Choti Sadri Inscription of Gauri
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨1⟩ siddhaM devī jayaty asura-dāraṇa-tīkṣṇa-śūlā| prodgīrṇṇa-ratna-makuṭā¿ṅ?śu-cala-pravāhā(|) si¿ṅgh?ogra-yukta-ratham āsthita-caṇḍa-vegā{ḥ}|
⟨2⟩ bhrū-bha{ṁ}ṅga-d¿ri?ṣṭi-vinipāta-niviṣṭa-roṣā{ḥ} bhūyo ⟨’⟩pi sā jayati yā śaśi-śekharasya dehārddham udvahati bhaktatayā harasya|
⟨3⟩ yā bhakta-vatsalatayā prabibhartti lokāN mā(te)va ¿svākya?-suta-premṇa-viv¿ri?ddha-snehā| tasyā{ṁ}ḥ praṇamya prakaromy aham eva jasraṁ
⟨4⟩ kīrtti¿M? śubhāṁ guṇa-gaṇ¿o?gha-mayīn nr̥pāṇāṁ| (ye) māṇavāyaṇi-kulodbhava-va{ṁ}¿ṅ?śa-gaurāḥ kṣātre pade satata-dīkṣita-yuddha-śauṇḍāḥ teṣām ayaṁ
⟨5⟩ kṣapita-kṣatra-gaṇāri-pakṣa⟨ḥ⟩ śrīmā¿ṁ? yaśaugha-suvibhūṣita-cāru-vakṣ(ā)ḥ prāK (pu)¿n?yasoma Iti kṣatra-gaṇasya maddhye yo rāja-śabda-k¿ri?ta-¿mūrddhni?-(gha)ṭ¿i?bhi-
⟨6⟩ ṣekaḥ tasyāvabaddha-makuṭoj⟨j⟩vala-dīpta-mūrttiḥ pūrṇṇendu-maṁḍala-mayūkha-vibhūti-vaktraḥ s(ū)nur bbabhūva kila rājya-jita-pratāpo yo rājya-varddha¿ṇ?a-
⟨7⟩ -guṇaiḥ k¿ri?ta-nāma-dhey¿ā?⟨ḥ⟩| te¿ṇ?āpi corjjita-jitāri-jaya{ṁ}nta-pakṣ¿aḥ? jātaḥ sut¿o? kari-karāyata-dīrggha-bāhuḥ yaś cāri-rāṣṭra-mathanodyata-dīpta-cakr¿aḥ?
⟨8⟩ nāmnā sa rāṣṭra Iti proddhata-pu¿n?ya-kīrt(t)iḥ t{t}asyāpi {d}dharmma-suta-śānta-svabhāva-mū(r)tt(i)¿ḥ? yajña-kri(yā)-satata-dīkṣita-dāna-dakṣaḥ Āhvāna-śaṅkita-surādhipa-
⟨9⟩ tiś ca yasya lebhe na śarmma punar-āgamanāya śa(kra)ḥ so ⟨’⟩ya¿M? yaśābharaṇa-bhūṣita-sarvva-gātraḥ protphulla-paṅkaja-(sa)māyata-cāru-netraḥ dakṣo dayālur iha
⟨10⟩ śāsita-śatru-pakṣaḥ kṣmā-śāsitā sa yaśagupta Iti nr̥penduḥ t{t}asyaiṣa Āhava-gajendra-sadar(p)pa-harttā| mattebha-da{ṁ}nta-vinipāta-vibhinna-vakṣ¿a?ḥ (vyūh)eṣu ya(sya) |
⟨11⟩ mada-ni⟨ḥ⟩s¿ri?ta-bhinna-gaṇḍā¿ḥ? Ārttā drutaṁ śara-nipāta-hatā vraja{ṁ}nti| sa¿ḥ ssa?rvva-sa¿(tva)?-(sa?)tatārtthi¿bhi? nitya-dātā dīnānuka{ṁ}mpana-rataḥ satataṁ prajānāM
⟨12⟩ yasya sarassu kumudoj⟨j⟩valatāṁ niśāmya śatru-s⟨t⟩riy¿o? siṣicur ¿aṁṅśrubhi? vaktra-padmāN|| teneyaṁ bhūta-dhātrī kratubhir iha citā yū¿v?a-ś¿ri?ṅg¿i?va bhāti| prā[sā]-
⟨13⟩ dair ad¿r̥?-tuṅgaiḥ śaśi-kara-vapuṣai⟨ḥ⟩ sthāpitair bhūśitā{ś} ca nānā-dānen(d)u-śubhrair dvija-vara-bhavanair yyena lakṣmī(r) vvibhaktā| sa(t)-putraḥ so ⟨’⟩timānī sita-yaśa-vapuṣa⟨ḥ⟩
⟨14⟩ śrī-mahārāja-gauriḥ ten¿e?ṣaḥ śaśi-hāra-kunda-dhavalaḥ śailendra-ś¿ri?ṅgonnata⟨ḥ⟩ prāsādo ⟨’⟩dbhuta-da¿riśa?naḥ k¿ri?ta¿m? aya¿M? devyāḥ prasādārtthinā| yat p(u)¿n?ya¿ṁ? I-
⟨15⟩ ha ¿ṇyapyate? dvija-varaiḥ śās(t)reṣu yac cocyate(|?) tat sarvva¿M? mama Akṣayaṁ bhavatu n¿aḥ? mātā-pit¿ri?bhyām idaṁ| yāteṣu paṁcasu śateṣv atha vatsarāṇāṁ|
