Gangdhar Inscription of Mayūrākṣaka
Version: (914ca07), last modified (914ca07).
Edition
⟨1⟩ [––⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑] (ma)sya viṣṇor bbhujas sura-pati-dvi(pa)-has[ta]-(dīrggha?)[ḥ||] [––⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [––⏑]
⟨2⟩ [–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–] (p?)r(ajānā?)[ṁ?] (p)ra(kkhy?)āta-vīryya-yaśa(sāṁ) kṣitipādhipānāṁ vaṁśodbha(v)(e/o) [⏑] (ga)tivi [–⏑⏑–⏑–⏓][||] [––⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑]
⟨3⟩ [⏑–⏑] kāntaś śrīmān babhūva naravarmma-nr̥paḥ prakāśaḥ|| yajñais surān muni-gaṇā[n n](i)[ya]m(ai)r udār[aiḥ] [––⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏓]
⟨4⟩ [māne]na bhr̥ttya-janam appratimena loke yo ⟨’⟩toṣayat sucaritaiś ca jagat samaggra(ṁ)|| hasty-aśva-sādha(na) [⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] [––⏑–⏑⏑]
⟨5⟩ [⏑] khaḍga-marīc¿a?ma(tsu)|| saṅgrāma-mūrddhasu mukhaṁ samudīkṣya yasya nāśam prayānty ari-gaṇā bhaya-na(ṣṭa-c)(ittā?)[ḥ||] [––⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑]
⟨6⟩ [gu](ṇ)o mahātmā buddhyā br̥haspati-samas sakalendu-vaktraḥ|| Aupamya-bhūta Iva rāma-bhagīrathā(bhyāṁ) r(ā) [jā babhūva?][⏑]
⟨7⟩ [⏑–] [bhu]vi viśvavarmmā|| dhairyyeṇa merum abhijāti-guṇena vaiṇyam indu⟨ṁ⟩ prabhā-samuda(ye)na balena vi(ṣṇuṁ)[||]
⟨8⟩ [saṁva]rttakānalam asahyatamañ ca dīptyā yo vikkrameṇa ca surādhipati(ṁ) vijigye|| vyāvr̥tta-mārgga Iva bhā-
⟨9⟩ [nur asa]hya-mūrttir vyabbhrodayādhikataroj⟨j⟩vala-ghora-dīptiḥ|| yaś śakyate na ripubhir bbhaya-vihvalākṣair u(dv)ī-
⟨10⟩ [kṣituṁ kṣa]ṇam api ppragr̥hīta-śastra(ḥ||) (nirb)bhūṣaṇair avigatāsra-jal(ā)rdra-gaṇḍair vvicchinna-maṇḍanata(yo)j⟨j⟩vala-naṣṭa
⟨11⟩ [śobhai]ḥ|| yassyāri-kāmini-mukhāmburuhair bbalasya pūrvvaṁ pratāpa-cakitaiẖ kriyate praṇāmaḥ|| ratnodgama-dyuti
⟨12⟩ [vira](ñji)ta-kūla-tālair uttrasta-nakkra-makara-kṣata-ph(e)na-māl(ai)ḥ|| caṇḍāniloddhata-taraṅga-samasta-hastair yyassyā-
⟨13⟩ [rṇṇavai]r api balāni namaẖ-kriyante|| bhūr uddh¿ri?ta-druma-vikampita-śaila-kīla vittrasta-vidruta-mr̥ga-dvija-śū¿ṇ?ya-gu-
⟨14⟩ [lmā||] yassyonnata-praviṣa(mī)k¿ri?ta-rājamārggā s{s}ai¿ṇ?ya-prayāṇa-samaye vinimajjatīva|| prattyasta-mauli-
⟨15⟩ -[ma](ṇi)-raśmi-nakha-prabhāndhair abbhyudyatāñjalitayā śabalāgragaṇḍaiḥ|| vidyādharaiḥ priyatamā-bhuja-pāśa-(ba)-
⟨16⟩ [ddhair] [yya]syādarād divi yaś[āṁ]si namaẖ-kriyante|| agre ⟨’⟩pi y(o) vayasi samparivarttamānaś śāstrānusāra-pari-
⟨17⟩ [varddhita-ś](u)ddha-buddhiḥ|| sad-dharmma-mārggam iva rā(ja)su (da)rśayiṣyan rakṣā-vidhim bharatavaj jagataẖ karoti|| tasmin pra-
⟨18⟩ [śāsa](ti) mahī¿n? nr̥pati-pravīre svarggaṁ yathā sura-pat(ā)v amita-prabhāve|| nābhūd adharmma-nirato vyasanānvi(to)
⟨19⟩ [vā] [loke ka]dācana janas sukha-varjjito vā|| yāteṣu catu(r?)(ṣu) k¿ri?teṣu śateṣu sau¿s?y(e) ⟨’⟩ṣ¿(ṭh)?āśīta-sottarapadeṣv iha vatsa-
⟨20⟩ [reṣu]|| śukle tra(yo)daśa-dine bhuvi kārttikasya māsasya sarvva-jana-citta-sukhāvahasya|| nīlotpala-pra-
⟨21⟩ [sr̥ta-re]ṅv-aruṅ(āmbu)-kīrṇṇe bandhūka-b¿a?ṇa-kusumoj⟨j⟩vala-kānanānte|| nidrā-vyapāya-samaye madhusūdanasya kā-
⟨22⟩ [le prabu]ddha-kumudāgara-śuddha-tāre|| vāpī-taḍāga-sura-sadma-sabhod¿u?pāna-nānā-vidhopavana-saṅkrama-dīrghik[ā]-
⟨23⟩ [bhiḥ||] (tu?)ṣṭām ivābharaṇa-jātibhir aṅganāṁ svāṁ yo garggarā-taṭa-pura(ṁ) sa(ka)lañ-cakāra|| rājñas t¿ri?tīyam iva cakṣur udā-
⟨24⟩ [ra-][drṣṭi?](r) (dde)va-dvijāti-guru-b(ā)ndhava-sā(dhu)-bhaktaḥ|| ¿g?(ā)str(ai)⟨ḥ⟩ (st)ute (c)a (v)inaya-vyavahāra-hīne ¿yo pakṣa-pāta-rahito? nida(dh)[ā?]-
⟨25⟩ [ti kāryya?]M|| sarvvasya jīvitam anityam asāravac ca dol¿a?-cal(ā)m anuvicintya tathā vibhūtiM|| nyāyāga-
⟨26⟩ [tena vi]bhavena parāñ ca bhakti(ṁ) vikkhyāpayann upari cakkra-gadā-dhara(s)ya|| pīna-vyāyata-vr̥tta-lambi-subhujaẖ khaḍga-vraṇ(ai?)-
⟨27⟩ [r aṅki?](t)aḥ|| karṇṇānta-pratisarppamā¿n?a-nayana-¿g?yāmo ⟨’⟩vadāta-cchaviḥ|| darppāviṣk¿ri?ta-(gh)ora-śattru-mathano du(ṣ)¿(ṭh)?(ā)(tm?)a-
⟨28⟩ -[––] (ba)lī|| bhaktyā cāsuhr̥dāñ ca b(ā)ndhava-samo dha(rmmā)rttha-kā(mo)dita(ḥ)|| prajñā-śauryya-kulodgato diśi
⟨29⟩ [diśi] prakkhyāta-vīryyo vaśī|| puttre viṣṇubhaṭe tathā haribhaṭe sambaddha-va¿ṅ?śa-kriyaḥ|| Eta-
⟨30⟩ [t pāpa]-pathāvarodhi vipula⟨ṁ⟩ śrī-vallabh¿e?r ātmaj(ai)ḥ|| (v)iṣṇo⟨ḥ⟩ sthānam akārayad bhagava-
⟨31⟩ [taś śrī]mān mayūrākṣakaḥ|| kailāsa-tuṅga-śikhara-ppratimassya yasya dr̥ṣṭvāk¿ri?ti⟨ṁ⟩ pra-
⟨32⟩ [muditai]r vvadanāravind¿i?ḥ|| vidyādharāḥ ppriyata(mā)-sah¿ī?tā(ḥ) suśobham ādarś¿i?-bimba-
