Hisse-Borala Inscription of Devasena

Author of digital edition: Dániel Balogh (daba).

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

Repository: SIDDHAM (siddham).

Identifier: DHARMA_INSSiddham00192.

File path: XML-Provisional/DHARMA_INSSiddham00192.xml.

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

Edition

⟨01⟩ si⟨d⟩dhaM
⟨1⟩ [***] (ta)sya v¿ri?ttasya (Ātha) sapta(rṣaya) (U?)ttar[ā?]su (cha?) [**] (ṣ?)(u) ś(a)k(ā?)n(ā?)[ṁ?] (300) 80 vākāṭakānā(ṁ) śr(ī)-dev¿ā?s¿a?nasya
⟨2⟩ rājñah ājñā-kareṇa svāmilladevena Āryyeṇa Asmin kāle (pra)tiṣṭhāpitaṁ nāmnā sudarśanaṁ sara(ḥ) sarvva-sa¿(t)v?a-hi-
⟨3⟩ (t)āya ca(t)uryy(u)gānāṁ pariva(rtta)nāni śaśāṅka-sūryyau p¿ri?thivī ca yā(va)t tāva¿m? mamedaṁ bhagavat-prasādaṁ sat-kīrttanaṁ sarvva-ja(n)o(pa?) ⟨⟨(bho)[gyaṁ]⟩⟩
⟨4⟩ bappakaẖ karmmopa(d)e(ṣṭ)ā

Bibliography

Reported in IAR 1963-64, pp. 21–22 (No. 38) and 72 (No. 51), and in ARIE 1963–64, p. 86 (No. B316). Possibly first reported by Shobhana Gokhale in Śivaśakti (a Marathi daily) on 26 February 1964, and in Lokasattā (another Marathi daily) on 22 March 1964. Both these reports include Gokhale’s original photographs taken in situ, prior to the second breakage of the stone. Edited in Gokhale 1967–1968 and Kolte 1965 (these two editions are independent and simultaneous; Gokhale’s was probably published earlier in spite of the later date). Date discussed by V. B. Kolte in Tarun Bharat (a Marathi weekly) on 4 December 1964 (his views summarised in Gokhale 1967–1968, pp. 3–4); also in Gai & Sankaranarayanan 1967–1968, Sircar1967-68. Further discussion in in Shastri 1970, Shastri 1970 (possibly identical to Shastri 1970), Shastri 1987, pp. 64–65 and Shastri 1997, pp. 106–107.

Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00192). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.

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>Hisse-Borala Inscription of Devasena</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_INSSiddham00192.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>

<lb n="01"/><ab>si<supplied reason="omitted">d</supplied>dhaM</ab><!--

Gokhale (G) says sidham (sic) is "written below the first line in the beginning of which three letters seem to have been lost as the portion of the stone is broken away." I cannot see sidham anywhere - could it be in the blotch at the left side between lines 1 and 2?

--><p><lb n="1"/><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <unclear>ta</unclear>sya v<sic>ri</sic>ttasya <unclear>Ātha</unclear> sapta<unclear>rṣaya</unclear> <unclear cert="low">U</unclear>ttar<supplied reason="lost" cert="low">ā</supplied>su <unclear cert="low">cha</unclear> <gap reason="lost" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">ṣ</unclear><unclear>u</unclear> ś<unclear>a</unclear>k<unclear cert="low">ā</unclear>n<unclear cert="low">ā</unclear><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">ṁ</supplied> <num value="380"><unclear><g type="numeral">300</g></unclear> <g type="numeral">80</g></num> vākāṭakānā<unclear>ṁ</unclear> śr<unclear>ī</unclear>-dev<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>s<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>e</corr></choice>nasya<!--

L1. About three characters were broken off at the beginning when the stone was photographed by Gokhale. In its present state (as visible in Kolte's rubbing), tta is the first legible character; there are partial traces of the preceding vri and everything before it is broken off.

--><!--

L1. The first "legible" character is read by everyone as ta, but it could just as easily be bha, possibly na..