⟨16⟩ dve vi¿ṅ?śatī-samadhikeṣu sa-saptakeṣu māghasya śukla-divase sa gamat pratiṣ¿ṭ?āM prot¿p?ulla-kunda-{d}dhavaloj⟨j⟩valite daśamyāM jīva¿ddha?raṇa-samutpannasya
⟨17⟩ mitrasoma-sūno⟨r⟩ bhramarasomasya k¿ri?tiḥ〰|| likhitā ceyaṁ pūrvvā Aparājitena| rājaputra-gobhaṭa-pādānuddhyātena 〰
Bibliography
First noticed by Hirananda Sastri in ARASI 1929–30, p. 187. Also noticed by G. H. Ojha in Ojha 1930, p. 2 and discussed by hin in Hindi in Rājputāne kā Itihās Vol. 2. (1932), p1442ff. Subsequently reported (by Chhabra) in the paper Nāgarī Pracāriṇī Patrikā (Banāras), vol. 57 (Vikram Samvat 2009), p149ff, and (by unknown author) in Bengali in Pravāsī (Calcutta) in Bangla San 1359 (Phālguna), p559ff (all untraced). Also reported in IAR 1953-54, p. 13. Edited in Sircar 1953–1954, pp. 120–127. Discussed in Mirashi 1957. Summarised in Trivedi & Trivedi 2001, pp. 24–25 (No. 11-12).
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00203). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.
<?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>Choti Sadri Inscription of Gauri</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_INSSiddham00203.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 from photographs of the original stone (taken at Udaipur Museum in February 2018). The commentary makes reference to the edition of #Sircar_1953-54b. Version of January 2019. Comments below are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly researched or considered opinion.
--><p><lb n="1"/>siddhaM</p><!--
L1. Siddham is inline. The halanta M is a small subscript character with a line above it; it has clear serifs on both arms.
--><lg n="1" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">devī jayaty asura-dāraṇa-tīkṣṇa-śūlā|</l><!--
L1. Sircar reads a superfluous visarga between śūlā and the punctuation mark. Though pādas c and d of the stanza end with superfluous visargas, this is not the case here; the two mi-nuscule and shallow dots above and below the ā mātrā do not resemble a proper visarga, compare roṣāḥ in l2.
--><!--
L1. The punctuation mark is a horizontal dash at headline height, slightly curved (dipping at the centre).
-->
<l n="b">prodgīrṇṇa-ratna-makuṭā<sic>ṅ</sic>śu-cala-pravāhā<unclear>|</unclear></l>
<l n="c">si<sic>ṅgh</sic>ogra-yukta-ratham āsthita-caṇḍa-vegā<surplus>ḥ</surplus>|</l><!--
L1. Sircar notes that there may be a superfluous anusvāra above the ta of āsthita, but it may also be just a flaw in the stone. Similar occurrences later on are not noted by Sircar. The dot is clear and quite deep in the stone, but it is high above the character so it is probably not part of the writing.