⟨33⟩ [m iva] yānty avalokayantaḥ|| ya¿n? dr̥ṣṭvā sura-sundarī-kara-tala-vyāghr̥ṣṭa-pr̥ṣṭha⟨ṁ⟩ kṣa(ṇā)T|| prattyā-
⟨34⟩ [dhāva?](na?)-śaṅkino ratha-hayān āk¿ri?ṣya cañcat-saṭā(N)|| puṇyodarka-mati-prabhāva-munibhis saṁ-
⟨35⟩ [stū](ya)māno ⟨’⟩mbare|| saṁra(bbh)yāñjali-kuṭ¿(p)?alan nata-śirā bhītaḥ prayātty a¿ṅ?śumāN|| mātr̥̄ṇāñ ca-
⟨36⟩ [praṇ?](u)dita-ghanātyarttha-nihrādinīnāM|| tāntrodbhūta-prabala-pavanodvarttitāmbhonidhīnāM||
⟨37⟩ [––––⏑⏑](ga)tam idaṁ ḍākinī-saṁprakīrṇṇaM|| veśmātyuggraṁ nr̥pati-sacivo ⟨’⟩kāraya(t p)uṇya-he(t)oḥ|| pātāl(o)-
⟨38⟩ [⏑⏑–⏑–⏑] ratibhir g(g)uptaṁ bhujaṅgo⟨tta⟩maiḥ|| śīta-s{s}vādu-viśuddha-bhūri-salilaṁ sopān¿i?-māloj⟨j⟩valaM|| (pu?)[––]
⟨39⟩ [⏑⏑–⏑–⏑]gahanaṁ kṣīrodadhi-sparddhinaM|| kūpañ caitad akārayad guṇa-nidhi(ḥ śrī)mān ma(y)ūrākṣakaḥ|| yāva(d bhānor bha?)
⟨40⟩ [vati?][⏑⏑–] (sā)garā ratnavanto nānā-gulma-druma-vanavatī yāvad urvvī sa(śai)lā|| yāvac cendu-ggraha-gaṇa-citaṁ vyoma (sā?)-
⟨41⟩ [–⏑–⏓] [tā](va)t kīrttir bbhavatu vipulā śrī-mayūrākṣakasye{(d?)i}ti|| siddhir astu
Bibliography
Primary
AuthorYear_01
Secondary
AuthorYear_01
<?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_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<?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"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="eng">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Gangdhar Inscription of Mayūrākṣaka</title>
<respStmt>
<resp>Original EpiDoc Encoding for Siddham</resp>
<persName ref="part:daba">
<forename>Dániel</forename>
<surname>Balogh</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<resp>Conversion of encoding for DHARMA</resp>
<persName ref="part:daba">
<forename>Dániel</forename>
<surname>Balogh</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<resp>intellectual authorship of edition</resp>
<persName ref="part:daba">
<forename>Dániel</forename>
<surname>Balogh</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority>DHARMA</authority>
<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>
<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSSiddham00076</idno>
<!--
If this file is moved into a named DHARMA corpus, retain the Siddham identifier as <altIdentifier>
-->
<availability>
<licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
<p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported Licence. To view a copy of the licence, visit thttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.</p>
<p>Copyright (c) 2019-2025 by Dániel Balogh.</p>
</licence>
</availability>
<date from="2019" to="2025">2019-2025</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<msDesc>
<msIdentifier>
<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>
<idno/>
</msIdentifier>
<msContents>
<summary/>
</msContents>
<physDesc>
<handDesc>
<p/>
</handDesc>
</physDesc>
</msDesc>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<projectDesc>
<p>The project DHARMA has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC)
under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant
agreement no 809994).</p>
</projectDesc>
<schemaRef type="guide" key="EGDv01" url="https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02888186"/>
<listPrefixDef>
<prefixDef ident="bib" matchPattern="([a-zA-Z0-9\-\_]+)" replacementPattern="https://www.zotero.org/groups/1633743/erc-dharma/items/tag/$1">
<p>Public URIs with the prefix bib to point to a Zotero Group Library named
ERC-DHARMA whose data are open to the public.</p>
</prefixDef>
<prefixDef ident="part" matchPattern="([a-z]+)" replacementPattern="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/DHARMA_IdListMembers_v01.xml#$1">
<p>Internal URIs using the part prefix to point to person elements in the
<ref>DHARMA_IdListMembers_V01.xml</ref> file.</p>
</prefixDef>
</listPrefixDef>
</encodingDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<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>
<text xml:space="preserve">
<body>
<div type="edition" xml:lang="san-Latn" rendition="class:83225 maturity:83211"><!--
This inscription is digitally edited by Dániel Balogh from photographs of the original stone (taken in Jhalawar Museum in January 2017), with reference to Fleet's CII (F) and Sircar's SI (S). Conjectural restorations were originally suggested by Fleet unless otherwise noted. Version of January 2019. Comments below are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly researched or considered opinion.
