<?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>Mandhal Charter of Pravarasena II, Year 17</title>
            <title type="alt">Mandhal Plates of Pravarasena II, Year 16 and 17</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_INSSiddham00183.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">

				<div type="textpart" n="A"><head xml:lang="eng">Seal</head><!-- 
Editions referred to below are Shastri's (S) and Shrimali's (Shri). The former is in EI41 for 1975-76, but only published in 1989. The latter was published in 1987. Shrimali says the inscription was published by Shastri in "Mandhal Utkhanana" in VSMA 1977, which I have not seen. Presumably Shri is a verbatim reproduction of this earlier edition by Shastri, and Shastri's EI edition is a different version that may be either later or earlier. 
--><lg n="1" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="1"/>vākāṭaka-la<choice><sic>ma</sic><corr>lā</corr></choice>masya</l>
<l n="b"><!-- 
Line i. . Shri reads vākāṭhaka-lamamesya. I think the right-hand side of his ṭha is a scratch. I'm also quite certain that the apparent e mātrā in his lamamesya is actually the right limb of the preceding ma. The second ma is a bit scratchy, but doesn't seem to have been corrected to lā. 
--><lb n="2"/>kkrama-prāpta-n<unclear>r̥</unclear>pa-śriyaḥ</l>
<l n="c"><lb n="3"/>rājña<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> pravaras<unclear>e</unclear>nasya</l>
<l n="d"><lb n="4"/>śāsana<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> ripu-śās<unclear>a</unclear>na<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied></l><!-- 
Line iv. Shri reads ripuśāsina. I think the apparent i mātrā (not read by S) is probably a random scratch. However, Shastri also says (in a note to his text, #Shastri_1975-76a:71n2) that the last word "is intended to be ripu-śāsinaḥ", so he did read i at one stage at least. (And that was the stage when Shrimali printed his version, if that too is by Shastri in fact.) And actually I find this suggestion very intriguing. Could this be the original form of the vākāṭaka seal legend, and all other known specimens corruptions? Saying that Pravarasena's (or whoever's) command is a command (even) to his enemies is grand, but sort of out of context on a CP. But saying that "(this is) the command of Pravarasena (or whoever), who commands (even) his enemies" is a nice turn of phrase and obviously relevant to a CP. 
--></lg>
				</div>
				<div type="textpart" n="B"><head xml:lang="eng">Plates</head>
<p><pb n="1v"/><lb n="1"/>d<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ṣṭaṁ<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> svasti<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> pravarapurād agniṣṭomāptoryyāmokthya-ṣoḍaśy-atirātra-vāja<!-- 
L1. Both S and Shri transcribe driṣṭa (emending to dr̥ṣṭaM), yet an anusvāra is clear in S's rubbing. 
--><lb n="2" break="no"/>peya-br̥haspati-sava-sādyaskra-catur-aśvamedha-yājinaḥ viṣṇu<unclear>v</unclear><choice><sic>ra</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ddha<!-- 
L2. Shri reads viṣṇudraddha, S has °vriddha. The v does look like d but there may be a faint line at the right side of the box of v; what S sees as an i mātrā is unlikely to be genuine. 
--><lb n="3" break="no"/>-sagotrasya <subst><del rend="corrected">pa</del><add place="overstrike">sa</add></subst><space type="binding-hole"/>mrāṬ vākāṭakānā<unclear>ṁ</unclear> mahārāja-śrī-pravarasenasya<!-- 
L3. S reads pamrāṭ. The character does seem to have the bottom of pa, but it also has the vertical of sa, so I believe it was corrected from pa to sa. 
--><!-- 
L3. The halanta Ṭ looks much like regular ṭa character, but it is slightly subscript. 
--><lb n="4"/>sūnos sūnoḥ Atya<unclear>n</unclear><choice><sic>n</sic><corr>t</corr></choice>a-svāmi-mahā-bh<unclear>ai</unclear>rava-bhaktasya A<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied>sa<surplus>ṁ</surplus>bhāra sa<unclear>nn</unclear>i<surplus>v<unclear>i</unclear></surplus><!-- 
L4. S and Shri read atyatna and that is what the ligature resembles; however, the same ligature is used at the end of the line (where S reads it as nn) and I think we should assume that nn is what it was meant to be even though the upper part looks like t. 