--><!--
L1. The punctuation mark at the end of the line is a single horizontal, placed low, almost at baseline level.
-->
<l n="d"><lb n="2"/>bhrū-bha<surplus>ṁ</surplus>ṅga-d<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ṣṭi-vinipāta-niviṣṭa-roṣā<surplus>ḥ</surplus></l>
</lg>
<lg n="2" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">bhūyo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>pi sā jayati yā śaśi-śekharasya</l>
<l n="b">dehārddham udvahati bhaktatayā harasya|</l>
<l n="c"><lb n="3"/>yā bhakta-vatsalatayā prabibhartti lokāN</l><!--
L3. The halanta N is a reduced form, deeply subscript, with a line above it, which is approximately at baseline.
-->
<l n="d">mā<unclear>te</unclear>va <sic>svākya</sic>-suta-premṇa-viv<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ddha-snehā|</l><!--
L3. Svākya was suggested to Sircar by Chhabra; Sircar notes it must be derived from svaka and understood as svakīya. SI marks svā as unclear, but the reading is unambiguous in the stone in spite of some damage and the strangeness of the word.
--><!--
L3. Note the metrical licence in treating sv, pr and sn as single consonants. Sircar's opinion of the skill of the poet is worth quoting: "the author's style is weak ... his knowledge of the Sanskrit language and skill in handling the metres were both very poor. ... numerous ... attempts of a desperate and ludicrous nature to save the metre at the cost of grammar."
--><!--
L3. Sircar prints no original punctuation at the end of v2, but there is a clear horizontal stroke at headline height.
--></lg>
<lg n="3" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">tasyā<surplus>ṁ</surplus>ḥ praṇamya prakaromy aham eva jasraṁ</l><!--
L3. The redundant anusvāra of tasyāṁḥ is probably genuine, not damage.
-->
<l n="b"><lb n="4"/>kīrtti<sic>M</sic> śubhāṁ guṇa-gaṇ<choice><sic>o</sic><corr>au</corr></choice>gha-mayīn nr̥pāṇāṁ|</l>
<l n="c"><unclear>ye</unclear> māṇavāyaṇi-kulodbhava-va<surplus>ṁ</surplus><sic>ṅ</sic>śa-gaurāḥ</l><!--
L4. Licence in prakaromy.
--><!--
L4. Halanta m for anusvāra, deep, simplified, with line above.
--><!--
L4. Sircar_1953-54b:122 reports Ojha assuming that Gaura was their clan name (he also read gaura instead of gauri in l14 and could not read the dynastic name māṇavāyaṇi). Sircar prefers to understand that the compound vaṁśa-gaura means "a person who purified his family by virtuous acts or was himself illustrious owing to his birth in the family in question."
-->
<l n="d">kṣātre pade satata-dīkṣita-yuddha-śauṇḍāḥ</l>
</lg>
<lg n="4" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">teṣām ayaṁ <lb n="5"/>kṣapita-kṣatra-gaṇāri-pakṣa<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied></l><!--
L5. Licence in kṣatra.
-->
<l n="b">śrīmā<choice><sic>ṁ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice> yaśaugha-suvibhūṣita-cāru-vakṣ<unclear>ā</unclear>ḥ</l><!--
L5. Sircar reads grīmān and the cross-stroke is invisible in the rubbing, but it is quite clear, though faint (narrow and shallow) in the stone.
--><!--
L5. gha is strangely shaped, drawn as two curves (like an inverted lowercase m) instead of a straight bottom and three prongs. It is definitely gha, as read by Sircar.
--><!--
L5. Sircar reads vakṣaḥ and emends; I think the ā mātrā is there, though quite small.
-->
<l n="c">prāK <unclear>pu</unclear><choice><sic>n</sic><corr>ṇ</corr></choice>yasoma Iti kṣatra-gaṇasya maddhye</l><!--
L5. The rare halanta K is a reduced but fully formed ka, subscript with a line above.
