Mandsaur Inscription of Nirdoṣa
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨1⟩ siddhaM sa jayati jagatāṁ patiḥ pinākī smita-rava-gītiṣu yasya danta-kāntiḥ| dyutir iva taḍitāṁ niśi sphurantī tirayati ca sphuṭayaty adaś ca viśvaM|| svayambhūr bhūtānāṁ sthiti-laya-[samu]-
⟨2⟩ tpatti-vidhiṣu prayukto yenājñāṁ vahati bhuvanānāṁ vidhr̥taye| pitr̥tvaṁ cānīto jagati garimāṇaṁ gamayatā sa śambhur bhūyā¿n?si pratidiśatu bhadrāṇi bhava[tāM]|| phaṇa-maṇi-guru-bhā(r)[ākk]r[ā]-
⟨3⟩ nti-dūrāvanamraṁ sthagayati rucam indor mmaṇḍalaṁ yasya mūrdhnāM sa śirasi vinibadhnan randhriṇīm asthi-mālāṁ sr̥jatu bhava-sr̥jo vaḥ kleśa-bhaṅgaṁ bhujaṅgaḥ|| ṣaṣṭyā saha(s)raiḥ sagarātmajānāṁ khāta[ḥ]
⟨4⟩ kha-tulyāṁ rucam ādadhānaḥ| Asyodapānādhipateś cirāya yaśā¿n?si pāyāt payasāṁ vidhātā|| Atha jayati janendraḥ śrī-yaśodharmma-nāmā pramada-vanam ivāntaḥ śattru-sainyaṁ vigāhya vraṇa-
⟨5⟩ -kisalaya-bhaṅgair yyo ⟨’⟩ṅga-bhūṣāṁ vidhatte taruṇa-taru-latāvad (v)īra-kīrttīr vvin¿a?mya|| ājau jitī vijayate jagatīm punaś ca śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-narādhipatiḥ sa Eva| prakhyāta Aulikara-lāñchana Ātma-
⟨6⟩ va¿ṅ?śo yenoditodita-padaṁ gamito garīyaḥ|| prāco nr̥pān subr̥hataś ca bahūn udīcaḥ sāmnā yudhā ca vaśa-gān pravidhāya yena| nāmāparaṁ jagati kāntam ado durāpaṁ rājādhirāja-parame-
⟨7⟩ śvara Ity udūḍhaM|| snigdha-śyāmāmbudābhaiḥ sthagita-dinakr̥to yajvanām ājya-dhūmair ambho meghyaṁ maghonāvadhiṣu vidadhatā gāḍha-sampanna-sasyāḥ| saṁharṣād vāṇinīnāṁ kara-rabhasa-hr̥to-
⟨8⟩ dyāna-cūtāṅkurāgrā rājanvanto ramante bhuja-vijita-bhuvā bhūrayo yena deśāḥ|| yasyotketubhir unmada-dvipa-kara-vyāviddha-lodhra-drumair uddhūtena vanādhvani dhvani-nadad-vindhyādri-randhrair bbalaiḥ bāle-
⟨9⟩ ya-cchavi-dhūsareṇa rajasā mandā¿ṅ?śu saṁlakṣyate paryyāvr̥tta-śikhaṇḍi-candraka Iva dhyāmaṁ raver mmaṇḍalaM|| tasya prabhor vva¿ṅ?śa-kr̥tāṁ nr̥pāṇāṁ pādāśrayād viśruta-puṇya-kīrttiḥ| bhr̥tyaḥ sva-naibhr̥tya-jitā-
⟨10⟩ ri-ṣaṭka Āsīd vasīyān kila ṣaṣṭhidattaḥ|| himavata Iva gāṅgas tuṅga-namraḥ pravāhaḥ śaśabhr̥ta Iva revā-vāri-rāśiḥ prathīyāN param abhigamanīyaḥ śuddhimān anvavāyo yata Udita-gari-
⟨11⟩ mṇas tāyate naigamānāM|| tasyānukūlaḥ kulajāt kalattrāt sutaḥ prasūto yaśasāṁ prasūtiḥ| harer ivā¿ṅ?śaṁ vaśinaṁ varārhaṁ varāhadāsaṁ yam udāharanti|| sukr̥ti-viṣayi-tuṅgaṁ rūḍha-mūlaṁ
⟨12⟩ dharāyāṁ sthitim apagata-bhaṅgāṁ stheyasīm ādadhānaM guru śikharam ivādres tat-kulaṁ svātma-bhūtyā ravir iva ravikīrttiḥ suprakāśaṁ vyadhatta|| bibhratā śubhram abhra¿ṅ?śi smārttaṁ vartmocitaṁ satāM na visaṁ{(v)}vā-
⟨13⟩ ditā yena kalāv api kulīnatā|| dhuta-dhī-dīdhiti-dhvāntān havirbhuja IvādhvarāN bhānuguptā tataḥ sādhvī tanayāṁs trīn ajījanaT|| bhagavad-doṣa Ity āsīt prathamaḥ kāryya-vartmasu| Āla-
⟨14⟩ mbanaṁ bāndhavānām andhakānām ivoddhavaḥ|| bahu-naya-vidhi-vedhā gahvare ⟨’⟩py artha-mārgge vidura Iva vidūraṁ prekṣayā prekṣamāṇaḥ| vacana-racana-bandhe saṁskr̥ta-prākr̥te yaḥ kavibhir udi-
⟨15⟩ ta-rāgaṁ gīyate gīr-abhijñaḥ|| praṇidhi-dr̥g-anugantrā yasya bauddhena cākṣṇā na niśi tanu davīyo vāsty adr̥ṣṭaṁ dharittryāM padam udayi dadhāno ⟨’⟩nantaraṁ tasya cābhūt sa bhayam abhayadatto nā(ma)-
