Kura Inscription of Toramāṇa

Author of digital edition: Dániel Balogh (daba).

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

Repository: SIDDHAM (siddham).

Identifier: DHARMA_INSSiddham00101.

File path: XML-Provisional/DHARMA_INSSiddham00101.xml.

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

Edition

⟨1⟩ [rājādhi](rā)ja-mahārāja-toramāṇa-ṣāh(i)-jaū[vlasyā](bhivardha?)(mānarā)j(y)e [**] (saṁvatsare?)
⟨2⟩ [****]me mārgaśira-māsa-śukla-dvitīyāyāM candra-(ma-gra)(haṇa?) [***] gaga[na?]-
⟨3⟩ -(care ca?) vara [**] śuci-śāta-dhyānādhyayana-mokṣa-cittānukūle prad(i)(ṣṭa?) [********] [na]-
⟨4⟩ kṣatre bhagavato buddhasya de_vātidevasya sarva-pāpa-parikṣīṇa-sarva-puṇya-samudgata(sya)
⟨5⟩ tīrṇa-sa⟨ṁ⟩sārārṇava sa¿tv?ānāṁ tārayitā daśa-bala-balina cat(u)-vaiśāradya-catasra-prati(sa)(ṁvidā?)
⟨6⟩ Aṣṭādaśāveṇīkādbhuta-dharma-samanvāgatasya sarva-sa¿tv?a-vatsala-mahā-kāruṇikasya bu-
⟨7⟩ ddha-pramukha-cāturdiśe bhikṣu-saṁghe deya-dharmo ya⟨ṁ⟩ vihāra pratiṣṭhāpana naścīra-pati-praśastā-
⟨8⟩ dārita-nāmadheya-viśeṣa-vr̥ddhiḥ roṭṭa-jaya_vr̥ddhi Aneka-vihāra-svāmino satputreṇa⟨.⟩ yad atra puṇyaṁ tad bhava(tu)
⟨9⟩ m(ā)tāpitro⟨ḥ⟩ āpāyaka-poṣaka-citrasya jaṁbudvīpasya darśayitāro Agre-bhāva-pratyaṁśatāyāstu tathā vihāra-svāmino
⟨10⟩ roṭa-siddhavr̥ddhi sarveṣāṁ bhrātarāṇāṁ bhaginīnāṁ patnīnāṁ putrāṇāṁ duhitr̥ṇāṁ mahārāja-toramāṇa-ṣāha-ja(ūvlaḥ) sa-
⟨11⟩ rveṣāṁ devīnāṁ rājaputrāṇāṁ rāja-duhitānāṁ ca sarva-sa¿tv?ānāṁ A{||}nuttara-jñānāvāptaye⟨.⟩ Ayaṁ puna⟨r⟩ vihārasyo-
⟨12⟩ pakaraṇa cāturdiśe bhikṣu-saṁghe parigrahe Ācārya-(ma)hī-ś(āsakānāṁ)⟨.⟩ (sāddha?)ka-pu [**] (treṇa) [**] (ā)(cā?)(rya)
⟨13⟩ […]

Bibliography

First reported and edited in Bühler 1892.

Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00101). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.

Secondary

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 1809.

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 56.

Tsukamoto Keishō 塚本啓祥. 1996. インド仏教碑銘の研究 I, Text, Note, 和訳 Indo Bukkyō himei no kenkyū I: Text, Note, Wayaku [A comprehensive study of the Indian Buddhist inscriptions, Part I: Text, Notes and Japanese Translation]. Kyōto-shi 京都市: Heirakuji Shoten 平楽寺書店. Item V. Kura 1.

Goyal, Śrīrām. 1993. गुप्तकालीन अभिलेख/Guptakālīna Abhilekha (Inscriptions of the Gupta Age). Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan. Item 356.

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>Kura Inscription of Toramāṇa</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_INSSiddham00101.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>

<p><lb n="1"/><supplied reason="lost">rājādhi</supplied><unclear>rā</unclear>ja-mahārāja-toramāṇa-ṣāh<unclear>i</unclear>-jaū<supplied reason="lost">vlasyā</supplied><unclear cert="low">bhivardha</unclear><unclear>mānarā</unclear>j<unclear>y</unclear>e <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">saṁvatsare</unclear><!--

Sircar (SI) restores an oṁ/siddham symbol at the beginning of line 1, saying it is "probable in consideration of the space and traces."