--><lg n="1" met="vasantatilakā"><!--
Punctuation marks transcribed as double daṇḍas are double verticals with a hook at the top left of the first one. They seem to occur consistently at both half-verse and full-verse ends, though there doesn't appear to be one at the end of v1. (And the marks occur after every quarter of some longer verses at the end, v22 onward.) I supply identical punctuation at lost verse and half-verse ends.
-->
<l n="a"><lb n="1"/><seg met="++-+---+--+-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="12" unit="character"/></seg> <unclear>ma</unclear>sya</l>
<l n="b">viṣṇor bbhujas sura-pati-dvi<unclear>pa</unclear>-has<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ta</supplied>-<unclear cert="low">dīrggha</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ḥ||</supplied></l><!--
L1. F (S following him) reads hasta-sarppa, showing only sa as unclear. He translates "the serpentine movement of the trunk" of Indra's elephant, which is a bit of a non sequitur. The subscript t and most of what F reads as sa are completely obliterated by a deep pit of the stone, P1010518. In the last character, subscript p is possible, but anything else is guesswork. I tentatively read dīrgghaḥ instead; the first lost character may have an i/ī mātrā, and the second one's main component resembles g, while the subscript component may be the left half of gh. Compare Harṣacarita 3, diṅnāga-hasta-dīrgho ... bāhur. Another possibility may be lamba (cf. lambi in v19). S, but not F, restores a visarga after sarpa, which I think is necessary whatever the word; the half-verse would not have ended with an unfinished compound.
-->
<l n="c"><seg met="++-+---+--+-+="><gap reason="lost" quantity="14" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="d"><seg met="++-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="3" unit="character"/></seg><lb n="2"/><seg met="+---+--+"><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg> <unclear cert="low">p</unclear>r<unclear cert="low">ajānā</unclear><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ṁ</supplied></l><!--
L1-2. The exact position of the line break in the lost text cannot be determined. I follow F and S here and below.
--><!--
L2. F and S read nothing at the end of v1; my reading of the vestiges is tentative. There is no trace of a punctuation mark.
--></lg>
<lg n="2" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a"><unclear>p</unclear>ra<unclear cert="low">kkhy</unclear>āta-vīryya-yaśa<unclear>sāṁ</unclear> kṣitipādhipānāṁ</l>
<l n="b">vaṁśodbha<unclear>v</unclear><choice><unclear>e</unclear><unclear>o</unclear></choice> <seg met="-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="1" unit="character"/></seg> <unclear>ga</unclear>tivi <seg met="+--+-+="><gap reason="lost" quantity="7" unit="character"/></seg><supplied reason="lost">||</supplied></l>
<l n="c"><seg met="++-+---+-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="9" unit="character"/></seg><lb n="3"/><seg met="-+-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="3" unit="character"/></seg> kāntaś</l>
<l n="d">śrīmān babhūva naravarmma-nr̥paḥ prakāśaḥ||
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="3" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">yajñais surān muni-gaṇā<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->n n</supplied><unclear>i</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ya</supplied>m<unclear>ai</unclear>r udār<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->aiḥ</supplied></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="++-+---+--+-+="><gap reason="lost" quantity="14" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="c"><lb n="4"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->māne</supplied>na bhr̥ttya-janam appratimena loke</l>
<l n="d">yo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>toṣayat sucaritaiś ca jagat samaggra<unclear>ṁ</unclear>||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="4" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">hasty-aśva-sādha<unclear>na</unclear> <seg met="-+--+-+="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="++-+--"><gap reason="lost" quantity="6" unit="character"/></seg><lb n="5"/><seg met="-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="1" unit="character"/></seg> khaḍga-marīc<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>i</corr></choice>ma<unclear>tsu</unclear>||</l><!--
L5. matsu looks more like mastu, but Fleet's reading is plausible.
-->
<l n="c">saṅgrāma-mūrddhasu mukhaṁ samudīkṣya yasya</l>
<l n="d">nāśam prayānty ari-gaṇā bhaya-na<unclear>ṣṭa-c</unclear><unclear cert="low">ittā</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ḥ||</supplied></l><!--
L5. F restores naṣṭa-ceṣṭāḥ at the end of the line; I prefer citta.
--></lg>
<lg n="5" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a"><seg met="++-+---+-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="9" unit="character"/></seg><lb n="6"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->gu</supplied><unclear>ṇ</unclear>o mahātmā</l><!--
L5. At the beginning of 5a, Fleet prints tasyātmajaḥ as an unclear reading, but it's in fact mere conjecture for text completely lost. Sircar shows it as such. Both also offer tasyānujaḥ as an alternative. The sense is plausible, but other reconstructions may be possible, so I prefer not to show this as part of the edition.
--><!--
L6. F and S read only .= au mahātmā at the beginning of the line. The reading ṇo is almost certain (the wings at the top of ṇ are clear), so I conjecture guṇo.
-->
<l n="b">buddhyā br̥haspati-samas sakalendu-vaktraḥ||</l>
<l n="c">Aupamya-bhūta Iva rāma-bhagīrathā<unclear>bhyāṁ</unclear></l><!--
L6. Note rare initial au.
-->
<l n="d">r<unclear>ā</unclear> <supplied reason="lost" cert="low">jā babhūva</supplied><seg met="-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="1" unit="character"/></seg><lb n="7"/><seg met="-+"><gap reason="lost" quantity="2" unit="character"/></seg> <supplied reason="lost">bhu</supplied>vi viśvavarmmā||</l><!--
L6. Rājā babhūva is my own restoration.
--></lg>
<lg n="6" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">dhairyyeṇa merum abhijāti-guṇena vaiṇyam</l>
<l n="b">indu<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> prabhā-samuda<unclear>ye</unclear>na balena vi<unclear>ṣṇuṁ</unclear><supplied reason="lost">||</supplied></l>
<l n="c"><lb n="8"/><supplied reason="lost">saṁva</supplied>rttakānalam asahyatamañ ca dīptyā</l><!--
L7-8. Both Fleet and Sircar print the restored saṁ as belonging to the end of l7, but in my opinion it must have been at the beginning of l8. S prints va as unclear rather than restored, but the place where this character would have been is chipped off.