⟨16⟩ (v)i[ghna?](n?) p(r)ajānāM|| vindhyasyāvandhya-karmmā śikhara-taṭa-patat-(p)āṇḍu-revāmbu-rāśer ggolāṅgūlaiḥ sahelaṁ pluti-namita-taroḥ pāriyāttrasya cādreḥ| Ā sindhor antarālaṁ nija-śuci-sacivāddhyā⸴-
⟨17⟩ sit[ā](n)[e]ka-deśaṁ rājasthānīya-vr̥t⟨t⟩yā suragurur iva yo varṇṇināṁ bhūtaye ⟨’⟩pāT|| vihita-sakala-(v)arṇṇāsaṅkaraṁ śānta-ḍimbaṁ kr̥ta Iva kr̥tam etad yena rājyaṁ nirādhi| sa dhuram ayam idānīṁ
⟨18⟩ doṣakumbhasya sūnur guru vahati tad-ūḍhāṁ dharmmato dharmmadoṣaḥ|| sva-sukham anabhivā¿c?chan durggame ⟨’⟩ddhvany asaṅgāṁ dhuram atiguru-bhārāṁ yo dadhad bhartur arthe| vahati nr̥pati-veṣaṁ kevalaṁ lakṣma-māttraṁ
⟨19⟩ valinam iva vilambaṁ kambalaṁ bāhuleyaḥ|| upahita-hita-rakṣā-maṇḍano jāti-ratnair bhuja Iva pr̥thulāṁsas tasya dakṣaḥ kanīyāN mahad idam udapānaṁ khānayām āsa bibhra-
⟨20⟩ c (ch)r(u)ti-hr̥daya-nitāntānandi nirddoṣa-nāma|| sukhāśreya-cchāyaṁ pariṇati-hita-svādu-phala-daṁ gajendreṇārugṇaṁ drumam iva kr̥tāntena balinā| pitr̥vyaṁ proddiśya priyam abhayadattaṁ pr̥-
⟨21⟩ thu-dhiyā prathīyas tenedaṁ kuśalam iha karmmoparacitaM|| pañcasu śateṣu śaradāṁ yāteṣv ekānna-navati-sahiteṣu| mālava-gaṇa-sthiti-vaśāt kāla-jñānāya likhiteṣu|| ya-
⟨22⟩ smin kāle kala-mr̥du-girāṁ kokilānāṁ pralāpā bhindantīva smara-śara-nibhāḥ proṣitānāṁ manāṁsi| bhr̥ṅgālīnāṁ dhvanir anu-vanaṁ (t)āra-mandraś ca yasminn ādhūta-jyaṁ dhanur iva nadac chrūyate puṣpa-
⟨23⟩ -ketoḥ|| priyatama-kupitānāṁ r(ā)maya(n) baddha-rāgaṁ kisalayam iva mugdhaṁ mānasaṁ māninīnāM Upanayati nabhasvān māna-bhaṅgāya yasmin kusuma-samaya-māse tattra nirmmāpito ⟨’⟩yaM||
⟨24⟩ yāvat tuṅgair udanvān kiraṇa-samuday(ā)saṅga-kāntaṁ taraṅgair āliṅgann indu-bimbaṁ gurubhir iva bhujaiḥ saṁvidhatte suhr̥ttā(M) bibhrat saudhānta-lekhā-valaya-parigatiṁ muṇḍa-mālām ivāyaṁ sat-kūpas tāvad ā-
⟨25⟩ stām amr̥ta-sama-rasa-svaccha-viṣyanditāmbuḥ|| dhīmā¿ṁ? dakṣo dakṣiṇaḥ satya-sandho hrīmā¿ṁ? cchūro vr̥ddha-sevī kr̥tajñaḥ(|) baddhotsāhaḥ svāmi-kāryeṣv akhedī nirddoṣo ⟨’⟩yaṁ pātu dharmmaṁ cirāya Utkīrṇṇā govi(nde)na||
Bibliography
First edited in Fleet 1886. Republished in Fleet 1888. Corrections to translation as suggested by Kielhorn in Fleet 1889, p. 220. Further corrections to text and translation in Kielhorn 1891, p. 189. More corrections in Durgâprasâd & Parab 1892, pp. 112–116. Summarised in Trivedi & Trivedi 2001, pp. 29–30 (No. 18). Identity or distinctness of Yaśodharman and Viṣṇuvardhana discussed in Hoernle 1889, p. 96, Fleet 1890, p. 227, Bhandarkar 1902, p. 392 and Hoernle 1903, p. 50, n. 1. Further discussion in Sircar [1963] 1959–1960, Mirashi 1980.
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00097). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.
Secondary
Fleet, John Faithfull. 1888. Inscriptions of the early Gupta kings and their successors. First edition. Vol. 3. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing. Item 35.
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 9.
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 53.