--><!--

L1. For the section with the date, G's tentative reading is tasya vrittasya vrā 20 sapta(rṣayūttarasuvacha) #?2# bda śak[#ā]nā[#ṁ] 300 80. She notes that her "20" could also be "dhi"; admits that the tentatively read bit makes no sense; claims "bda" is clear in her photographs and restores gatābda.

* Kolte_1965 (K) reads tasya vrittasya vrū 20 saptarṣaya uttarāsu ... ṣṭyaśakone 300 80. He restores [*madhyaga]tasya. His vrū is from p380; in his discussion on the same page he says the reading is vri, in his actual edition he prints vr̥ and in his note to the edition he says it could also be dhru. G cites him as reading vru in Taruṇ Bhārat. He feels ṣṭya is legible in the photos and restores ṣaṣṭyaṁśakone or aṣṭy°. He also restores uttarāsū[#pari], claiming he cah see traces of ri.

* Gai_Sankaranarayanan_1967 (GS) propose to read/restore ...tasya vrittasya 3000 20 saptarṣaya uttarāsu pha[#lgunī]ṣu śakān(āṁ) 380. That is, they read 3000 instead of vru/dhru, saying the same symbol occurs in the Nasik cave inscription of Uṣavadāta. The basic symbol for 1000 looks like dhra, and two horizontal strokes on the right mean 3000 (but I see only one horizontal stroke). They feel śakānāṁ is "fairly clear" except for the anusvāra. They also claim to read ṣu before this śa, and say that the character after uttarāsu "is clearly pha".

* Shastri_1970 (S) denies vehemently that the tentative "vru" could be 3000. He says "śakone" is quite certain on the basis of a photo in Kolte's possession, and there is definitely neither ā nor ṁ atteched to the closing n, but the e mātrā is clear.

* Mitchiner (MI, as quoted by Mukherjee_1970) reads/restores (andhra-)tasya vr̥ttasya 200 20 saptarṣaya uttarāsu phalgunīṣu 300 80.

* Mukherjee_1970 (MU) also believes "there is no doubt" that "vru" is 200. He feels Mitchiner's Andhra is uncalled for and restores the beginning as pracalitasya, translating pracalitasya vr̥ttasya as "of the (current) usage (of dating)".

* My tentative reading and thoughts.

1. There is definitely a hook before tasya at the beginning, which may belong to su as GS think, but could also be the bottom of A, ra or ka, or a subscript u (left-bending) to some other character. It may also be part of Gokhale's sidham, though I don't see what part.

2. "ta" could very well be na; it may also have an i mātrā and, possibly, a subscript character.

3. The character before "20" is unlikely to be vrā, as a hook is attached to the right-hand side of its descender. Still, there is something that may be an ā mātrā at the top, so any permutation of (dh/v)r(u/ā) is possible. It could easily be an Ā with some random noise. It may, perhaps, be 200 with noise (but its top is quite different from that of 300 later on). 2000/3000 are also unlikely. All in all, on the basis of the rubbings Ā is the most likely reading (compare especially the Ā of ājñākareṇa in l2, which has a similar extension at the top right). Still, I don't see what an Ā would be doing here.

4. The "20" may indeed be 20, but tha is at least as likely.

5. After the "20", sa is a bit unclear but pta is very clear. Gokhale's "dhi" is unlikely.

6. The next character is indeed almost certainly rṣa, but it could be practically anything else that doesn't go outside the main block, particularly sa or ma; the apparent superscript r may be just a crack.

7. The next one after may be ya, followed by something with a subscript u hooked on the right. I think yu instead of ya U is out of the question. Initial U would normally not look like this, but there examples e.g. in Valkha inscrs. If it's a subscript u, then normally, it is ga, ta, bha and śa that get right-hooked u mātrās, along with d and ṭ; in this inscription su also has a right-hooked u. Of these, tu and bhu may be possible, but make no sense in the context.

8. Before the crack, rasu or rāsu are possible. I do not see G's "vacha" and think she may have wanted to read the last character before the crack as either va or cha. GS's pha does seem possible but more likely it is not: there is a double loop, not just a loop on the right.