--><!--
L5. p in fact looks like b or pā and may be a correction from either of these. (Compare sūnur in l6.) The u mātrā is also unclear; Sircar reads it as pū an emends. It is completely different from the mātrā of pū in pūrṇṇendu, l6, as well as from that in pūrvvā, l14 (nor are these latter two alike). I accept the present one as an awkward u, though the vowel mark in yat puṇyaṁ, l14, is again unlike any of the above.
--><!--
L5. Licence in kṣatra.
-->
<l n="d">yo rāja-śabda-k<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ta-<sic>mūrddhni</sic>-<unclear>gha</unclear>ṭ<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>bhi<lb n="6" break="no"/>ṣekaḥ</l><!--
L5. Sircar suggests emending mūrddhni to mūrddha in cpd, which does make sense. The construction is still very awkward.
--><!--
L5. I follow Sircar's reading of ghaṭi and emendation to ghaṭā. The vowel mark is definitely a full circle, identical to that of the following bhi, so it is very unlikely that this is an unusual way of attaching ā to ṭ.
--></lg>
<lg n="5" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">tasyāvabaddha-makuṭoj<supplied reason="omitted">j</supplied>vala-dīpta-mūrttiḥ</l>
<l n="b">pūrṇṇendu-maṁḍala-mayūkha-vibhūti-vaktraḥ</l>
<l n="c">s<unclear>ū</unclear>nur bbabhūva kila rājya-jita-pratāpo</l><!--
L6. Sircar notes that sū also has a superfluous ā mātrā. This actually connects the end of the ū mātrā to the headmark and may be a correction from ā to ū, or it may be a calligraphic design. Compare punya in l5 above.
-->
<l n="d">yo rājya-varddha<choice><sic>ṇ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice>a<lb n="7" break="no"/>-guṇaiḥ k<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ta-nāma-dhey<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice><supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied>|</l><!--
L6. Sircar prints rājyavarddhaṇa in bold and even suggests emending to °no in spite of this being unmetrical (as he notes). I do agree that the son's name was probably rājyavarddhana, but in this sentence the term is in my opinion a common noun and is meant to be in compound: he was named after his qualities of being an increaser of the kingdom.
--></lg>
<lg n="6" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">te<choice><sic>ṇ</sic><corr>n</corr></choice>āpi corjjita-jitāri-jaya<surplus>ṁ</surplus>nta-pakṣ<sic>aḥ</sic></l><!--
L7. Sircar notes that jayanta parallels attested forms such as jayanta-patra for jaya-patra, but does not note that jayanta for jayat is a clearcut Prakritism.
--><!--
L7. No sandhi between pāda a and b, nor between c and d.
-->
<l n="b">jātaḥ sut<choice><sic>o</sic><corr>aḥ</corr></choice> kari-karāyata-dīrggha-bāhuḥ</l><!--
L7. rggha has some damage, but it is clearly a horizontally composed character, with the right leg of g coinciding with the left arm of gh. This form has a parallel in l18 of the Risthal inscription.
-->
<l n="c">yaś cāri-rāṣṭra-mathanodyata-dīpta-cakr<sic>aḥ</sic></l>
<l n="d"><lb n="8"/>nāmnā sa rāṣṭra Iti proddhata-pu<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>ṇ</corr></choice>ya-kīrt<unclear>t</unclear>iḥ</l>
</lg>
<lg n="7" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">t<surplus>t</surplus>asyāpi <surplus>d</surplus>dharmma-suta-śānta-svabhāva-mū<unclear>r</unclear>tt<unclear>i</unclear><sic>ḥ</sic></l><!--
L8. Sircar's reading ttasyāpi is correct. There is something to the right of the head of the lower t, a stroke curving down as if it were tā. The ligature is definitely not sta, which would not be too surprising after kīrttiḥ. Compare ttasyaiṣa in line 10.
--><!--
L8. pi ddha is unmetrical. Licence in svabhāva.
--><!--
L8. As Sircar observes, if dharmma-suta is understood as a comparison with Yudhiṣṭhira, then the stanza lacks a word meaning "son." (v9 also lacks such a noun; there, Sircar assumes that the subject of v11 was meant to apply there.)