<?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>Mandsaur Inscription of Nirdoṣa</title>
<title type="alt">Mandasor Stone Inscription of Yaśodharman and Vishnuvardhana, Mandasor Inscription of V. S. 589</title>
<respStmt>
<resp key="creator"/>
<persName ref="part:daba">
<forename>Dániel</forename>
<surname>Balogh</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
<funder>European Research Council (ERC), grant agreement no 809994</funder>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority><ref target="https://dharmalekha.info">DHARMA</ref></authority>
<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>
<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSSiddham00097.xml</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-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA 4.0</licence></availability>
<date from="2019" to="2026">2019-2026</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<msDesc>
<msIdentifier>
<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>
<idno/>
</msIdentifier>
<msContents>
<summary/>
</msContents>
<physDesc>
<handDesc>
<p/>
</handDesc>
</physDesc>
</msDesc>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<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>
<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 using a rubbing stored in the British Museum and digital photos supplied by the National Museum of India, New Delhi, verified by autopsy at the latter museum. Restorations, unless otherwise noted, follow Fleet 1888; reference is also made to Sircar's SI. Version of January 2019. Comments below are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly researched or considered opinion.
--><!--
L1. Punctuation marks transcribed as | at half-verses are short horizontals as in IN00094 and IN00095. Those transcribed as double daṇḍas are double verticals with a hook on the left one.
--><p><lb n="1"/>siddhaM</p><!--
L1. Siddham is inline.
--><!--
L1. The halanta M is a reduced subscript character with a line well above it.
--><lg n="1" met="puṣpitāgrā">
<l n="a">sa jayati jagatāṁ patiḥ pinākī</l>
<l n="b">smita-rava-gītiṣu yasya danta-kāntiḥ|</l><!--
L1. The halfverse sign is clear in the original stone.
--><!--
L1. Fleet translates "in whose songs, hummed with smiles", which seems shaky; I'd rather assume these are three different actions that make his teeth flash.
-->
<l n="c">dyutir iva taḍitāṁ niśi sphurantī</l>
<l n="d">tirayati ca sphuṭayaty adaś ca viśvaM||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="2" met="śikhariṇī">
<l n="a">svayambhūr bhūtānāṁ sthiti-laya-<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->samu</supplied><lb n="2" break="no"/>tpatti-vidhiṣu</l>
<l n="b">prayukto yenājñāṁ vahati bhuvanānāṁ vidhr̥taye|</l>
<l n="c">pitr̥tvaṁ cānīto jagati garimāṇaṁ gamayatā</l>
<l n="d">sa śambhur bhūyā<sic>n</sic>si pratidiśatu bhadrāṇi bhava<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->tāM</supplied>||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="3" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">phaṇa-maṇi-guru-bhā<unclear>r</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ākk</supplied>r<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ā</supplied><lb n="3" break="no"/>nti-dūrāvanamraṁ</l>
<l n="b">sthagayati rucam indor mmaṇḍalaṁ yasya mūrdhnāM</l><!--
L3. Halanta M doubles as punctuation mark.
-->
<l n="c">sa śirasi vinibadhnan randhriṇīm asthi-mālāṁ</l>
<l n="d">sr̥jatu bhava-sr̥jo vaḥ kleśa-bhaṅgaṁ bhujaṅgaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="4" met="upajāti">
<l n="a">ṣaṣṭyā saha<unclear>s</unclear>raiḥ sagarātmajānāṁ</l>
<l n="b">khāta<supplied reason="lost">ḥ</supplied> <lb n="4"/>kha-tulyāṁ rucam ādadhānaḥ|</l>
<l n="c">Asyodapānādhipateś cirāya</l>
<l n="d">yaśā<sic>n</sic>si pāyāt payasāṁ vidhātā||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="5" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">Atha jayati janendraḥ śrī-yaśodharmma-nāmā</l>
<l n="b">pramada-vanam ivāntaḥ śattru-sainyaṁ vigāhya</l><!--
L5. Fleet translates pramadavanam as "a grove of thornapple-trees" and this meaning is given in MW as L, but I would reject it and translate "a pleasure grove".
-->
<l n="c">vraṇa<lb n="5" break="no"/>-kisalaya-bhaṅgair yyo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>ṅga-bhūṣāṁ vidhatte</l>
<l n="d">taruṇa-taru-latāvad <unclear>v</unclear>īra-kīrttīr vvin<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>mya||</l>
</lg><!--
L5. F reads vināmya and SI follows suit. The stone has vinamya; there is definitely no vowel mark to the right of n. There is damage above n, but a śiromātrā for n is unlikely to begin with, and if there had been one, it should have been attached to the right-hand tip of the headmark, where a trace should be visible but isn't. Vināmya must still have been the intent, though according to SI the use of vināmya instead of vinamayya is "not grammatically happy".