--><!--
L8. F prints asahyatamāñ, probably a typo. S, correctly, has tamañ.
-->
<l n="d">yo vikkrameṇa ca surādhipati<unclear>ṁ</unclear> vijigye||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="7" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">vyāvr̥tta-mārgga Iva bhā<lb n="9" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">nur asa</supplied>hya-mūrttir</l>
<l n="b">vyabbhrodayādhikataroj<supplied reason="omitted">j</supplied>vala-ghora-dīptiḥ||</l>
<l n="c">yaś śakyate na ripubhir bbhaya-vihvalākṣair</l>
<l n="d">u<unclear>dv</unclear>ī<lb n="10" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">kṣituṁ kṣa</supplied>ṇam api ppragr̥hīta-śastra<unclear>ḥ||</unclear></l>
</lg>
<lg n="8" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a"><unclear>nirb</unclear>bhūṣaṇair avigatāsra-jal<unclear>ā</unclear>rdra-gaṇḍair</l>
<l n="b">vvicchinna-maṇḍanata<unclear>yo</unclear>j<supplied reason="omitted">j</supplied>vala-naṣṭa<lb n="11"/><supplied reason="lost">śobhai</supplied>ḥ||</l>
<l n="c">yassyāri-kāmini-mukhāmburuhair bbalasya</l>
<l n="d">pūrvvaṁ pratāpa-cakitaiẖ kriyate praṇāmaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="9" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">ratnodgama-dyuti<lb n="12"/><supplied reason="lost">vira</supplied><unclear>ñji</unclear>ta-kūla-tālair</l>
<l n="b">uttrasta-nakkra-makara-kṣata-ph<unclear>e</unclear>na-māl<unclear>ai</unclear>ḥ||</l>
<l n="c">caṇḍāniloddhata-taraṅga-samasta-hastair</l>
<l n="d">yyassyā<lb n="13" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">rṇṇavai</supplied>r api balāni namaẖ-kriyante||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="10" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">bhūr uddh<sic>ri</sic>ta-druma-vikampita-śaila-kīla</l>
<l n="b">vittrasta-vidruta-mr̥ga-dvija-śū<choice><sic>ṇ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice>ya-gu<lb n="14" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">lmā||</supplied></l>
<l n="c">yassyonnata-praviṣa<unclear>mī</unclear>k<sic>ri</sic>ta-rājamārggā</l>
<l n="d">s<surplus>s</surplus>ai<choice><sic>ṇ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice>ya-prayāṇa-samaye vinimajjatīva||<!--
L14. Though there have been a couple of yassya-s in this text, I think the engraver must have had rājamārgās in mind, not ssainya. I agree with the emendation; we want a bahuvrīhi agreeing with bhūr. The error may have been introduced by the engraver who thought he was making a correction.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="11" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">prattyasta-mauli<lb n="15" break="no"/>-<supplied reason="lost">ma</supplied><unclear>ṇi</unclear>-raśmi-nakha-prabhāndhair</l>
<l n="b">abbhyudyatāñjalitayā śabalāgragaṇḍaiḥ||</l>
<l n="c">vidyādharaiḥ priyatamā-bhuja-pāśa-<unclear>ba</unclear><lb n="16" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ddhair</supplied></l><!--
L15. F and S both print ppriyatamā, but I don't think there is a double p here.
-->
<l n="d"><supplied reason="lost">yya</supplied>syādarād divi yaś<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->āṁ</supplied>si namaẖ-kriyante||</l><!--
L16. F and S print ssyā at the beginning of l16, but this does not seem to be the case here.
--></lg>
<lg n="12" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">agre <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>pi y<unclear>o</unclear> vayasi samparivarttamānaś</l>
<l n="b">śāstrānusāra-pari<lb n="17" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">varddhita-ś</supplied><unclear>u</unclear>ddha-buddhiḥ||</l>
<l n="c">sad-dharmma-mārggam iva rā<unclear>ja</unclear>su <unclear>da</unclear>rśayiṣyan</l>
<l n="d">rakṣā-vidhim bharatavaj jagataẖ karoti||</l><!--
L17. F and S print vidhiṁ, but the stone has vidhim, in ligature.
--></lg>
<lg n="13" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">tasmin pra<lb n="18" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">śāsa</supplied><unclear>ti</unclear> mahī<sic>n</sic> nr̥pati-pravīre</l>
<l n="b">svarggaṁ yathā sura-pat<unclear>ā</unclear>v amita-prabhāve||</l>
<l n="c">nābhūd adharmma-nirato vyasanānvi<unclear>to</unclear> <lb n="19"/><supplied reason="lost">vā</supplied></l>
<l n="d"><supplied reason="lost">loke ka</supplied>dācana janas sukha-varjjito vā||</l><!--
L19. F and S print ka of kadācana as extant and clear, but there is no trace of this character in the stone, the edge is chipped off just to the left of dā. This was probably the same in Fleet's time. Fleet's rubbing has a vertical line before dā, which could be taken for the descender of ka, but it is probably not an engraved line.
--></lg>
<lg n="14" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">yāteṣu catu<unclear cert="low">r</unclear><unclear>ṣu</unclear> k<sic>ri</sic>teṣu śateṣu sau<choice><sic>s</sic><corr>m</corr></choice>y<unclear>e</unclear></l><!--
L19. F and S read sausyaiṣvāśīta, emending to saumyeṣv aśīta. Compare the date in the Bihar Kotra inscription of Naravarman (IN00018:2-3), caturṣu varṣa-śateṣu catu[#ḥ]saptateṣu [but that reading needs to be checked]. Also compare the Chhoti Sadri inscr, IN00203:15-16, yāteṣu paṁcasu śateṣv atha vatsarāṇāṁ dve vi{!ṅ!}śatī-samadhikeṣu sa-saptakeṣu. Fleet is aware that his emended reading is unmetrical. He considers the alternative reading sausyaiṣṭhāśīta and emendation to saumye 'ṣṭāśīta, but rejects this because he feels saumye should be in locative plural agreeing with śateṣu. I think it's OK to see it as in apposition to dine in the second half, though not very nice. Fleet (1888:73-74n1) further discusses the date and notes caturṣu is unmetrical but must be correct. He also considers and rejects other possibilities, such as reading yāteṣu ca tsapu, with tsapu being a possible "pronunciation value" assigned to the numeral 4; and interpreting kr̥teṣu as bhūtasaṁkhyā meaning 4, preceded by an unintelligible string. Since we now know that kr̥ta is the name of the era, we can almost be certain the word is used here in that sense, and the number of hundreds must be the preceding word.