--><!--

Humbach (1966:27n2) was the first to read jaūvkha instead of jaūvla here and in l10. Melzer (2006:261) prefers jaūxkha and notes (ibid n79) that jihvāmūlīya is often wrongly read as v because the two cannot be differentiated graphically.

--><lb n="2"/><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="4" unit="character"/>me mārgaśira-māsa-śukla-dvitīyāyāM candra-<unclear>ma-gra</unclear><unclear cert="low">haṇa</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> gaga<supplied reason="lost" cert="low">na</supplied><!--

Sircar thinks the first word in l2 may (very uncertainly) have been prathame. I think the space is much larger than 2 akṣaras, thus a number upwards of 20 seems required. This is pretty thin evidence, but seems to indicate that Toramāṇa did not have just a brief reign. (Tsukamoto also shows 4 spaces here.)

--><!--

Tsukamoto reads cā(ndram agra) _ _ _ _ _ gaya. I think gaya is unlikely; this may be a typo.

--><!--

The halanta M is a slightly reduced subscript form. Sircar emends it to anusvāra, but the halanta character may signify a break.

--><lb n="3" break="no"/>-<unclear cert="low">care ca</unclear> vara <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> śuci-śāta-dhyānādhyayana-mokṣa-cittānukūle prad<unclear>i</unclear><unclear cert="low">ṣṭa</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="8" unit="character"/> <supplied reason="lost">na</supplied><!--

The reading care ca at the beginning of l3 is Sircar's.

--><!--

Sircar also observes that the gap between vara and śuci may contain a deleted śu (followed by blank space), so perhaps no actual text is lost here.

--><!--

Sircar suggests emending śāta to śānta [or better, to śāṁta as anusvāras are omitted elsewhere in the inscription as well] and cittā° to cintā°.

--><!--

For cittānukūle Tsukamoto prints cittānukuśale, this must be a typo.

--><lb n="4" break="no"/>kṣatre bhagavato buddhasya de<space/>vātidevasya sarva-pāpa-parikṣīṇa-sarva-puṇya-samudgata<unclear>sya</unclear><!--

There is no apparent reason for the space in devātidevasya.

--><lb n="5"/>tīrṇa-sa<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied>sārārṇava sa<sic>tv</sic>ānāṁ tārayitā daśa-bala-balina cat<unclear>u</unclear>-vaiśāradya-catasra-prati<unclear>sa</unclear><unclear cert="low">ṁvidā</unclear><!--

I'm recording only the diplomatic reading for the time being. Sircar emends to °ārṇavasya (whereas Bühler reads this in compound with satvānāṁ); tārayituḥ; balinaḥ; catur- (for which Bühler notes the alternative reading catva, as a mistake for catvāri); and catuḥ-prati. Bühler and Sircar agree on the reading saṁvidā at the end of l5, though I'd expect saṁvida or saṁvido.

--><!--

Sircar prints pratisaṁbhidā both in his text and in his emendation; this seems to be a typo, though the facsimile is not clear enough for me to tell if this is in fact what Sircar read.

--><lb n="6"/>Aṣṭādaśāveṇīkādbhuta-dharma-samanvāgatasya sarva-sa<sic>tv</sic>a-vatsala-mahā-kāruṇikasya bu<!--

As Bühler observes, there are some additional strokes attached to the ī of āveṇīkā, which may have been intended as correction to i.

--><lb n="7" break="no"/>ddha-pramukha-cāturdiśe bhikṣu-saṁghe deya-dharmo ya<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> vihāra pratiṣṭhāpana naścīra-pati-praśastā<lb n="8" break="no"/>dārita-nāmadheya-viśeṣa-vr̥ddhiḥ roṭṭa-jaya<space/>vr̥ddhi Aneka-vihāra-svāmino satputreṇa<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> yad atra puṇyaṁ tad bhava<unclear>tu</unclear><!--

The space in jayavr̥ddhi has a big blotch in it that may be a deleted character, but (being above baseline) seems more like a fault of the stone that had presumably been present before the inscription was engraved.