--><!--
L5. Fleet (CII3) holds Yaśodharman and Viṣṇuvardhana to be two different people, translating janendra as "tribal ruler" and narādhipati as "king of men". Hoernle_1889:96 takes them to be the same, translating both janendra and narādhipati as "tribal chieftain" and arguing that this was Yaśodharman's original title, but he then became an emperor and took the name Viṣṇuvardhana and the titles rājādhirāja and parameśvara. Fleet_1890:227 reacts to this saying he has no special reason to urge against this view, but cannot accept it before further consideration, because of "the apparently pointed contrast of janêndra ... with narâdhipati", the use of punaś ca, and the use of sa eva which he says should be sa eṣa if the two were identical. I disagree with the first and the third, but the second, punaś ca, is indeed strange. (Is it perhaps used because Hoernle is right and the two verses describe two stages in his life?) On a different note, BhandarkarRG_1902:392 supposes that Viṣṇuvardhana was an ancestor of Yaśodharman, the first of his house who rose to emperorhood. Hoernle_1903:550n1 counters Fleet saying sa eva actually affirms that the two are the same, and their styles are not official titles like mahārāja but "synonymic descriptions of sovereignty or chiefship." SI leans toward identity, stressing the use of sa eva and the facts that Mandsaur was YD's capital and the engraver was an officer of YD as per IN00094:9.
--><lg n="6" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">ājau jitī vijayate jagatīm punaś ca</l>
<l n="b">śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-narādhipatiḥ sa Eva|</l>
<l n="c">prakhyāta Aulikara-lāñchana Ātma<lb n="6" break="no"/>va<sic>ṅ</sic>śo</l><!--
L5. Note the initial au.
--><!--
L5. Fleet (1888:151 and 151-152n4) translates "aulikara-crest", proposing hot-rayed or cool-rayed to interpret aulikara, and insists that lāñchana is a sigil used on copper seals and is distinct from the dhvajas of rulers. Sircar (SI 413n3) summarises Fleet and seems to concur except for noting that for some dynasties the lāñchana and dhvaja was the same and for adding that Aulikara was Yaśodharman's family name. I would go further and simply translate lāñchana as "name" here, though that meaning is only found in lexicons according to MW.
-->
<l n="d">yenoditodita-padaṁ gamito garīyaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="7" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">prāco nr̥pān subr̥hataś ca bahūn udīcaḥ</l>
<l n="b">sāmnā yudhā ca vaśa-gān pravidhāya yena|</l><!--
L6. Fleet prints the punctuation after v7b as supplied, but it is discernible in the rubbing and in the original.
-->
<l n="c">nāmāparaṁ jagati kāntam ado durāpaṁ</l>
<l n="d">rājādhirāja-parame<lb n="7" break="no"/>śvara Ity udūḍhaM||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="8" met="sragdharā">
<l n="a">snigdha-śyāmāmbudābhaiḥ sthagita-dinakr̥to yajvanām ājya-dhūmair</l>
<l n="b">ambho meghyaṁ maghonāvadhiṣu vidadhatā gāḍha-sampanna-sasyāḥ|</l>
<l n="c">saṁharṣād vāṇinīnāṁ kara-rabhasa-hr̥to<lb n="8" break="no"/>dyāna-cūtāṅkurāgrā</l><!--
L8. Slurred caesura at sragdharā2 in 8c.
-->
<l n="d">rājanvanto ramante bhuja-vijita-bhuvā bhūrayo yena deśāḥ||</l><!--
L8. The ye of yena is not the standard form, with a full looped tripartite y and a vowel mark on top. This one has just a low-lying loop at the bottom left, and the e mātrā extends horizontally from the top of the central vertical. The reason for the variant form is probably the extravagant o mātrā on the preceding yo. (Or it could simply be an alternative form for ye with a pr̥ṣṭhamātrā instead of śiromātrā.)
--></lg>
<lg n="9" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita">
<l n="a">yasyotketubhir unmada-dvipa-kara-vyāviddha-lodhra-drumair</l>
<l n="b">uddhūtena vanādhvani dhvani-nadad-vindhyādri-randhrair bbalaiḥ</l>
<l n="c">bāle<lb n="9" break="no"/>ya-cchavi-dhūsareṇa rajasā mandā<sic>ṅ</sic>śu saṁlakṣyate</l><!--
L9. Fleet actually reads dhūmareṇa here. The reading dhūsareṇa was probably first proposed (apparently as an emendation) in Durgaprasad_Parab_1892 and approved by Kielhorn_1891 (Kielhorn_1891 seems to be in fact later than Durgaprasad_Parab_1892). Ma and sa can look very similar in the inscription, but this one is certainly sa.
-->
<l n="d">paryyāvr̥tta-śikhaṇḍi-candraka Iva dhyāmaṁ raver mmaṇḍalaM||<!--
L9. Fleet and Sircar both print paryā, but this must be a typo; the reading is paryyā.
--><!--
L9. The halanta M at the end of v9 occupies no horizontal space, being between and below la and the punctuation mark, in line with the subscript y of tasya. It may be a subsequent addition, but I believe it is more likely to be a calligraphic choice. See also line 11.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="10" met="indravajrā">
<l n="a">tasya prabhor vva<sic>ṅ</sic>śa-kr̥tāṁ nr̥pāṇāṁ</l>
<l n="b">pādāśrayād viśruta-puṇya-kīrttiḥ|</l>
<l n="c">bhr̥tyaḥ sva-naibhr̥tya-jitā<lb n="10" break="no"/>ri-ṣaṭka</l><!--
L10. F translates vasīyān as very excellent. SI concurs and gives this meaning in a footnote. Since we are now quite sure they were indeed a merchant family, perhaps vasīyān simply means "very rich".