--><!--
L19. In addition to the closeups, P1010493 and P1010494 also have good views of this section. For my reading ṣṭhāśīta, compare ṣvi a few characters later on in this line and ṣṭha in line 33 below: subscript v is more angular and its top is at the horizontal cenre; subscript ṭh is rounded and is attached at the top nearer the right-hand side. For my reading sye instead of syai, see the closeup photos. There are three strokes that may be vowel marks on this character on the basis of the rubbing. The one on the left, curving down, is definitely genuine. The one at the top, curving left, is very shallow and definitely not genuine. The one on the right seems to be slightly too large and crude, so I attribute it to damage.
--><!--
L19. See also the date of the Bihar Kotra stone IN00018 and cave (IN00224), probably ending with saptateṣu, as a possible parallel for this strange date. Stone: rājya-saṁvatsare caturṣu varṣa-śateṣu catu[+ḥ][#sa]ptateṣu śrāvaṇa-śukla-dvitīyāyāM. Cave: sva-rājya-saṁvatsare caturṣu var{!ś!}{=ṣ=}}a-śateṣu catu[+ḥ]saptateṣu phalgu{!ṇ!}a-māsa-bahula-pañcamyāṁ.
-->
<l n="b"><supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>ṣ<choice><sic><unclear>ṭh</unclear></sic><corr>ṭ</corr></choice>āśīta-sottarapadeṣv iha vatsa<lb n="20" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">reṣu</supplied>||</l>
<l n="c">śukle tra<unclear>yo</unclear>daśa-dine bhuvi kārttikasya</l>
<l n="d">māsasya sarvva-jana-citta-sukhāvahasya||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="15" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">nīlotpala-pra<lb n="21" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">sr̥ta-re</supplied>ṅv-aruṅ<unclear>āmbu</unclear>-kīrṇṇe</l>
<l n="b">bandhūka-b<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>ṇa-kusumoj<supplied reason="omitted">j</supplied>vala-kānanānte||</l>
<l n="c">nidrā-vyapāya-samaye madhusūdanasya</l>
<l n="d">kā<lb n="22" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">le prabu</supplied>ddha-kumudāgara-śuddha-tāre||</l><!--
L22. F translates kumudāgara as "a bed of waterlilies". Sircar (plausibly) thinks Fleet took āgara as equivalent to āgāra (which is legit); he, instead, says it means amāvasyā. But this too is problematic, since the day is śukla trayodaśī, which is (on or around) the full moon day.
--></lg>
<lg n="16" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">vāpī-taḍāga-sura-sadma-sabhod<sic>u</sic>pāna</l><!--
L22. For °udupāna, Fleet suggests uḍupāna besides udapāna. Sircar notes that udupāna is a known Pkt form of udapāna.
-->
<l n="b">-nānā-vidhopavana-saṅkrama-dīrghik<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ā</supplied><lb n="23" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">bhiḥ||</supplied></l>
<l n="c"><unclear cert="low">tu</unclear>ṣṭām ivābharaṇa-jātibhir aṅganāṁ svāṁ</l><!--
L23. Fleet reads seṣṭām and emends to iṣṭām. Sircar reads śiṣṭām, which is a bit surprising semantically. Looking at photos of the stone, śi is impossible and se is extremely unlikely. I think the correct reading is tu; the right-hand side of the u mātrā is faint but visible to the left of the following subscript ṭ. Reading tuṣṭāṁ here also makes sense of sakala in the next quarter, which Fleet has to emend hard-handedly. (Admittedly, iva should be used enclitically, and in my reading it cannot be seen that way. Still, given the meagre skills of the poet, I think this is easily possible.)
-->
<l n="d">yo garggarā-taṭa-pura<unclear>ṁ</unclear> sa<unclear>ka</unclear>lañ-cakāra||</l><!--
L23. Fleet notes that the name of the Garggarā river must be connected to the name of Gangdhār, shown on his maps as Gangrar, Gungra and Gungurar (and now on Google Maps and Wikipedia as Gangadhar, but this could be a recent popular etymology). The present name of the river (in Fleet's time as in the 21st century) is (Choṭī) Kālīsindh.
--><!--
L23. F and S read sakkalaṁ and emend to samalaṁ. But inscribing kka instead of ma looks like an outrageously stupid mistake. I think what looks like a second crossbar is just a scratch, and sakalaṁ (read or emended) works in the sentence if we read tuṣṭāṁ at the beginning of the line.
--></lg>
<lg n="17" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">rājñas t<sic>ri</sic>tīyam iva cakṣur udā<lb n="24" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">ra-</supplied><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">drṣṭi</supplied><unclear>r</unclear></l>
<l n="b"><unclear>dde</unclear>va-dvijāti-guru-b<unclear>ā</unclear>ndhava-sā<unclear>dhu</unclear>-bhaktaḥ||</l>
<l n="c"><choice><sic>g</sic><corr>ś</corr></choice><unclear>ā</unclear>str<unclear>ai</unclear><supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> <unclear>st</unclear>ute <unclear>c</unclear>a <unclear>v</unclear>inaya-vyavahāra-hīne</l><!--
L24. Fleet restores udāra-vr̥ttir. This is plausible but any number of other restorations are also possible. I prefer dr̥ṣṭi in the context of cakṣuḥ.
--><!--
L24. Sircar (1965:404n7) cites a vārttika on Pāṇini to show that śāstrai (and viṣṇo in l30) is in fact correct, as the visarga may be dropped before s.
-->
<l n="d"><sic>yo pakṣa-pāta-rahito</sic> nida<unclear>dh</unclear><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">ā</supplied><lb n="25" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">ti kāryya</supplied>M||</l><!--
L24-25. V17cd is problematic. Fleet reads ś where I read g and emend to ś - the crossbar is definitely missing; compare gyā for śyā in l27 (there read as g by Fleet too). He otherwise reads as I do but emends/restores to śāstraiḥ stute ca vinaye vyavahāra-hīne yo 'pakṣapāta-rahito nidadhau sva-cintāM, translating "and who, (by nature) not free from partiality (for this particular virtue), has (always) applied (his) thoughts to courteous behaviour, destitute of litigation, which is applauded by the sacred writings". The readings are unclear in many places, but are nonetheless almost certain. However, Fleet's interpretation is tenuous, especially his translation of vyavahāra as litigation, understood in the context as "squabble". While vyavahāra does mean litigation, it does not mean squabble, which would be comparable to using 'procedure' in English as a synonym of squabble. I also find the phrase apakṣapāta-rahita unlikely. My own interpretation is also tenuous, also depends on emendation, and may be too modern, but I still believe it is more likely to be correct than Fleet's. I would translate,"Who administered his duties without partiality toward [a man] praised in the śāstras as well as [one] without education and a profession." I also think a pun is intended with pakṣmapāta (pakṣa does not seem to be attested in the sense of eyelash), so that this "eye" never blinks.
