Nalanda Grant of Samudragupta

Author of digital edition: Dániel Balogh (daba).

Language: Sanskrit (san) [Southern Brāhmī (unspecified) (brāhmī_southern_unspecified)].

Repository: SIDDHAM (siddham).

Identifier: DHARMA_INSSiddham00003.

File path: XML-Provisional/DHARMA_INSSiddham00003.xml.

Version: 2026-09-16 10:40 (3083d2d), last modified 2026-09-16 09:24 (c200993).

Edition

⟨01⟩ *
⟨1⟩ svast[i]⟨.⟩ mahā-nau-hasty-aśva-jaya-skandhāvārānandapura-vāsakāt (sar)vvarā(joc)ch(e)ttu⟨ḫ⟩ pr̥thivyām apratirathasya catur-udadhi-sali(l)ā(s)vā-
⟨2⟩ dita-yaśaso dhanada-varuṇendrānta⟨ka⟩-samasya kr̥tānta-paraśor nyāyāgatāneka-go-hiraṇya-koṭi-pradasya cirotsa(nn)ā-
⟨3⟩ śvamedhāharttur mmahārāja-śrī-gu⟨pta⟩-prapauttrasya mahārāja-śrī-ghaṭotkaca-pauttrasya mahārā(jādhi)rāja-(śrī-candragupta)-puttra-
⟨4⟩ sya licchavi-dauhittrasya mahādevyāṅ kumāradevyām utpannaḫ parama-bhāgava(to mahā)[rājādh](i)[rāja]-śrī-(samu)[dragu]ptaḥ vāvi(r)i(k)ṣya(ra)-
⟨5⟩ -vaiṣay(i)ka-bhadrapuṣkaraka-grāma-kri(vilā)-vaiṣayika-(pūrṇṇanā)ga-grā(mayoḥ brāhmaṇa-puroga)-grā(ma)-valatkoṣābhyām āha
⟨6⟩ Eva(ṁ) cāha⟨.⟩ viditam bo bhavatv eṣau grā(m)au (mayā mā)tā-pittror ātmana(ś ca puṇyābhivr̥ddha)ye jayabhaṭṭi-svāmine
⟨7⟩ [****][**************] (sopari)karo(ddeśenāgrahāratvenātisr̥ṣ)ṭaḥ tad yuṣmābhir asya
⟨8⟩ ttr(ai)vidyasya śro(ttr)avyam ājñā ca karttavyā (sarvve ca samu)citā grā⟨ma⟩-pratyā(yāmeyā) hira(ṇ)yādayo deyā na ¿caitā?ḫ pra-
⟨9⟩ (bhr̥)ty anena ttraividyenānya-grāmādi-karada-kuṭumbi-kā(rukāda)yaḫ praveśayi(ta)vyā (A)nyathā niyatam āgrahārā(kṣepaḥ)
⟨10⟩ (sy)ād iti* _____ sambat 5 _ māgha di 2 _ ni(b/v)addha(ḥ/M)
⟨11⟩ Anugrāmākṣapaṭalādhikr̥ta-mahāpīlūpati-mahāvalādhikr̥ta gopasvām⟨y⟩-ādeśa-likhitaḥ
⟨12⟩ [dūtaḥ?] [ku](mā?)ra-śrī-candraguptaḥ

Bibliography

First reported by Hirananda Sastri in ARASI 1927–28, p. 138; first edited in Ghosh [1940–1948] 1939–1940. Discussed and pronounced spurious in Sircar 1941–1942. Genuineness discussed in Goyal 1993, pp. 72–76.

Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00003). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.

Secondary

Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna, Bahadur Chand Chhabra & Govind Swamirao Gai. 1981. Inscriptions of the early Gupta kings. Corpus inscriptionum indicarum 3, revised edition. New Delhi: Archaeological survey of India. Item 3.

Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna. 1927–1936. A list of the inscriptions of northern India in Brahmi and its derivative scripts, from about 200 A. C.: Appendix to Epigraphia Indica and record of the Archaeological Survey of India, volumes XIX to XXIII. Calcutta: Archaeological Survey of India. [URL]. Item 2075.