--><!--

Sircar takes viśeṣavr̥ddhi as a name (emending it to an instrumental, and jayavr̥ddhi to a genitive), while Bühler construes viśeṣavr̥ddhi as a qualifier, emending both to genitives. Thus Bühler's translation is "by the virtuous son of Roṭṭa-Jayavr̥ddhi, the lord of many Vihāras, whose name, praised and honoured by the lord of Naścīra, (indicates a) particularly (great) prosperity." See comment at end of file for my interpretation/translation.

--><lb n="9"/>m<unclear>ā</unclear>tāpitro<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> āpāyaka-poṣaka-citrasya jaṁbudvīpasya darśayitāro Agre-bhāva-pratyaṁśatāyāstu tathā vihāra-svāmino<!--

Sircar's emendations in l9: 1. āpyāyaka, which I accept wholeheartedly (Bühler makes no emendation but translates "nurses"); 2. °poṣakayoḥ, where I prefer Bühler's interpretation as a compound (Bühler seems to interpret the phrase to mean that though Jambudvīpa is full of [citra, brilliant with] nourishers, the donor's parents can serve as examples for all of them); 3. agra-bhāga-pratyaṁśāya/°śatāyai. 4. Sircar supplies a daṇḍa here and begins a new sentence with astu. For 3 and 4, Bühler's (slightly emended) interpretation is agre-bhava-pratyaṁśatāyās tu. I'm inclined to go with Sircar, but see comment at end for my further thoughts.

--><lb n="10"/>roṭa-siddhavr̥ddhi sarveṣāṁ bhrātarāṇāṁ bhaginīnāṁ patnīnāṁ putrāṇāṁ duhitr̥ṇāṁ mahārāja-toramāṇa-ṣāha-ja<unclear>ūvlaḥ</unclear> sa<!--

Sircar and Bühler print jaūvla as clear, but to me it doesn't look any clearer than in l1.

--><!--

However, ṣāha is quite clear here, so I'm not sure why both editors read ṣāhi in l1, where there are some scratches above ha, but certainly no clear hi. Perhaps the actual stone more clearly has hi there. Here, Sircar actually emends to ṣāhi.

--><!--

Sircar's emendations in l10: °vr̥ddheḥ; bhrātr̥̄ṇāṁ; jaūvlasya.

--><!--

Both Sircar and Bühler print duhitr̥̄ṇāṁ, but the vowel mātrā doesn't look any different to me than the one in vr̥ddhi.

--><lb n="11" break="no"/>rveṣāṁ devīnāṁ rājaputrāṇāṁ rāja-duhitānāṁ ca sarva-sa<sic>tv</sic>ānāṁ A<surplus>||</surplus>nuttara-jñānāvāptaye<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> Ayaṁ puna<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied> vihārasyo<!--

Between a and nuttara there are two dashes shown here as unnecessary punctuation characters. The second is slightly longer than the first and seems to have a thin stroke extending upward (leaning right) from the centre. Bühler interprets them "as if something had been lost" while Sircar says "two aksharas appear to be struck out".

--><lb n="12" break="no"/>pakaraṇa cāturdiśe bhikṣu-saṁghe parigrahe Ācārya-<unclear>ma</unclear>hī-ś<unclear>āsakānāṁ</unclear><supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> <unclear cert="low">sāddha</unclear>ka-pu <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> <unclear>treṇa</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> <unclear>ā</unclear><unclear cert="low">cā</unclear><unclear>rya</unclear><!--

Bühler notes that "There is a vertical stroke" to the left of the first ācārya in l12, which "may have been an ā-stroke or a continuation of the upright of ya". Sircar reads ācāya and emends to ācāryāṇāṁ. The inscribed character is actually definitely rya, but of the regular r plus subscript ya type, not a superscript r plus regular ya. The character seems to reoccur in the unclear ācārya at the end of the line.

--><!--

The ma after ācārya is, according to Bühler, "abnormal and looks like tma", but Bühler thinks, and I agree, that ma is quite certain.

--><!--

A horizontal stroke begins above this ma and continues, more faintly, to the right for several more characters' length. Bühler says the characters sakānāṁ sāddhakapu "seem to have been written under a line of intentionally obliterated characters". I am not sure what he means - there is certainly no line of obliterated characters above this bit, but perhaps the horizontal stroke itself is meant to be a deletion sign, and perhaps this is what Bühler wanted to say too. If it is deletion, its target is probably mahīśāsakānāṁ.