--><!-- 
L4. S's edition has "Mahābhairava-bhe(bhai)rava." The dittography is definitely a typo in the edition; the reading bhe is possible (Shri also reads bherava), but I think bhai is also possible. 
--><!-- 
L4. At the end of the line, Shri reads sarivave, while S reads sannivi. In S's rubbing the first n of the ligature is clear (though it looks like t, see second earlier note) and there are traces of the second n; Shri probably only saw the vertical, but I don't know where he got his vave. The v at the end almost certainly has an i mātrā, though it is smudged - perhaps the engraver wanted to correct it to ve, botched it and decided to re-engrave it at the beginning of the next line, where for some reason it again ended up as vi. 
--><lb n="5"/>v<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>e</corr></choice>śita-<choice><sic>g</sic><corr>ś</corr></choice>iva-<unclear>li</unclear>ṅg<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>o</corr></choice>dvahana-śiva-suparit<unclear>u</unclear>ṣ<choice><sic><unclear cert="low">u</unclear></sic><corr>ṭa</corr></choice>-samutpādita-rājavaṁśānā<!-- 
L5. In the rubbing in Shastri's book several characters are indistinct in l5 (the transcript would be "gi(va)[#liṅgo]d[#va](ha)[#na]"), but the one in EI41 is much clearer. Even in that, li cannot be made out, but I assume the original plate shows it better and just show it as unclear. 
--><!-- 
L5. Both S and Shri read parityaṣṭa, but there is no trace of tya in S's rubbing (either in the book or in EI). Instead, the character looks like tu without a hook, the u represented simply by an extension of the character's stem. The next character also has only this downward extension rather than a subscript ṭ. The writing is close to the bottom of the plate, but this did not prevent the engraver from writing a regularly hooked su, ri and mu around here, and only the very bottom of the hook of ri and mu are invisible in the rubbing. 
--><pb n="2r" break="no"/><lb n="6" break="no"/>m parākram<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>dhigata-bhāg<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ī</corr></choice>ratthy-a<choice><sic>s</sic><corr>m</corr></choice>ala-jala-mūrddhābhiṣikt<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>nā<sic>n</sic> daśāś<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>ame<!-- 
L6. S reads daśāśva, but śy (as read by Shri) is clear. 
--><lb n="7" break="no"/>dhāvabhr̥tha-snātanām bhāraśivānām mahārāja-śr<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ī</corr></choice>-bhavanāga-dauhitrasya
<lb n="8"/>g<choice><sic>o</sic><corr>au</corr></choice>tamī<unclear>p</unclear>u<space type="binding-hole"/>trasya putrasya vākāṭakānāṁ mahārāja-śrī-rudrase<!-- 
L8. S reads śri, but ī (as read by Shri) is clear. 
--><lb n="9" break="no"/><unclear>na</unclear>sya sūnor atya<unclear>n</unclear>ta-māheśvarasya saty<unclear>ā</unclear>rjjava-kāruṇya-śauryya-vikkrama-na<!-- 
L9. In atyanta both the upper and the lower part looks like t, but as seen in L4, n as the upper component of a ligature looks like to - so again I give the engraver credit and read nt. 
--><lb n="10"/>ya-vinaya-m<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>hātmya-dhīma<choice><sic>ty</sic><corr>ttv</corr></choice>a-pātra-gata-bhaktit<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>a-dha<unclear>r</unclear>mma-vijayit<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>a-mano-nairm<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->m</supplied>a<!-- 
L10. S reads dhīmatva, bhaktitva and vijayitva, but tya (as read by Shri) is clear in all three instances. 
--><!-- 
L10. Nothing of the subscript m of rmma at the end is visible, the corner seems to have been rubbed off. S prints it as clear, Shri reads nairma. 
--><pb n="2v" break="no"/><!-- 
There seems to be a pagination numeral 2 in the margin before line 13. This was noted by Shastri's editor in EI, but apparently not by Shastri himself, nor by Shri. There is no discernible pagination on pages 1 and 3 (though p1 is very noisy at the edge, so there may be a 1 somewhere), but there is a very clear 4 on page 4verso (not noted anywhere that I have seen), so this apparent 2 is probably a page number. Mark up as fw? 