Sircar, Dines Chandra. 1965. Select inscriptions bearing on Indian history and civilization. Volume I: from the sixth century B.C. to the sixth century A.D. 2nd edition revised and enlarged. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Book III, item 4.

Agrawala, Prithvi Kumar. 1983. Imperial Gupta Epigraphs (गुप्ताधिराजलेखमण्डल). Ancient Indian Epigraphical Sources (प्रत्नाभिलेखसंहिता) 10, pt. 1 / 2. Varanasi: Books Asia, Distributed by Prithvi Prakashan. Item 3.

Goyal, Śrīrām. 1993. गुप्तकालीन अभिलेख/Guptakālīna Abhilekha (Inscriptions of the Gupta Age). Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan. Items 62-67.

Display Options Word Wrap Line Numbers Comments Processing Instructions

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>

<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_SQF.sch" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>

<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>

<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>

<title>Nalanda Grant of Samudragupta</title>

<forename>Dániel</forename>

<surname>Balogh</surname>

</persName>

</respStmt>

<funder>European Research Council (ERC), grant agreement no 809994</funder>

</titleStmt>

<authority><ref target="https://dharmalekha.info">DHARMA</ref></authority>

<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>

<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSSiddham00003.xml</idno>

<!--

If this file is moved into a named DHARMA corpus, retain the Siddham identifier as <altIdentifier>

-->

</publicationStmt>

<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>

<idno/>

</msIdentifier>

</msContents>

<p/>

</handDesc>

</physDesc>

</msDesc>

</sourceDesc>

</fileDesc>

<p>Encoded in TEI/EpiDoc according to the <ref target="https://hal.science/halshs-02888186">DHARMA Encoding Guide for Documentary Editions, version 2</ref></p>

</encodingDesc>

<change who="part:daba" when="2023-05-15" status="draft">Additional global changes for compatibility with DHARMA</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2021-07-06" status="draft">Updating toward the encoding template v03</change>

<change who="part:daba" when="2020-08-04" status="draft">Initial import: harmonising file structure with DHARMA inscription template v02. Text and comments as inherited from the Siddham archive of January 2019, unless otherwise indicated (by a name and date in the comment). Comments are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly considered or researched opinion.</change>

</revisionDesc>

</teiHeader>

<body>

<ab><lb n="01"/><g ref="sym:unclassified" type="symbol">*</g><!--

The mangala sign, which Bhandarkar transcribes as "oṁ," is to the left of the margin and perhaps slightly above the first line. It is very unclear on my facsimile but seems to resemble a figure 8. Sircar calls it a symbol "for siddhaṁ later pronounced as oṁ siddhiḥ or siddhir astu".

--></ab>

<p><lb n="1"/>svast<supplied reason="lost">i</supplied><supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> mahā-nau-hasty-aśva-jaya-skandhāvārānandapura-vāsakāt <unclear>sar</unclear>vvarā<unclear>joc</unclear>ch<unclear>e</unclear>ttu<supplied reason="omitted">ḫ</supplied> pr̥thivyām apratirathasya catur-udadhi-sali<unclear>l</unclear>ā<unclear>s</unclear>vā<!--

Lielukhine reports that Sastri (1931?) read the place as nūpuravāsakāt. Actually, nū is possible (there is a similar nū in the Kahaum inscr), but then we'd have to read the na of skandhāvārāna as a halanta n, for which there is no indication.

--><!--

Bhandarkar suggets reading °ucchettu as °ucchettā, and also emends all the following genitives to nominative - I say just accept the text as it is; there's been plenty of discussion of the conflict of these genitives with the nominative in L4.