--><!--
L10. F gives the six enemies as desire, wrath, covetousness, bewilderment, pride and envy. SI provides the Sanskrit: kāmakrodhas tathā lobho madamohau ca matsaraḥ.
-->
<l n="d">Āsīd vasīyān kila ṣaṣṭhidattaḥ||</l><!--
L10. The la of kila has a stem extended upward and ending in a blade ornament like vowel marks. Compare e.g. saṁlakṣyate in l9 for a regular la.
--></lg>
<lg n="11" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">himavata Iva gāṅgas tuṅga-namraḥ pravāhaḥ</l>
<l n="b">śaśabhr̥ta Iva revā-vāri-rāśiḥ prathīyāN</l><!--
L10. The halanta N is also a reduced subscript form. It has a line above it and there is no additional punctuation mark.
-->
<l n="c">param abhigamanīyaḥ śuddhimān anvavāyo</l>
<l n="d">yata Udita-gari<lb n="11" break="no"/>mṇas tāyate naigamānāM||</l><!--
L11. The halanta M at the end of v11 occupies no horizontal space, being between and below the ā of nā and the hook of the punctuation mark. It may be a subsequent addition, but I believe it is more likely to be a calligraphic choice. See also line 9 above.
--></lg>
<lg n="12" met="upajāti">
<l n="a">tasyānukūlaḥ kulajāt kalattrāt</l>
<l n="b">sutaḥ prasūto yaśasāṁ prasūtiḥ|</l>
<l n="c">harer ivā<sic>ṅ</sic>śaṁ vaśinaṁ varārhaṁ</l>
<l n="d">varāhadāsaṁ yam udāharanti||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="13" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">sukr̥ti-viṣayi-tuṅgaṁ rūḍha-mūlaṁ <lb n="12"/>dharāyāṁ</l>
<l n="b">sthitim apagata-bhaṅgāṁ stheyasīm ādadhānaM</l><!--
L11. Note that v13 is obviously meant to be a śleṣa with the mountain and the family both being described in the first two quarters.
--><!--
L11. The l of mūlaṁ is again vertically extended.
--><!--
L12. Here too the halanta M seems to double as a punctuation mark.
-->
<l n="c">guru śikharam ivādres tat-kulaṁ svātma-bhūtyā</l><!--
L12. Fleet and Sircar both print guru-śikharam with a hyphen, but I see no need for a compound here; śikhara in the sense of peak is attested in both masculine and neuter according to MW.
--><!--
L12. I construe tat-kulaṁ as a tatpuruṣa, assuming that Ravikīrti was an outsider such as a poet patronised by the family. (Bhāravi?) Tatpuruṣa is also good if Ravikīrti was Varāhadāsa's son or brother, but if Ravikīrti was Varāhadāsa by another name, then tat kulam as separate words is better.
-->
<l n="d">ravir iva ravikīrttiḥ suprakāśaṁ vyadhatta||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="14" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">bibhratā śubhram abhra<sic>ṅ</sic>śi</l>
<l n="b">smārttaṁ vartmocitaṁ satāM</l><!--
L12. Again no punctuation next to the halanta character. So too repeatedly below - no more separate comments on these.
-->
<l n="c">na visaṁ<surplus><unclear>v</unclear></surplus>vā<lb n="13" break="no"/>ditā yena</l>
<l n="d">kalāv api kulīnatā||<!--
L13. Fleet reads visaṁbvā at the end of the line and corrects to visaṁva, where the final a must be a typo. In any case, I consider saṁbvā an unlikely mistake to make, whereas saṁvvā is quite natural (compare saṁvvat, which is a fairly common spelling). The upper character of the ligature does indeed look rather boxy, but so do some definite v-s (compare e.g. IvādhvarāN and vartmasu in l13), and this character has a headmark, while b does not. So I read it as a slightly malformed v.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="15" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">dhuta-dhī-dīdhiti-dhvāntān</l>
<l n="b">havirbhuja IvādhvarāN</l><!--
L13. The halanta N with line above doubles as punctuation.
-->
<l n="c">bhānuguptā tataḥ sādhvī</l>
<l n="d">tanayāṁs trīn ajījanaT||</l><!--
L13. Interestingly, the halanta T character has a curl at the bottom right, resembling an u mātrā. Can this be an early form of the modern virāma? The T itself is larger than before and it is not as deeply subscript, but nor is it a regular ta plus the curl. Also, note that the double punctuation sign is not replaced by the halanta character.
--></lg>
<lg n="16" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">bhagavad-doṣa Ity āsīt</l>
<l n="b">prathamaḥ kāryya-vartmasu|</l>
<l n="c">Āla<lb n="14" break="no"/>mbanaṁ bāndhavānām</l>
<l n="d">andhakānām ivoddhavaḥ||</l><!--
L14. Neither Fleet nor Sircar comment on Uddhava and the Andhakas. From Mani's Puranic Encyclopaedia: the Andhakas seem to be the Yādavas (named after Andhaka, a famous descendant of Yadu and ancestor of Kr̥ṣṇa). Uddhava was a disciple of Br̥haspati [hence an excellent minister] (MBh Ādiparvan 220.30 according to Vettam Mani, 213.26 in etext, ... uddhavaś ca mahāyaśāḥ| sākṣād br̥haspateḥ śiṣyo mahābuddhir mahāyaśāḥ). Moreover, Uddhava was the son of Devabhāga (Harivaṁśa 24.25, uddhavo devabhāgasya mahābhāgaḥ suto 'bhavat), who in turn is the brother of Vasudeva, father of Kr̥ṣṇa (Hariv. 24.22-15). For Uddhava as minister to Yadus, see also Harivaṁśa Appendix I.31.98, ... uddhavaṁ nītimattaram | yasya nītiṁ samāśritya jīvanti yadavaḥ sukham ||. Where I am getting at with this: is this an indication that the Naigamas not only served as dynastic ministers to the Aulikaras, but also intermarried with them? In Fleet's translation "the prop of his relatives in the paths of religious actions" is very neutral. Since Uddhava's claim to fame was his excellence as a minister, and since his kings were his relatives, I don't think this stanza is simply about Doṣa being nice to his poorer relatives.