--><lb n="11" break="no"/>ly<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>di-guṇa-samupetasya varṣa-śatam abhivarddhamāna-kośa-daṇḍa-sādhana-sa<!-- 
L11. S and Shri both observe that related charters normally read guṇais samupetasya. 
--><lb n="12" break="no"/><unclear>n</unclear><choice><sic>n</sic><corr>t</corr></choice>āna-putra-pautr<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>i</corr></choice><choice><sic>t</sic><corr>ṇ</corr></choice>o yudhiṣṭhira-v<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>tter-vvāk<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>ṭakānā<unclear>ṁ</unclear> mahārāja-śrī-p<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>thiv<sic>i</sic><choice><sic>s</sic><corr>ṣ</corr></choice>e<!-- 
L12. The first part of the ligature in sannāna looks like t, but I continue to accept it as n. The bottom part, however, is definitely n. 
--><!-- 
L12. Both Shri and S read pautrato so I accept their to, but I think it could also be ṇa (written without a loop), in which case we only need to supply a visarga, the omission of which seems to be a more likely error than inscribing to instead of ṇo. 
--><lb n="13"/>ṇasya sūno<space type="binding-hole"/>r bbha<surplus>ṅ</surplus>gavataś cakrapāṇ<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>e</corr></choice><supplied reason="omitted">ḥ pra</supplied>sādopārjjita-śrī-samudayasya<!-- 
L13. Though both S and Shri read bhagavataś, I think the reading is clearly bhaṅgavataś. 
--><!-- 
L13. There is a small space between cakrapāṇa and sādo°, but I see neither an insertion mark here nor the missing characters anywhere on the page. (By the way, pā is also funny, perhaps first engraved as ma, or possibly engraved as pa, then corrected to pā once ṇa was already in place. 
--><lb n="14"/>vākāṭakānā<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> <space type="binding-hole"/> mahārāja-śrī-rudras<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>e</corr></choice>nasya sūno<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> mahārājādhirā<lb n="15" break="no"/>ja-śrī-devagupta-sutāyām prabhāvat<sic>i</sic> gupt<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>yām utpannasya <choice><sic>śāmbhāḫ</sic><corr>śambhoḫ</corr></choice> pra<!-- 
L15. S reads guptāyām, but (as read by Shri) the character is pta. 
--><!-- 
L15. śāmbhā is very clear, probably the result of the engraver misinterpreting the chalk draft. 
--><pb n="3r" break="no"/><lb n="16" break="no"/>sāda-dhr̥t<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>-kā<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>tta-yugasya vākāṭakānām parama-māheś<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>ara-mahārāja-śrī<!-- 
L16. S reads māheśvara (this time, so does Shri), but māheśyara is clear. Though if I've been lenient about ligatures with n as the first consonant, then maybe I should just assume that subscript v-s look like subscript y-s... (But then again, a real subscript v should probably just slightly resemble a y: see svāmine in l21 and savva in l23.) 
--><lb n="17" break="no"/>-pravarasenasya vacanā<supplied reason="omitted">T</supplied><!-- 
L17. There is a little space after vacanā, but no trace of a halanta T. 
--></p>
<p>beṇṇātaṭa Aparapaṭṭe mmayasaggrām<unclear>a</unclear><!-- 
L17. For vindication, the upper part of the ṇṇ ligature also looks like t. 
--><!-- 
L17. S emends to beṇṇātaṭe, which may have been the intent; alternatively, this may have been meant as a compound, but with hiatus to keep the toponym intact. 
--><!-- 
L17. In mmayasaggrāma the double initial m and double g are clear. The final vowel is not. S (and Shri?) read o and delete one of the n-s in the next line. I prefer to read grāma, and understand the place name to be °grāmam, to explain the nn at the beginning of the next line. Note that initial m is occasionally doubled without any evident reason; I think I've seen this in some Vākāṭaka plates and the practice is explicitly noted by Shastri_Kawadkar_2000:138 with regard to the Miregaon plates, IN00185:6 (two instances). 