--><lb n="2" break="no"/>dita-yaśaso dhanada-varuṇendrānta<supplied reason="omitted">ka</supplied>-samasya kr̥tānta-paraśor nyāyāgatāneka-go-hiraṇya-koṭi-pradasya cirotsa<unclear>nn</unclear>ā<lb n="3" break="no"/>śvamedhāharttur mmahārāja-śrī-gu<supplied reason="omitted">pta</supplied>-prapauttrasya mahārāja-śrī-ghaṭotkaca-pauttrasya mahārā<unclear>jādhi</unclear>rāja-<unclear>śrī-candragupta</unclear>-puttra<lb n="4" break="no"/>sya licchavi-dauhittrasya mahādevyāṅ kumāradevyām utpannaḫ parama-bhāgava<unclear>to mahā</unclear><supplied reason="lost">rājādh</supplied><unclear>i</unclear><supplied reason="lost">rāja</supplied>-śrī-<unclear>samu</unclear><supplied reason="lost">dragu</supplied>ptaḥ vāvi<unclear>r</unclear>i<unclear>k</unclear>ṣya<unclear>ra</unclear><!--

Lielukhine had tāvi(rguṇya) as his guess for the toponym. I follow Bhandarkar but all I see is (vāvi#ri#ṣya). Bhandarkar seems to have seen a plain ri here [not a subscript r], since he transcribes the name as Vāvirikshyara in his translation.

--><lb n="5" break="no"/>-vaiṣay<unclear>i</unclear>ka-bhadrapuṣkaraka-grāma-kri<unclear>vilā</unclear>-vaiṣayika-<unclear>pūrṇṇanā</unclear>ga-grā<unclear>mayoḥ brāhmaṇa-puroga</unclear>-grā<unclear>ma</unclear>-valatkoṣābhyām āha<!--

Ghosh reads the second viṣaya as Krimilā; Bhandarkar says estampages don't support this, but Krivilā is "practically the same thing as" Krimilā

--><!--

Note that on the basis of the Gaya plate, the dual is not because there is one koṣa officer for each village, but because there is a pair: a brāhmaṇapuroga and a grāmavalatkoṣa?

--></p>

<p><lb n="6"/>Eva<unclear>ṁ</unclear> cāha<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> viditam bo bhavatv eṣau grā<unclear>m</unclear>au <unclear>mayā mā</unclear>tā-pittror ātmana<unclear>ś ca puṇyābhivr̥ddha</unclear>ye jayabhaṭṭi-svāmine<!--

Bhandarkar has evañ cāha without any indication of uncertainty, but the thing after va looks like cā, not ñcā to me. Lielukhine has eva[#ṁ] and there's definitely a dot over the va, though it may or may not be an anusvāra. Lielukhine (probably citing Sircar) also suggests emending to evaṁ cārtho vidito. This seems unnecessarily to me, but if emending, then perhaps less invasive to emend to etaṁ cārthaṁ viditaṁ, a credible if incorrect construction. For the next bit, I think it could be viditamvo as easily as viditambo.

--><!--

There is a dot like an anusvāra above the ta of viditam, but Ghosh_1939-40:53n1 says this is a hole due to damage.

--><lb n="7"/><gap reason="lost" precision="low" quantity="4" unit="character"/><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="14" unit="character"/> <unclear>sopari</unclear>karo<unclear>ddeśenāgrahāratvenātisr̥ṣ</unclear>ṭaḥ tad yuṣmābhir asya

<lb n="8"/>ttr<unclear>ai</unclear>vidyasya śro<unclear>ttr</unclear>avyam ājñā ca karttavyā <unclear>sarvve ca samu</unclear>citā grā<supplied reason="omitted">ma</supplied>-pratyā<unclear>yāmeyā</unclear> hira<unclear>ṇ</unclear>yādayo deyā na <choice><sic>caitā</sic><corr>ceta</corr></choice>ḫ pra<!--

Bhandarkar reads ca (printing it as clearly legible) before ttraividyasya at the beginning of l8; there may or may not be a character there, but it seems unnecessary and is not read by Ghosh, nor by Agrawala.

--><!--

For śrottravyam, previous editors read śrottavyam (which may be a simple mistake under the influence of karttavyā), but I think the character is more likely to be ttra, and this is a credible hypersanskritisation.