9. śakānāṁ does seem possible, but K's śakone is equally possible.

10. "300" looks like 200 to me. Is there something I don't see, or did everybody read 300 because they implicitly take it for granted that Devasena cannot have lived in Śaka 280? (It could, of course, be a damaged 300.) OK, Mitchiner and Mukherjee do read 200.

11. "80" is practically certain.

12. I wonder a) if the bit with uttara is a number in words, so there are neither saptarṣis nor uttara phālgunī

--><lb n="2"/>rājñah ājñā-kareṇa svāmilladevena Āryyeṇa Asmin kāle <unclear>pra</unclear>tiṣṭhāpitaṁ nāmnā sudarśanaṁ sara<unclear>ḥ</unclear> sarvva-sa<sic><unclear>t</unclear>v</sic>a-hi<!--

L2. āryyeṇa actually looks like aryyeṇa

--><!--

L2. The visarga of saraḥ, if it is a visarga, is probably a later insertion.

--><lb n="3" break="no"/><unclear>t</unclear>āya<!--

L3. G prints original punctuation after hitāya, but I see neither a mark nor space for one.

--></p>

<l n="a">ca<unclear>t</unclear>uryy<unclear>u</unclear>gānāṁ pariva<unclear>rtta</unclear>nāni</l>

<l n="b">śaśāṅka-sūryyau p<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>thivī ca yā<unclear>va</unclear>t</l><!--

L3. yāvat tāvat is with a ttā ligature.

-->

<l n="c">tāva<choice><sic>m</sic><corr>n</corr></choice> mamedaṁ bhagavat-prasādaṁ sat-kīrttanaṁ sarvva-ja<unclear>n</unclear>o<unclear cert="low">pa</unclear> <add place="below"><unclear>bho</unclear><supplied reason="lost">gyaṁ</supplied></add></l><!--

L3. G emends prasādaṁ to prasādāt.

--><!--

L3. G says bhogyaṁ is engraved below the end of l3. She treats this as line 4, but I prefer to mark it up as an addition to l3. I can make out bh in the rubbing, but gyaṁ is probably a conjecture; only the left edge is visible as a smudge.

--></lg>

<p><lb n="4"/>bappakaẖ karmmopa<unclear>d</unclear>e<unclear>ṣṭ</unclear>ā</p><!--

Line 4 is short, centred, written in slightly smaller characters, and bordered with a rectangular box.

--><!--

L4. G prints "Bappakah∙", which may have been meant for jihvāmūlīya, which is clear in the rubbing.

--></div>

<lem/>

</app>

</listApp>

</div>

</div>

</div>

<p>Reported in <bibl><ptr target="bib:IAR1963-1964"/><citedRange>21-22</citedRange></bibl> (No. 38) and 72 (No. 51), and in <bibl><ptr target="bib:ARIE1963-1964"/><citedRange>86</citedRange></bibl> (No. B316). Possibly first reported by Shobhana Gokhale in <title>Śivaśakti</title> (a Marathi daily) on 26 February 1964, and in <title>Lokasattā</title> (another Marathi daily) on 22 March 1964. Both these reports include Gokhale’s original photographs taken in situ, prior to the second breakage of the stone. Edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Gokhale1967-1968_01"/></bibl> and <bibl><ptr target="bib:Kolte1965_01"/></bibl> (these two editions are independent and simultaneous; Gokhale’s was probably published earlier in spite of the later date). Date discussed by V. B. Kolte in Tarun Bharat (a Marathi weekly) on 4 December 1964 (his views summarised in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Gokhale1967-1968_01"/><citedRange>3-4</citedRange></bibl>); also in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Gai+Sankaranarayanan1967-1968_01"/></bibl>, Sircar1967-68. Further discussion in in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1970_03"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1970_02"/></bibl> (possibly identical to <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1970_03"/></bibl>), <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1987_01"/><citedRange>64-65</citedRange></bibl> and <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1997_01"/><citedRange>106-107</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">IN00192</citedRange></bibl>). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.</p>

</listBibl>

</listBibl>

</div>

</body>

</text>

</TEI>