the Baru inscription, face A, line 16: yāvat saādhanāniṅ amahayvaṅ bhuvana donanya ‘insofar as the means for realizing the beautification of the world was its aim’. the villages of the group ... called Hino ... royal property: 1 suvarṇa of gold. ... of the meritorious work [of founding] the hermitage at Pucaṅan. The lands of Pucaṅan, of Barahəm (and) of Bapuri, cease ... The holy hermitage foundation at Pucaṅan may not be entered by the servants of the three dignitaries — Paṅkur, Tavan, Tirip — nor by the dependents of chiefs,On the meaning of nāyakapratyaya, see De Casparis 1956: 19. Although the Dutch scholar did not interpret it as a compound, the close conjunction with the term hājipratyaya in the Old Malay inscription he was studying suggests that nāyakapratyaya could be a compound as well; the fact, mentioned in our note above (n. XX), that the words are not normally separated by a punctuation sign points in the same direction. [such as]: Piṅhais, Vahutas, elders, and any one who enjoys usufruct of royal property ... ... fines on offenses,On the sukhaduḥkha, see Boechari 2012: 39–41, esp. p. 40: “sukhaduḥkha bukanlah ‘suka dan duka’, melainkan diterangkan dengan hala hayu, ialah segala perbuatan yang buruk dan yang baik yang terjadi dalam masyarakat, atau seperti yang dimaksudkan di dalam setiap prasasti, yang terjadi dalam lingkungan daerah perdikan. Bahkan sebenarnya hanya perbuatan yang jahat saja yang dimaksudkan. Dengan perkataan lain, sukhaduḥkha ialah segala tindak pidana (yang terjadi di dalam lingkungan daerah perdikan) yang harus dikenai hukuman denda.” Boechari seems to allude to a normative text that gave the explanation hala hayu, but we haven’t yet been able to identify the text in question. For translations of the individual terms, see Boechari 2012: 309–310 (Indonesian) and 510 (English). of whatever kind ... up to the limits of the lands of the holy hermitage foundation at Pucaṅan ... those who enjoy the usufruct of royal property: the Vulu-vulus and ... whatever be their kinds. The holy hermitage foundation at Pucaṅan would be wiped out if Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, Śūdras, outcasts, dependents of chiefs, Piṅhais, Vahutas, elders ... would meddle with the independence of the holy hermitage foundation at Pucaṅan along with [everything] up to the limits of the lands of the ... of Hino ... the holy hermitage foundation.

So therefore they will undergo the consequences of their action. The (consequences of the) Five Major Sins are their lot. ... calligrapher to his Majesty the Great King ... the holy royal decree (in the form of an) edict.

...

62 137-140 85-114 424-437 9, 224-225441 177, 180-182 142 55548 249 585-591 81514 251–2541834 80, 82-83 239, 254, 259, 268-269 406-410 49-64 424-437 64-65A. 141 66-67A. 141 189-204 7, 10, 12–15 213-214 129 75–36 4 406-418, 445-456