--><!--

Bhandarkar prints kartavyā, but the text is clearly karttavyā.

--><!--

Bhandarkar reads grā[+ma]pratyāye(na), but (na) is out of the question. Lielukhine has pratya[+yā]meya. I believe the correct reading is pratyāyāmeyā, though the diacritics on the two yā-s bend to the left rather than to the right.

--><!--

grā[+ma] should perhaps be marked up as an abbreviation rather than as omitted character? Probably not, abbreviation in a compound would be funny.

--><!--

Lielukhine reads na cetaf for na caitāf, which seems to make more sense; the characters, however, doo look like caitāf so I've added this as an emendation. Sircar emends to caitat.

--><lb n="9" break="no"/><unclear>bhr̥</unclear>ty anena ttraividyenānya-grāmādi-karada-kuṭumbi-kā<unclear>rukāda</unclear>yaḫ praveśayi<unclear>ta</unclear>vyā <unclear>A</unclear>nyathā niyatam āgrahārā<unclear>kṣepaḥ</unclear><!--

For my anyathā Bhandarkar and Agrawala read nānyathā, but a full vowel A fits what is visible of the inscription, is phonologically correct, and matches the Gaya version which has manyathā, obviously a misreading of Anyathā. Ghosh in fact does read (a)nyath(ā).

--><lb n="10"/><unclear>sy</unclear>ād iti<g ref="sym:unclassified" type="symbol">*</g><!--

L10. iti is followed by some sort of damaged punctuation sign (a figure 6 rotated 90 degrees clockwise?), then 3 short horizontal strokes, then a space of about 5 akṣaras. I'm marking up the sign combination as a closer glyph; space marked as part of the date paragraph.

--></p>

<p><space quantity="5" unit="character"/> sambat <num value="5">5</num> <space/> māgha di <num value="2">2</num> <space/> ni<choice><unclear>b</unclear><unclear>v</unclear></choice>addha<choice><unclear>ḥ</unclear><unclear>M</unclear></choice>

<lb n="11"/>Anugrāmākṣapaṭalādhikr̥ta-mahāpīlūpati-mahāvalādhikr̥ta gopasvām<supplied reason="omitted">y</supplied>-ādeśa-likhitaḥ<!--

Bhandarkar actually reads anyagrām° at the beginning, but even his editor adds a footnote (p227n22) that "the reading seems to be anu" and it does. It is, however, clearly anya in the Gaya plate - but is that any better? And why should we prefer the testimony of a forged document which seems to have a number of copying errors? Maybe anu+grāmam indeclinable, in compound, the chief notary (akṣapaṭalādhikr̥ta) in charge of each and every (anu-) village? Sounds to me more plausible than "officer of another village" (Sharma, Names in Gupta Inscriptions) or "of Anyagrāma" (Bhandarkar).

--><lb n="12"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">dūtaḥ</supplied> <supplied reason="lost">ku</supplied><unclear cert="low">mā</unclear>ra-śrī-candraguptaḥ<!--

Bhandarkar prints [#dūtaḥ kumā] as a single supplied bit. In fact we have, before the clear ra, a single smudged character that may be ma (or any number of other things), preceded by a larger blotch 2-3 characters in extent, which seems a bit small to cover "dūtaḥ ku". So while kumāra sounds plausible, I have very strong doubts about dūtaḥ.

--></p>

</div>

<lem/>

</app>

</listApp>

</div>

</div>

</div>

<p>First reported by Hirananda Sastri in <bibl><ptr target="bib:ARASI1927-1928"/><citedRange>138</citedRange></bibl>; first edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Ghosh1939-1940_01"/></bibl>. Discussed and pronounced spurious in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1941-1942_01"/></bibl>. Genuineness discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Goyal1993_01"/><citedRange>72-76</citedRange></bibl>.</p>

<p>Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Balogh2019_03"/><citedRange unit="item">IN00003</citedRange></bibl>). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.</p>

</listBibl>

</listBibl>

</div>

</body>

</text>

</TEI>