--><!--
L24. Though this does not affect the interpretation of the problematic part, Fleet's nidadhau is unlikely; the left-hand edge of dh is visible at the edge of the stone, so at least part of an au mātrā should also be visible if there had ever been one, so nidadhāti is more plausible. Of his sva-cintāM, only the halanta M is visible here, which is a tiny, simplified and deeply subscript character. Cintām or cittam are still possible, but in light of my interpretation above, I prefer kāryyam.
--></lg>
<lg n="18" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">sarvvasya jīvitam anityam asāravac ca</l>
<l n="b">dol<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>-cal<unclear>ā</unclear>m anuvicintya tathā vibhūtiM||</l><!--
L25. The halanta M is again a small and deeply subscript character, but has the form of a full M including a headmark.
-->
<l n="c">nyāyāga<lb n="26" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">tena vi</supplied>bhavena parāñ ca bhakti<unclear>ṁ</unclear></l><!--
L26. F and S put the restored te at the end of l25, but I don't believe there would have been room for it there. Only the barest edge is lost at the end.
-->
<l n="d">vikkhyāpayann upari cakkra-gadā-dhara<unclear>s</unclear>ya||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="19" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita">
<l n="a">pīna-vyāyata-vr̥tta-lambi-subhujaẖ khaḍga-vraṇ<unclear cert="low">ai</unclear><lb n="27" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">r aṅki</supplied><unclear>t</unclear>aḥ||</l><!--
L26-27. I retain Fleet's restoration, but it is dubious. The ṇ at the end of l26 has no vowel mark on top; it may have an e mātrā attached to its body on the left (compare guṇena in l7), and it may as well have an ā mātrā attached to its body on the right (cf. praṇāma in l11).
-->
<l n="b">karṇṇānta-pratisarppamā<sic>n</sic>a-nayana-<choice><sic>g</sic><corr>ś</corr></choice>yāmo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>vadāta-cchaviḥ||</l><!--
L27. F (and S, following suit) reads °nayana-gyāmāvadāta°, emending to °nayanaḥ śyāmāvadāta°. He translates "who is possessed of a clear skin like that of a young woman of tender age", taking śyāmā in the sense of girl. I find this unlikely (not even a bad poet would choose a word originally meaning "black" to use in a simile for white/bright). gyā is clear, and I agree with the emendation to śyā. However, I'm quite sure we have mo, not mā; there is a small additional vowel mark attached to the left-hand side of the body of m, faint but clear in the stone (compare mo in l21, l28; there the marks are larger but similar, while here the right-hand mark is also small and faint). The sense would be "black [only] as far as his ... eyes are concerned, [but] of bright beauty [otherwise]".
-->
<l n="c">darppāviṣk<sic>ri</sic>ta-<unclear>gh</unclear>ora-śattru-mathano du<unclear>ṣ</unclear><choice><sic><unclear>ṭh</unclear></sic><corr>ṭ</corr></choice><unclear>ā</unclear><unclear cert="low">tm</unclear>a<lb n="28" break="no"/>-<seg met="++"><gap reason="lost" quantity="2" unit="character"/></seg> <unclear>ba</unclear>lī||</l><!--
L27. F reads sora, emending to sāra and translating "enemies when they display energy through pride". I think the character doesn't really look like s (the o mātrā is clear), and it is most likely gho, with a weaker central prong. ghora as a neuter noun is attested quite widely in the sense of "awfulness"; it may also be possible to interpret the compound as "terrible enemies who put [themselves] to the fore out of pride".
--><!--
L27-28. F reads duṣṭhāśva, emending to duṣṭāśva at the end of l27. Sircar offers the conjecture yantā for the lacuna (and also comments that duṣṭāśva means duṣṭajanarūpāśva). ṣṭhā and the emendation to ṣṭā are probably correct, but duṣṭāśva is extremely unlikely (hence the necessity for Sircar's metaphorical understanding). In the rubbing, the last character seems to have a rounded top and a crossbar, so ś is plausible. But in photos of the stone there does not seem to be a crossbar and there is definitely a headmark, so t is much more likely. The restoration of the lacuna is anyone's guess, e.g. jetā or hantā could be supplied, but Sircar's yantā is also fine.
-->
<l n="d">bhaktyā cāsuhr̥dāñ ca b<unclear>ā</unclear>ndhava-samo dha<unclear>rmmā</unclear>rttha-kā<unclear>mo</unclear>dita<unclear>ḥ</unclear>||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="20" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita">
<l n="a">prajñā-śauryya-kulodgato diśi<lb n="29"/><supplied reason="lost">diśi</supplied> prakkhyāta-vīryyo vaśī||</l>
<l n="b">puttre viṣṇubhaṭe tathā haribhaṭe sambaddha-va<sic>ṅ</sic>śa-kriyaḥ||</l>
<l n="c">Eta<lb n="30" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">t pāpa</supplied>-pathāvarodhi vipula<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> śrī-vallabh<choice><sic>e</sic><corr>ai</corr></choice>r ātmaj<unclear>ai</unclear>ḥ||</l>
<l n="d"><unclear>v</unclear>iṣṇo<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> sthānam akārayad bhagava<lb n="31" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">taś śrī</supplied>mān mayūrākṣakaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="21" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">kailāsa-tuṅga-śikhara-ppratimassya yasya</l><!--
L31. F and S print ppratimasya yassya; the actual stone has ppratimassya yasya.