--></lg>
<lg n="17" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">bahu-naya-vidhi-vedhā gahvare <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>py artha-mārgge</l><!--
L14. Note lack of gemination in artha.
-->
<l n="b">vidura Iva vidūraṁ prekṣayā prekṣamāṇaḥ|</l>
<l n="c">vacana-racana-bandhe saṁskr̥ta-prākr̥te yaḥ</l>
<l n="d">kavibhir udi<lb n="15" break="no"/>ta-rāgaṁ gīyate gīr-abhijñaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="18" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">praṇidhi-dr̥g-anugantrā yasya bauddhena cākṣṇā</l>
<l n="b">na niśi tanu davīyo vāsty adr̥ṣṭaṁ dharittryāM</l><!--
L14. Fleet takes v18ab as a description of Abhayadatta but I wonder, isn't this rather still about Doṣa? Also, I think his mental eyes followed the eyes of his (actual) spies, while Fleet translates "whose eye of intellect, which served him like the eyes of a spy" [so does he translate anugantr̥ as "imitating" or does he disregard that word?]. Fleet also, for some reason, takes dharitryām with padam udayi dadhāno, though I think it should obviously go with na ... asti ... adr̥ṣṭaṁ. Kielhorn (in #Fleet_1889:220) also pointed this out, and so does Sircar.
-->
<l n="c">padam udayi dadhāno <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>nantaraṁ tasya cābhūt</l>
<l n="d">sa bhayam abhayadatto nā<unclear>ma</unclear><lb n="16" break="no"/><unclear>v</unclear>i<supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ghna</supplied><unclear cert="low">n</unclear> p<unclear>r</unclear>ajānāM||<!--
L16. Fleet restores cinvan, translating "collecting (in order to dispel it) the fear of (his) subjects(?)". Kielhorn (in #Fleet_1889:220) suggests vighnan instead, which Sircar adopts. I follow. I think vi is a bit more likely than ci, and vi-han is attested (e.g. MBh) in the sense of "ward off." Nothing of the second character is visible in the rubbing, photo or the original stone: this is lost completely. The n prefixed to pra is a bit uncertain, but almost clear in the original; also note that the p part is clearly below where it should be: the left-hand stem is full height, but the right-hand stem ends about midline, which shows that there is another consonant before it. In the rubbing, most of pra is indistinct, but there is a credible impression of a prefixed n.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="19" met="sragdharā">
<l n="a">vindhyasyāvandhya-karmmā śikhara-taṭa-patat-<unclear>p</unclear>āṇḍu-revāmbu-rāśer</l>
<l n="b">ggolāṅgūlaiḥ sahelaṁ pluti-namita-taroḥ pāriyāttrasya cādreḥ|</l><!--
L16. The tp of patat-pāṇḍu looks more like tm. The intent must have been tp.
--><!--
L16. Sircar corrects Fleet's sahelaṁ to sahela-. However, the anusvāra is clear in the stone.
-->
<l n="c">Ā sindhor antarālaṁ nija-śuci-sacivāddhyā<g ref="sym:shortBar" type="connector">§</g><lb n="17" break="no"/>sit<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ā</supplied><unclear>n</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->e</supplied>ka-deśaṁ</l><!--
L16. There seems to be a short, commalike, almost-vertical line at the very end of the line. It is distinct from the anusvāra of idānīṁ below and probably functions as a space filler because ddhyā does not reach the margin (since it had to be shifted left to accommodate nīṁ below).
--><!--
L17. Fleet prints deśāṁ for deśaṁ, typo.
-->
<l n="d">rājasthānīya-vr̥t<supplied reason="omitted">t</supplied>yā suragurur iva yo varṇṇināṁ bhūtaye <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>pāT||</l><!--
L17. The halanta T again has the u-like sign below it that may be a virāma.
--></lg>
<lg n="20" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">vihita-sakala-<unclear>v</unclear>arṇṇāsaṅkaraṁ śānta-ḍimbaṁ</l><!--
L17. The character rṇṇā is peculiar: not only the ā mātrā, but the repha too is attached to the right-hand side of the character. Still, Fleet and Sircar must be correct in reading rṇṇā rather than just ṇṇā; compare ṇā in l9 and l23. Note however that rṇṇi in this line has a regular repha. The reason for this strange shape may be plu above, which hangs down very far, almost to the top right of the ṇṇ ligature.
--><!--
L17. Obscured caesura in v20a.