--><lb n="18" break="no"/><unclear>n</unclear> nāma grāma<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> <space type="binding-hole"/> p<choice><sic>u</sic><corr>ū</corr></choice>rvva-sthita-s<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ī</corr></choice>mā-parigraheṇa<!-- 
L18. S reads sima, the reading is simā (correct in Shri). 
--><!-- 
L18. The line ends early, there is room at the end for 3-4 more characters. This bit, including the next line, was probably engraved later than the rest of the text. 
--><lb n="19"/><space quantity="3" unit="character"/><space type="binding-hole"/>ṣoḍa<choice><sic>ṣ</sic><corr>ś</corr></choice>ama-sā<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied>v<surplus>v</surplus>atsarika-kā<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>ttika-pradā<unclear>t</unclear>o<!-- 
L19. The line begins late, after the hole; there is room for 3-5 characters (depending on whether something would or would not have been squeezed in below the hole) before the start of the text. The content was probably engraved later than the rest of the plate. 
--><!-- 
L19. At the end of the line Shri reads pradāno, while S reads pradādho, emending to pradoṣe(!). I think the character in question is neither no, nor dho. Most likely it is to, though no may be possible as well as ṇa; if parts are lost, then it could be tto, though there seems to be nothing but random noise around it, no traces of definite lines. The whole line is weird, and I'm not even sure we are dealing with a date here. Could this be about an astrologer named Kārttika? Unlikely. 
--><lb n="20"/>beṇṇātaṭa-vāstavya <space/> tait<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>t</corr></choice>irika <space/> kautsa-sagotra <space/> Apratigr<unclear>ā</unclear><choice><sic><unclear>p</unclear></sic><corr>h</corr></choice>aka<!-- 
L20. The spaces in this line show that items in this list are basically intended to stand for separate datives. 
--><!-- 
L20. S believes (#Shastri_1975-76a:70n2) that the donee's father was an apratigrāhaka upādhyāya, a "non-acceptor of donations", and says that his name was left out by accident but we learn from the Mandhal grant of Pr̥thivīṣeṇa, year 2 (IN00189:20) that his real name was Droṇasvāmin. I don't find this apratigrāhaka thing convincing; the word pratigrāhaka would be logical somewhere around here, though it's very awkward in this particular spot, and the a cannot be dismissed. 
--><lb n="21"/><unclear>upāddh</unclear>yāya-putra <space/> <unclear>upāddh</unclear>yāya-mātr̥svāmine dat<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>t</corr></choice>a<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied>
						<pb n="3v"/><lb n="22"/>Atra ca dha<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>mma-tribhāgaḥ <space/> narinda-rāja-<supplied reason="omitted">ja</supplied>na<unclear>n</unclear>yā <space/> āj<choice><unclear>jh</unclear><unclear>ñ</unclear></choice><unclear>ā</unclear>ka-<unclear>bha</unclear><!-- 
L22. The visarga looks like two crescents. 
--><!-- 
L22. Shastri reads the name as ājñākabhaṭṭārikā. Shrimali reads ājjhika-bhaṭṭārikā. Looking at specimens in Indoskript, the problematic ligature is probably jjh, and the vowel seems to be ā, not i (though the top horizontal stroke is funny, seeming to consist of two curves instead of one straight line; and there is something that looks like an apostrophe before the character, which may be the tail of an otherwise lost i). [However, compare jñā in l24 and jña and jñā in l25 - both have the upper curves and both also have the upturning instead of downturning stroke in the subscript character, so maybe it is jñā after all? also, the vowel mark of jñā curves back over the top, so it's almost certain we don't have i here] #Shastri_1975-76a:72 argues that this Narindarāja cannot be the (future) Narendrasena, because "had Ājñākabhaṭṭārikā been the chief queen, she would not have been referred to simply as mother of Narēndrarāja." Later he seems to have changed his mind, and #Shastri_1997:186 says "Narendra Sena ... is probably identical with Narindarāja, born of Ājñākabhaṭṭarikā(sic) known from the recently doscovered Māṇḍhal̥ plates of Pravara Sena II." I wonder though. The Balaghat plates of Pr̥thivīṣeṇa II (IN00175:31) says Narendrasena's wife (the mother of Pr̥thivīṣeṇa II) was an Ajjhitabhaṭṭārikā [there is also a queen of this name in the Uccakalpa genealogies, probably not related but who knows.] This is similar enough to the ājjhāka (or ājjhika) that we read here [and the reading should also be rechecked in that plate]. [IN00189:21 has ajjhikabhaṭṭārikā as the mother of PTHSII] Now add to this the fact that we don't actually have jananyā here, just nanyā, and the na is actually unclear. Could it be that we should emend to narinda-rāja-patnyā? (The unclear na is definitely not pa, but once we're emending, we might as well think it was meant for pa.) Narinda may well have married the lady before his coronation. 