-->
<l n="b">dr̥ṣṭvāk<sic>ri</sic>ti<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> pra<lb n="32" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">muditai</supplied>r vvadanāravind<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ai</corr></choice>ḥ||</l>
<l n="c">vidyādharāḥ ppriyata<unclear>mā</unclear>-sah<choice><sic>ī</sic><corr>i</corr></choice>tā<unclear>ḥ</unclear> suśobham</l>
<l n="d">ādarś<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>-bimba<lb n="33" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">m iva</supplied> yānty avalokayantaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="22" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita">
<l n="a">ya<sic>n</sic> dr̥ṣṭvā sura-sundarī-kara-tala-vyāghr̥ṣṭa-pr̥ṣṭha<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> kṣa<unclear>ṇā</unclear>T||</l><!--
L33. F and S read yān dr̥ṣtvā ... pr̥ṣṭha-kṣaṇaM in v22a, F translating "(and) seeing which (aspect), at the moment when the surface (of the roof) has been polished..." They understand yān as yāṁ, referring back to ākr̥ti in v21. But y at the beginning of the verse has no ā mātrā (it may have an e mātrā, but that would be meaningless), and the halanta character (small, deeply subscript) at the end of the quarter is not M; it is T. (It could also be N, but the preceding ṇā, though unclear, is very likely, and seems to have an ā mātrā attached to its midsection, so T is wanted. Sircar actually notes the reading may be -kṣaṇān.). I think my reading actually makes better sense in addition to fitting the stone better; the only problem is that yan (=yaṁ) is expected to refer back to sthāna in v20, but sthāna is normally neuter. The solution is to supply prāsāda or some other masculine word.
-->
<l n="b">prattyā<lb n="34" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">dhāva</supplied><unclear cert="low">na</unclear>-śaṅkino ratha-hayān āk<sic>ri</sic>ṣya cañcat-saṭā<unclear>N</unclear>||</l><!--
L33-34. F reads+restores pratyāvarttana-śaṅkino, translating "which think (from the reflection) that they are returning towards (themselves)", which I think is absurd. My tentative restoration is pratyādhāvana, but pratyāyodhana or pratyādharṣaṇa may also be possible. In addition, first character of l34 may be ta, ni or ti in addition to na, and ati-śaṅk means "to suspect falsely" which would fit the context prettily, but I can't think of a good word to precede it (we'd probably need a masculine plural in that case). ni-śaṅk is not attested apparently, but may also be possible. pratyāpatti-niśaṅkino? pratyādharṣa-niśaṅkino?
-->
<l n="c">puṇyodarka-mati-prabhāva-munibhis saṁ<lb n="35" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">stū</supplied><unclear>ya</unclear>māno <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>mbare||</l>
<l n="d">saṁra<unclear>bbh</unclear>yāñjali-kuṭ<choice><sic><unclear>p</unclear></sic><corr>m</corr></choice>alan nata-śirā bhītaḥ prayātty a<sic>ṅ</sic>śumāN||</l><!--
L35. F and S read saṁrajyāñjali-kūṭṭalan, emending to saṁkucyāñjali-kuṭmalan[>i.e. °laṁ]. While saṁkucya would make sense in the context, it is a rather heavy-handed emendation (and saṁkucya would normally be intransitive, I'd expect a causative form instead). Moreover, the original reading doesn't look convincingly like jyā. I am fairly certain the character is bbh, which would fit in with the inscription's tendency to geminate before y. bh is also geminated before y in line 15, though bhy in bhagīrathābhyāṁ at the end of l6 is unclear, but lacks the boxy part on top. As for kūṭṭala, compare kumudā° in l22 and kulo° in l28: this is ku, not kū. (Fleet's rubbing has a horizontal bar on the right, between the k's crossbar and the hook of u. But on the photos it is clear that this is a shallow indentation, not an engraved line.) The second character looks the way one would expect ṭpa to look, not ṭṭa. ṭma may have been intended, but if so, it is a fail.
--></lg>
<lg n="23" met="mandākrāntā">
<l n="a">mātr̥̄ṇāñ ca <lb n="36" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">praṇ</supplied><unclear>u</unclear>dita-ghanātyarttha-nihrādinīnāM||</l><!--
L35. Though F (and, as usual, S) reads mātr̥ṇāñ, emending tr̥ to tr̥̄, I'm quite convinced there is an actual r̥̄ mātrā in the inscription here. P1010500 has a good view: we have the base character ta, and what looks like two subscript r-s (or r̥ marks), one more horizontal, the other steeper. (This contra Basham 1984:149 who explicitly notes that the short r̥ is a scribal error.)
--><!--
L36. Fleet restores pramudita, translating, "... Mothers, who utter loud and tremendous shouts in joy, (and) who stir up the (very) oceans with the mighty wind rising from the magic rites of their religion." Willis_2009:179 (probably following Lorenzen 2006) restores pracudita and translates, "An abode of the Mothers whose thunderous cries impel the rain clouds, and whose treasure - the waters - bursts forth with the mighty wind produced by their lyre." pracudita is attested in the MBh in a transitive sense, but I still find it awkward. Before the extant di, there is a character component that is indeed probably an u mātrā of the plain vertical type, so we are looking for a verbal root ending in ud, excluding rud and a few other possibilities. I think praṇudita may be a better choice, though in MW this participle is only attested in the sense of "beaten, struck" - but the verb pra-ṇud carries the primary meanings "to push on , propel , set in motion." Continuing this: if Basham is correct in interpreting ghana as cymbal/gong, which sounds like a very good idea, then praṇudita as "struck" is perfectly in place. And, now that we have a primary meaning for this, I'm actually beginning to like Willis's interpretation as a _secondary_, śliṣṭa meaning.
--><!--
V23a Slurred caesura here and in next quarter.
-->
<l n="b">tāntrodbhūta-prabala-pavanodvarttitāmbhonidhīnāM||</l><!--
L36. Fleet reads tāntra; Sircar prints tantra, though this may be a typo, as he doesn't note that Fleet has a different reading. The ā is quite certain. There are a couple of additional scratches around this t, including an almost vertical one above it, but the one going right and curving down seems to be genuine. Willis_2009:179 interprets tāntra as stringed instrument, which sounds (no pun intended) very convincing to me but I'm very uncomfortable about translating ambhonidhi as "whose treasure - the waters".
--><!--
L36. M. C. Joshi 2002 (Historical and Iconographic Aspects of Śākta Tantrism in Harper & Brown eds. The Roots of Tantra, pp39-55) interprets tāntrodbhūta as a tantric ritual. He further observes that the somewhat obliterated portion of the inscription appears to employ the terms kuṇapa (corpse) and muṇḍa (head), suggesting that it is referring to a shrine dedicated to the goddess Cāmuṇḍā and mātr̥kās and attended by ḍākinīs. There is no "somewhat obliterated portion" - just a couple of characters altogether lost.