-->
<l n="b">kr̥ta Iva kr̥tam etad yena rājyaṁ nirādhi|</l>
<l n="c">sa dhuram ayam idānīṁ <lb n="18"/>doṣakumbhasya sūnur</l>
<l n="d">guru vahati tad-ūḍhāṁ dharmmato dharmmadoṣaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="21" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">sva-sukham anabhivā<choice><sic>c</sic><corr>ñ</corr></choice>chan durggame <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>ddhvany asaṅgāṁ</l><!--
L18. Fleet reads anati°; the reading anabhi° was first suggested by Kielhorn_1891 and endorsed by SI.
-->
<l n="b">dhuram atiguru-bhārāṁ yo dadhad bhartur arthe|</l>
<l n="c">vahati nr̥pati-veṣaṁ kevalaṁ lakṣma-māttraṁ</l>
<l n="d"><lb n="19"/>valinam iva vilambaṁ kambalaṁ bāhuleyaḥ||</l><!--
L19. Fleet translates "as a bull carries a wrinkled pendulous dew-lap", noting that bāhuleya is not found in dictionaries in the sense of "bull" but the meaning was explained to him by Pandit Durga Prasad of Jaipur. It makes good sense. Sircar adds that bāhuleya is from bahulā, "cow" - though this meaning, according to MW, is only found in lexicons. (Note also the use of bāleya for donkey above.) SI also adds a footnote saying balin = weighty, but his text still has valinam. The reading is definitely valinam, and I think it is much more likely derived from vali, wrinkle, than from bala.
--></lg>
<lg n="22" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">upahita-hita-rakṣā-maṇḍano jāti-ratnair</l><!--
L19. Kielhorn_1891 proposes reading jñāti instead of jāti here, saying there may be traces of a subscript ñ here. Fleet translates "Daksha,-invested with the decoration of the protection of friends, as if he were (his) broad-shouldered (right) arm (decorated) with choice jewels". Kielhorn says there is no authority for understanding jāti-ratna as "choice jewel" and proposes to translate (reading jñāti): "His dexterous younger brother, by excellent relatives invested, as with a decoration, with the protection of friends, - being as it were (Dharmadôsha's) broad-shouldered arm, to which excellent relatives had fastened a beneficial ornament to guard (against evil)". The idea sounds good, but the reading is out of the question, there is nothing below jā.
-->
<l n="b">bhuja Iva pr̥thulāṁsas tasya dakṣaḥ kanīyāN</l>
<l n="c">mahad idam udapānaṁ khānayām āsa bibhra<lb n="20" break="no"/>c</l><!--
L19. Fleet reads or at least prints khātayām; Sircar, correctly, has khānayām.
-->
<l n="d"><unclear>ch</unclear>r<unclear>u</unclear>ti-hr̥daya-nitāntānandi nirddoṣa-nāma||</l><!--
L20. cchr is almost clear in the stone in spite of the damage; the u is indistinct.
--><!--
L19-20. I'm not sure about the names here. Fleet takes Dakṣa to be the proper name of the brother, but also says he bore the name of "the faultless one." See also v28 at the end, where again Fleet takes Dakṣa as a name and nirdoṣa as a common adjective, while I'd much rather take these the other way round. Kielhorn_1891 believes the name is Nirdoṣa. Salomon takes both Dakṣa and Nirdoṣa as his name. Given all the other doṣas in the family, perhaps Nirdoṣa is more likely to be his primary name and dakṣa an established epithet. However, I still think it is possible that, Mudrārākṣasa-wise, the name nirdoṣa has political overtones, and this guy may have betrayed his royal family and later repented and been pardoned. This may even be implied in the phrasing which introduces him as Dakṣa, then says that he built the well while he was bearing the gladdening name Nirdoṣa (i.e. after he was granted a royal pardon, which made him understandably happy). The name of his uncle Abhayadatta may be similarly loaded.
--></lg>
<lg n="23" met="śikhariṇī">
<l n="a">sukhāśreya-cchāyaṁ pariṇati-hita-svādu-phala-daṁ</l>
<l n="b">gajendreṇārugṇaṁ drumam iva kr̥tāntena balinā|</l>
<l n="c">pitr̥vyaṁ proddiśya priyam abhayadattaṁ pr̥<lb n="21" break="no"/>thu-dhiyā</l>
<l n="d">prathīyas tenedaṁ kuśalam iha karmmoparacitaM||</l><!--
L21. Fleet prints an anusvāra at the end of verse 23, but it's a halanta M.
--></lg>
<lg n="24" met="āryā">
<l n="ab">pañcasu śateṣu śaradāṁ yāteṣv ekānna-navati-sahiteṣu|</l>
<l n="cd">mālava-gaṇa-sthiti-vaśāt kāla-jñānāya likhiteṣu||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="25" met="mandākrāntā">
<l n="a">ya<lb n="22" break="no"/>smin kāle kala-mr̥du-girāṁ kokilānāṁ pralāpā</l>
<l n="b">bhindantīva smara-śara-nibhāḥ proṣitānāṁ manāṁsi|</l>
<l n="c">bhr̥ṅgālīnāṁ dhvanir anu-vanaṁ <unclear>t</unclear>āra-mandraś ca yasminn</l><!--
L22. F reads bhāra-mandraś, translating "sounding low on account of the burden (that they carry)." Sircar keeps Fleet's reading but I am quite (though not fully) certain it is in fact tāra, and the sound is high and low-pitched, probably two separate sounds from bhr̥ṅga and ali (which Fleet simply translates together as bees, but which more probably are carpenter bees and honeybees). The only problem is that the qualifiers are in an inverted order.