--><lb n="23" break="no"/>ṭṭārikāyā<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied><supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> <space/> yato smat san<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>t</corr></choice>ak<unclear>ā</unclear>ḥ sa<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>vv<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>dhy<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>kṣa-niyoga<surplus>ḥ</surplus><!-- 
L23. This visarga is a normal pair of dots. 
--><!-- 
L23. savva was read as sanya by Shri and savya by Shastri. This is in fact a proper subscript v, elongated into a balloon, but quite different from the y right next to it in ddhyā. This form explains why we have so many subscript y-s instead of v-s in this grant, where the engraver misinterpreted the draft he received. 
--><!-- 
L23. The superfluous visarga at the end seems again to be a pair of crescents. 
--><lb n="24" break="no"/>-niy<choice><sic>ū</sic><corr>u</corr></choice><choice><sic>tno</sic><corr>ktā</corr></choice>ḥ <space type="binding-hole"/> ājñā-sañc<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>ri-kula-putrādhikr̥tā bhaṭā<!-- 
L24. Both Shri and S read niyu, but it is very definitely niyū. 
--><!-- 
L24. The visarga is two small crescents. 
--><!-- 
L24. kr̥ looks strange, but the same form occurs in l39. 
--><lb n="25" break="no"/>ś chātrāś ca vi<choice><sic>p</sic><corr>śr</corr></choice>uta-pūrvvayājñayājñāpayitavyā<unclear>ḥ</unclear></p><!-- 
L25. Shri (but not S) reads pūrvya; again, this is rvv, though the subscript character does resemble y. 
--><p>vidi<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>t</corr></choice>m astu
<lb n="26" break="no"/>vaḥ yathehāsmābhir ātmano dharmmāyur-b<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>b</corr></choice>ala-vijay-aiś<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>aryya<!-- 
L26. byala could perhaps be bvala - or maybe this form is just a sort of "generic subscript character"... 
--><pb n="4r" break="no"/>
<lb n="27"/>-vivr̥ddhaye Ihā<choice><sic>p</sic><corr>mu</corr></choice>utra-hitārttham ātmānugrahāya vai<choice><sic>j<unclear>ai</unclear></sic><corr>jayi</corr></choice><!-- 
L27. Shri reads vaijake, S reads vaijeke. I believe the character is meant to be jai, giving vaijaike as in IN00160. The e pr̥ṣṭhamātrā is visible in S's rubbing, and that combined with the curvy top stroke (as in the jñā/jjhā issue discussed above) probably gives jai. There may, in fact, also be a śiromātrā in addition to this, but this is far from clear. 
--><lb n="28" break="no"/>ke dharmma-sthāne <choice><sic>mu</sic><corr>A</corr></choice>pūrvva-dat<supplied reason="omitted">t</supplied>yā <space/> udaka-pūrvvam atisr̥ṣṭa<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied><supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied><!-- 
L28. Shri reads sr̥pūrvva, but Shastri is correct, it's mupūrvva. 
--><lb n="29"/>Ucitāṁś cāsya <space type="binding-hole"/> pūrvva-rājānumatāñ cātu<unclear>r</unclear>vv<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ai</corr></choice>dya-grāma-maryyā<lb n="30" break="no"/>dān <choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>itarāma<space type="binding-hole"/>s tad yathā A-kara-dāy<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ī</corr></choice> a-bhaṭa-cch<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>tra-prāveśya<unclear>ḥ</unclear><!-- 
L30. Though S (but not Shri) reads vitarāmas, this subscript grapheme cannot pass for a v, it's y. 