-->
<l n="c"><lb n="37"/><seg met="++++--"><gap reason="lost" quantity="6" unit="character"/></seg><unclear>ga</unclear>tam idaṁ ḍākinī-saṁprakīrṇṇaM||</l><!--
L37. The lost text at the beginning of the line seems much too long for the size of the lacuna. The only way this text could have fitted here is if l37 began on the wider base section. The end of l37 is still in the narrower section (l38 is the first that extends to the wider part), but the lines are not straight and the object may not have been perfectly symmetrical, so this is acceptable.
--><!--
L37. At the beginning of the line, gatam (as read by Fleet) is almost certain. It is not entirely impossible that it is ś instead of g or i instead of a, but both are very unlikely.
-->
<l n="d">veśmātyuggraṁ nr̥pati-sacivo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>kāraya<unclear>t p</unclear>uṇya-he<unclear>t</unclear>oḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="24" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita">
<l n="a">pātāl<unclear>o</unclear><lb n="38" break="no"/><seg met="--+-+-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="6" unit="character"/></seg> ratibhir g<unclear>g</unclear>uptaṁ bhujaṅgo<supplied reason="omitted">tta</supplied>maiḥ||</l><!--
L37. F reads pātāle at the end, but le is not possible, because the l has no tail extending over and to the left of the body (compare le in l6, sakalendu; l7, balena); instead, there is a loop over the body so the character must be lo (cf. e.g. avalokayantaḥ in l33). If the reading pātālo is correct, it is probably not a nominative but a compound, say pātālo[*gra] or something. Fleet puts 3 lost syllables in l37 after this, but this is not possible since the surface ends here cleanly; all the lost syllables must be at the beginning of the next line, where the base widens. At the beginning of l38, ra is clear. I can't come up with a plausible restoration. Perhaps pātālopanivāsi-***? pātālauka-***?
--><!--
L37. F emends to bhujaṅgopamaiḥ, which seems awkward to me. On the semantic level, what would resemble a serpent but not be one, yet could be perceived as protecting a well? For sculptures of serpents, they would not say they are comparable to serpents. And on a lower level, I don't really see where in the lacuna we might find room for a subject that is compared to snakes: both pātālo° and °ratibhir are likely to qualify the subject. Much more likely, I think, that the well is said to be protected by great snakes, which are of course sculpted.
-->
<l n="b">śīta-s<surplus>s</surplus>vādu-viśuddha-bhūri-salilaṁ sopān<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>-māloj<supplied reason="omitted">j</supplied>valaM||</l><!--
F reads svādu, but the stone clearly has ssvā. This is interesting as a case of gemination before v; I don't think there are any others. It is definitely not a nominative ending before svādu.
-->
<l n="c"><unclear cert="low">pu</unclear><seg met="++"><gap reason="lost" quantity="2" unit="character"/></seg><lb n="39"/><seg met="--+-+-"><gap reason="lost" quantity="6" unit="character"/></seg>gahanaṁ kṣīrodadhi-sparddhinaM||</l><!--
F reads the last character in l38 as a tentative da; I'm almost certain it's pu, with the right-hand part gone except for part of the u mātrā. He puts four additional lost syllables in l38, which seems a bit too many; I prefer to distribute the akṣaras so that the number of lost syllables at the beginning of l39 is identical to that in l38 and l37.
-->
<l n="d">kūpañ caitad akārayad guṇa-nidhi<unclear>ḥ śrī</unclear>mān ma<unclear>y</unclear>ūrākṣakaḥ||</l><!--
L39. F reads cainam, but the caitad is clear in the stone, even though kūpa ought to be masculine normally.
--></lg>
<lg n="25" met="mandākrāntā">
<l n="a">yāva<unclear cert="low">d bhānor bha</unclear><lb n="40"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">vati</supplied><seg met="--+"><gap reason="lost" quantity="3" unit="character"/></seg> <unclear>sā</unclear>garā ratnavanto</l><!--
L39. Fleet reads yāvacc (Sircar: yāvacca) at the end of l39. The reading is not impossible, but the character after their cc is almost certainly no or ṇa, there seems to be partial bh after that. One would also expect the sun to be mentioned in this verse. The character after va may be dbh (though it's a bit too angular in the upper body), and probably has an ā mātrā. Hence I prefer the conjectural reading+restoration °d bhānor bhavati.
-->
<l n="b">nānā-gulma-druma-vanavatī yāvad urvvī sa<unclear>śai</unclear>lā||</l><!--
L40. lma is unusual; the reading is clear, but it is formed of a (fairly) superscript l and a (just barely) subscript m rather than a mainline l and a subscript m. Probably to make sure there is room for the last line.
-->
<l n="c">yāvac cendu-ggraha-gaṇa-citaṁ vyoma <unclear cert="low">sā</unclear><lb n="41" break="no"/><seg met="+-+="><gap reason="lost" quantity="4" unit="character"/></seg></l><!--
L40. F reads cendur, but there is no superscript r in gga. One could be supplied, but since g may be doubled before r (cf. °tyuggra in l37 above), it isn't required, and the syntax works with a compound.
--><!--
L40. F reads vyoma bhā at the end, restoring bhāsīkaroti (with indur as the subject, see previous comment). I find bhā unlikely; the traces of the character suggest sā, or at least s.
-->
<l n="d"><supplied reason="lost">tā</supplied><unclear>va</unclear>t kīrttir bbhavatu vipulā śrī-mayūrākṣakasye<surplus><unclear cert="low">d</unclear>i</surplus>ti||</l><!--
L41. Fleet notes that the ending °syediti is probably a conflation of °syeti with °sya syād iti. The reading is clear (P1010502). Fleet does not print the double daṇḍa here, but that is also clear.
--></lg>
<p>siddhir astu</p>
</div>
<div type="apparatus">
<listApp>
<app loc="line">
<lem/>
<rdg source="bib:AuthorYear_01"/>
</app>
</listApp>
</div>
<div type="translation" source="bib:AuthorYear_01"><!--Indicate @resp or change @source when a translation is added -->
</div>
<div type="commentary">
</div>
<div type="bibliography">
<p/>
<listBibl type="primary">
<bibl n="siglum"><ptr target="bib:AuthorYear_01"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl type="secondary">
<bibl n="siglum"><ptr target="bib:AuthorYear_01"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>