--><!--

I cannot see the characters sāddha at all in the facsimile; the lacuna between nāṁ and ka looks more like 3 characters than 2 to me.

--><!--

The characters treṇa are shown as clear by Bühler and Sircar. I find them very unclear and they look more like cārye (again with full r plus subscript ya) to me.

--><lb n="13"/><gap reason="illegible" extent="unknown" unit="character"/><!--

Bühler reads #1# #e #1# ta ### in line 13. Since these are tentative at best and unintelligible in any case, I do not include them in my edition (neither does Sircar). Bühler seems to be right that the text of this line appears to have been deleted intentionally. This should perhaps be marked up.

--><!--

Previous editors say the rest of the stone is blank, but from the facsimile it is my impression that there may in fact have been writing on the entire surface (probably 18 lines total, the last short), but everything from line 13 has been erased.

--><!--

Interpretation issues in l7-11. I'd expect the formula to say whose donation it is, and I'd expect the donor to be named and not just identified. I also believe the composer's approach to case endings was probably not entirely chaotic. He uses cases in a non-standard way, but we can probably expect him to use a non-nominative case at least at the end (and possibly also at the beginning) of a long string of words that belong to the same phrase. That is to say, just as buddhasya ... kāruṇikasya comprise one chunk and buddha-pramukha cāturdiśe bhikṣu-saṁghe comprises another, so all the stuff after pratiṣṭhāpana should be about the donor. I am equivocal about viśeṣavr̥ddhi, which could be a description rhyming with the name of the donor, in which case the father is not named; or it could be the name of the donor. But vihārasvāmin Roṭa-Siddhavr̥ddhi in l10 looks very much like someone who could be Jayavr̥ddhi's father. True, the father is mentioned separately in l9, but then again, the two roṭa-...vr̥ddhis could be in a non-biological father-child relation. Another possibility is to read roṭa-siddhavr̥ddhi only in a genitive sense, i.e. "my mother and father ... and Siddhavr̥ddhi's [i.e. my father's] brothers etc". But then, toramāṇa in l10 is also a nominative and must, by my intuition, be read as both a nominative and a genitive ("Toramāṇa _and his_ queens" etc, not just "Toramāṇa's queens"). The final solution may be simply to understand "let the merit go to all these people (including daddy and his wives), among whom daddy and mummy should get the foremost share." That is to say, emend in l9 to °pratyaṁśatayā+astu, with astu as just a sort of restatement of the earlier bhavatu.

--><!--

So now for my (partially) emended reading: ...kāruṇikasya buddha-pramukhāya cāturdiśāya bhikṣu-saṁghāya deya-dharmo 'yaṁ vihāra-pratiṣṭhāpanaḥ naścīra-pati-praśastādārita-nāmadheya-viśeṣa-vr̥ddheḥ roṭṭa-jayavr̥ddheḥ aneka-vihāra-svāminaḥ satputrasya| etc..

--><!--

And the most likely translation: "the erection (pratiṣṭhāpana) of this monastery is the meritorious gift of Roṭṭa-Jayavr̥ddhi, [who is] the virtuous son of a master of many monasteries [and who is] increased in distinction (viśeṣa-vr̥ddhi) on account of his name being praised and respected by the lord of Naścīra, to the such-and-such saṁgha of the such-and-such Buddha. What merit there is in this, may it serve (bhavatu), with the foremost share going to my mother and father - those who show [an example] to Jambudvīpa [even though it is already] radiant with [good] nurturers (āpāyaka em. āpyāyaka) and nourishers - may it serve (astu, reiterated after the long detour) for the attainment of unsurpassed wisdom by the monastery master Roṭa-Siddhavr̥ddhi [and] all [his] brothers, sisters, wives, sons [and] daughters, [and by] the mahārāja toramāṇa-ṣāha-jaūvla [and] all [his] queens, princes and princesses [as well as] all beings."

--></p>

</div>

<lem/>

</app>

</listApp>

</div>

</div>

</div>

<p>First reported and edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Buhler1892_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">IN00101</citedRange></bibl>). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.</p>

</listBibl>

</listBibl>

</div>

</body>

</text>

</TEI>