--><lb n="31"/>A-pārampara-go-balīvarddaḥ A-puṣpa-kṣīra-sand<unclear>o</unclear>ha<unclear>ḥ A</unclear>c<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>rā<!-- 
L31. There seems to be a dash between the dots of the visarga of balīvarddaḥ. 
--><lb n="32" break="no"/>sa<choice><sic>ṇ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice>a-ca<unclear>r</unclear>m<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->m</supplied><unclear>āṅ</unclear>gā<unclear>ra</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ḥ</supplied> <unclear>a</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->lava</supplied>ṇa-klinna-kre<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>ṇ</corr></choice>i-khanaka<unclear>ḥ</unclear> sa<choice><sic><unclear>rdya</unclear></sic><corr>rvva</corr></choice>-v<unclear>i</unclear>ṣṭi<!-- 
L32. S and Shri edit most of this line as clear, but there seems to be quite a bit of damage at the beginning. I mark up accordingly. 
--><!-- 
L32. S reads āsana, but it's ṇ, as read correctly by Shri. 
--><!-- 
L32. The visarga of °āṅgāraḥ consists of two horizontal lines, the bottom one longer. 
--><!-- 
L32. In the nn of klinna, the upper n does not look like t as earlier, it's a loop attached to the stem. 
--><!-- 
L32. The visarga of khanakaḥ, printed as supplied by S, is probably there, but may well be a later insertion: the upper dot is next to the k's boxhead, and the lower dot is below the right arm of the k. 
--><!-- 
L32. For my sardya, Shri reads savyaṁ and S reads sarrvya (sic). The upper character is definitely d (missing the right-hand side of the box); of the bottom one, only the upper side of the loop is extant, the bottom seems to have been rubbed off, but it's shaped more like a y than a v. 
--><pb n="4v" break="no"/><!-- 
There is a very clear numeral 4 in the left margin between l35 and l36 (not noted anywhere that I have seen). This indicates that the 2 on page 2 is probably also pagination. Mark up as fw? 
--><lb n="33" break="no"/>-parihāra-parihr̥taḥ sanidhi<unclear>ḥ</unclear> sopanidhiḥ sa-k<choice><sic>li</sic><corr>l̥</corr></choice>ptopak<choice><sic>li</sic><corr>l̥</corr></choice>pta<unclear>ḥ</unclear>
<lb n="34"/>Ācandrāditya-kāl<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ī</corr></choice>yaḥ putra-p<unclear>au</unclear>trānugāmikaḥ bhuñjat<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>o</corr></choice> na kena<!-- 
L34. pau is probably a correction, perhaps n was engraved first and then corrected to po or pau. 
--><!-- 
L34. trā actually looks like krā, but I assume that what looks like the right arm is a scratch. 
--><lb n="35"/>cid vyāghāta<space type="binding-hole"/>ẖ karttavyaḥ sa<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>v<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>a-k<choice><sic>r̥</sic><corr>ri</corr></choice>yābhis sa<unclear>ṁ</unclear>rakṣitavyaḫ parivarddha<!-- 
L35. The subscript consonant of savya is again one that cannot in my opinion pass for a v. 
--><!-- 
L35. S and Shri both read krayā, but this is actually kr̥, compare l24 and l39. 
--><lb n="36" break="no"/>yitavyaś ca| yaś cāsmac-ch<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice><choice><sic>ś</sic><corr>s</corr></choice>anam agaṇayamānaḥ s<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>alpām api <supplied reason="omitted">pa</supplied>ri<!-- 
L36. The punctuation mark is a double dot resembling a visarga (the dots are slightly elongated in the vertical direction). 
--><lb n="37" break="no"/>bādhā<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> kuryyāt <choice><sic>kārayīta</sic><corr>kārayeta</corr></choice> vā tasya brāhmaṇai<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied> v<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>editasya <space/> sa-daṇḍa-nigraha<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied><!-- 
L37. The space may be because of sya (of syalpām) hanging down, but would not really be necessary on account of that. 
--><!-- 
L37. ha at the end of the line is squeezed into very small space and may be a correction from ma or even M. 