-->
<l n="d">ādhūta-jyaṁ dhanur iva nadac chrūyate puṣpa<lb n="23" break="no"/>-ketoḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="26" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">priyatama-kupitānāṁ r<unclear>ā</unclear>maya<unclear>n</unclear> baddha-rāgaṁ</l><!--
L23. Fleet reads rāmayan, without any indication of uncertainty. Kielhorn_1891 proposes reading kampayan, noting the unclear text and pointing out that we need a verb that makes sense with kisalaya as well as with mānasa. Sircar adopts kampayan, showing it as clear. In the original stone, ra and ma are completely clear, though the ā of rā is not. A faint line resembling a crossbar (which would make k instead of r) is decidedly shallower and narrower than the engraved strokes, so it must be damage. There is also a bit of damage below ma, but it does not seem extensive enough to obliterate a subscript p. As to Kielhorn's problem that we need a doubly applicable meaning, I feel it can be dismissed by assuming that it "caresses" the twig and "comforts" the mind of the ladies.
-->
<l n="b">kisalayam iva mugdhaṁ mānasaṁ māninīnāM</l><!--
L23. Fleet erroneously prints an anusvāra instead of halanta M at the end of v26b.
-->
<l n="c">Upanayati nabhasvān māna-bhaṅgāya yasmin</l>
<l n="d">kusuma-samaya-māse tattra nirmmāpito <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>yaM||</l><!--
L23. The halanta M (with line above) at the end of v26d is smaller and shallower than others, and is also spaced rather closely between ya and || like a few others above.
--></lg>
<lg n="27" met="sragdharā">
<l n="a"><lb n="24"/>yāvat tuṅgair udanvān kiraṇa-samuday<unclear>ā</unclear>saṅga-kāntaṁ taraṅgair</l><!--
L24. Fleet's reading is samudayaṁ saṅga, which Sircar retains. The reading °yāsa° was probably first proposed (apparently as an emendation) in Durgaprasad_Parab_1892 and approved by Kielhorn_1891 (Kielhorn_1891 seems to be in fact later than Durgaprasad_Parab_1892). The ā mātrā (an upright one) is definitely discernible, though not entirely clear, in the original stone; it is not an anusvāra.
-->
<l n="b">āliṅgann indu-bimbaṁ gurubhir iva bhujaiḥ saṁvidhatte suhr̥ttā<unclear>M</unclear></l>
<l n="c">bibhrat saudhānta-lekhā-valaya-parigatiṁ muṇḍa-mālām ivāyaṁ</l>
<l n="d">sat-kūpas tāvad ā<lb n="25" break="no"/>stām amr̥ta-sama-rasa-svaccha-viṣyanditāmbuḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="28" met="śālinī">
<l n="a">dhīmā<choice><sic>ṁ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice> dakṣo dakṣiṇaḥ satya-sandho</l>
<l n="b">hrīmā<choice><sic>ṁ</sic><corr>ñ</corr></choice> cchūro vr̥ddha-sevī kr̥tajñaḥ<unclear>|</unclear></l>
<l n="c">baddhotsāhaḥ svāmi-kāryeṣv akhedī</l><!--
L25. rye in kāryeṣv, read as ryye by both Fleet and Sircar, has an almost-regular r and a slightly subscript bipartite y that is closer to the form in ye above than to the regular subscript y.
-->
<l n="d">nirddoṣo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>yaṁ pātu dharmmaṁ cirāya</l>
</lg>
<p>Utkīrṇṇā govi<unclear>nde</unclear>na||<!--
L25. The repha and ā or utkīrṇṇā is again attached on the right, probably because tkū hangs down low from the previous line.
--><!--
L25. In the original stone, the d of nde is quite clear; n is indiscernible; the e mātrā is unclear.
--></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>First edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Fleet1886_04"/></bibl>. Republished in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Fleet1888_01"/></bibl>. Corrections to translation as suggested by Kielhorn in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Fleet1889_02"/><citedRange>220</citedRange></bibl>. Further corrections to text and translation in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Kielhorn1891_01"/><citedRange>189</citedRange></bibl>. More corrections in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Durgaprasad+Parab1892_01"/><citedRange>112-116</citedRange></bibl>. Summarised in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Trivedi+Trivedi2001_01"/><citedRange>29-30</citedRange></bibl> (No. 18). Identity or distinctness of Yaśodharman and Viṣṇuvardhana discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Hoernle1889_01"/><citedRange>96</citedRange></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Fleet1890_02"/><citedRange>227</citedRange></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1902_01"/><citedRange>392</citedRange></bibl> and <bibl><ptr target="bib:Hoernle1903_01"/><citedRange unit="page">50</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">1 </citedRange></bibl>. Further discussion in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1959-1960_04"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1980_03"/></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">IN00097</citedRange></bibl>). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.</p>
<listBibl type="primary">
<bibl n="siglum"><ptr target="bib:AuthorYear_01"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl type="secondary">
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Fleet1888_01"/><citedRange unit="item">35</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1927-1936_01"/><citedRange unit="item">9</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1965_02"/><citedRange unit="book">III</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">53</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>