--><lb n="38"/>kuryyāma<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> <space type="descender"/> asmi<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied>ś ca <space type="descender"/>dharmmādara-k<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>raṇe <space type="descender"/> Atītāneka-rāja-
						<pb n="5r"/><lb n="39"/>datta-sa<choice><sic>h</sic><corr>ñc</corr></choice>i<choice><sic>tty</sic><corr>nt</corr></choice>ana-paripālana<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> kr̥ta-pu<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>ṇ</corr></choice>yānukīr<choice><sic><unclear>n</unclear>n</sic><corr>tt</corr></choice>ana-parihārā<!-- 
L39. °nukīrnnana could be read with rtna (as Shri and S do), but I've throughout accepted ligatures looking like tn as valid nn, so I do so here too. 
--><lb n="40" break="no"/>rttha<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ na</supplied> k<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ī</corr></choice>rttayāmaḥ<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> <space/> vyāsa-gītaś cātra śl<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>o</corr></choice>ka<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> pramāṇ<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ī</corr></choice>-karttavyaḥ</p>
<lg n="1" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="41"/>s<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>a-dattām para-da<space type="binding-hole"/>ttā<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> v<surplus>v</surplus>ā</l>
<l n="b"><choice><sic>yo</sic><corr>ha</corr></choice>red yo vai <choice><sic><unclear>y</unclear></sic><corr>v</corr></choice>asundharāṁ<space/></l>
<l n="c">gavā<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> śata-sa<lb n="42" break="no"/>hasrasya <space type="binding-hole"/></l>
<l n="d">ha<unclear>nt</unclear>ur harati du<choice><sic><unclear>ska</unclear></sic><corr>ṣkr̥</corr></choice>ta<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied>|<space/></l><!-- 
L41. S and Shri both correct "yoredyovai" to "yo hareta", but hared yo vai is less invasive. The first yo, though, was obviously influenced by the version yo hareta. vai may also be a correction from (or to) something else, and the following ya is also erroneous (and may, instead of ya, be sa), so there is some vacillation here on the part of the scribe. 
--><!-- 
L42. S reads duṣkataḥ; I think the problematic character is ska, and what he reads as a visarga is a punctuation mark. 
--></lg>
<p>s<choice><sic>y</sic><corr>v</corr></choice>yam <choice><sic>ājñāpta</sic><corr>ājñaptiḥ</corr></choice><supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied>
<lb n="43"/>likhita<unclear>ṁ</unclear> <space/> se<choice><sic>ṇ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice>ā-pat<choice><sic><unclear>i</unclear></sic><corr>au</corr></choice> citravarmmaṇi sa<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied>v<surplus>y</surplus>tsare <choice><sic>saptadaśame</sic><corr>saptadaśe</corr></choice><!-- 
L43. S and Shri read likhitaḥ and there does indeed seem to be a double dot after ta, but there also seems to be a single dot above it so I prefer to see that as an anusvāra and ignore the double dot as random noise. 
--><lb n="44"/>kā<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>ttika-māsa-bahula-pakṣa-da<choice><sic>s</sic><corr>ś</corr></choice>amyā<unclear>M</unclear><!-- 
L44. The last sign, which S describes as "an arrow like mark" may be a closer symbol as S assumes, but I think it's more likely to be a halanta M. 
--></p>
				</div>
			</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 reported in <bibl><ptr target="bib:IAR1975-1976"/><citedRange>63</citedRange></bibl> (No. 30) and <bibl><ptr target="bib:ARIE1976-1977"/><citedRange>23</citedRange></bibl> (No. A5); reported with more details in <bibl><ptr target="bib:IAR1976-1977"/><citedRange>60</citedRange></bibl> (No. 23). Edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shrimali1987_01"/><citedRange>60-63</citedRange></bibl> (a reprint of Shastri’s edition in VSMA?) and <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1975-1976_01"/></bibl>. Discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1987_01"/><citedRange>48-50</citedRange></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1997_01"/><citedRange>88-90</citedRange></bibl>.</p>
            <p>Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Balogh2019_03"/><citedRange unit="item">IN00183</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:AuthorYear_01"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
		</body>
	</text>
</TEI>