-->
<l n="b">yajña-kri<unclear>yā</unclear>-satata-dīkṣita-dāna-dakṣaḥ</l>
<l n="c">Āhvāna-śaṅkita-surādhipa<lb n="9" break="no"/>tiś ca yasya</l>
<l n="d">lebhe na śarmma punar-āgamanāya śa<unclear>kra</unclear>ḥ</l><!--
L9. Sircar notes that the k part in śakra is malformed. śa and kra are very close together; k seems to lack a vertical stem between the arms and the subscript r, and the subscript r has a serif at the end. All characters are unambiguous, but the shape of kra is unusual.
--></lg>
<lg n="8" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">so <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>ya<sic>M</sic> yaśābharaṇa-bhūṣita-sarvva-gātraḥ</l>
<l n="b">protphulla-paṅkaja-<unclear>sa</unclear>māyata-cāru-netraḥ</l>
<l n="c">dakṣo dayālur iha <lb n="10"/>śāsita-śatru-pakṣaḥ</l>
<l n="d">kṣmā-śāsitā sa yaśagupta Iti nr̥penduḥ</l><!--
L10. Iti is unmetrical. Sircar reads itī, assuming a metri causa lengthening, but the stone has iti. As Sircar comments, using e.g. kṣitīndraḥ in place of nr̥penduḥ would have served. Note also that the inscription usually has ri instead of r̥; once r̥ instead of ri (adr̥, l13), so probably they pronounced nr̥ as nri.
--></lg>
<lg n="9" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">t<surplus>t</surplus>asyaiṣa Āhava-gajendra-sadar<unclear>p</unclear>pa-harttā|</l><!--
L10. Sircar emends sadarppa to sudarppa, translating "This is his [virtuous son] who humbled the great arrogance of the best of war-elephants; whose rutting elephants tore asunder by the strokes of their tusks the chests (of the war-elephants of the enemies); the temples (of the enemies' elephants) were split open for the exudation of ichor, (and) they, when struck by the fall of arrows (discharged by Yaśogupta and his men), became distressed (and) returned to the battle-arrays (of the enemies)." I find this amount of interpretive addition exorbitant and think that he captured the elephants of his enemies, simultaneously robbing them of their pride.
-->
<l n="b">mattebha-da<surplus>ṁ</surplus>nta-vinipāta-vibhinna-vakṣ<sic>a</sic>ḥ</l><!--
L10. rppa has the top of the principal p closed and the repha attached on the right, so it looks like rbpa. The intent was probably to draw a curved (mirrored L-shaped) repha on the left, though compare punya in l5 and sūnur in l6.
--><!--
L10. Sircar emends to vakṣāḥ and assumes this is a plural form, using the stem *vakṣa, just like yaśa repeatedly in the inscription. He takes it to qualify the war elephants of the enemies, supplied by him. I prefer to understand it as a singular form qualifying Gauri, in which case the form vakṣaḥ is correct with the assumption that the stem is vakṣa. (I.e. I assume only a grammatical solecism, while Sircar assumes both a solecism and a scribal mistake.)
-->
<l n="c"><unclear>vyūh</unclear>eṣu ya<unclear>sya</unclear> <g ref="sym:bar" type="connector">§</g><lb n="11"/>mada-ni<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied>s<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ta-bhinna-gaṇḍā<sic>ḥ</sic></l><!--
L10. Sircar reads vyuheṣu and emends. The character is damaged and could be vyū.
--><!--
L10. There is a straight vertical sign, from headline to baseline or slightly above, at the end of the line. It may have been meant for a space filler, but the right margin is not very even so one doesn't seem to be warranted.
-->
<l n="d">Ārttā drutaṁ śara-nipāta-hatā vraja<surplus>ṁ</surplus>nti|</l>
</lg>
<lg n="10" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">sa<sic>ḥ ssa</sic>rvva-sa<sic><unclear>tva</unclear></sic>-<unclear cert="low">sa</unclear>tatārtthi<sic>bhi</sic> nitya-dātā</l><!--
L11. Sircar reads vitatā°. The preceding tva is also faint, especially its v component; and the character SI reads as vi is unidentifiable. It definitely doesn't include an i mātrā. The only way I can interpret it is to assume that it is a very small sa (about half the height of the following ta, but comparable to the t component of the preceding tva), plus some damage, plus a dot below it that is also damage.
--><!--
L11. Sircar emends °ārtthibhi to ārtthiṣu, noting that ārtthibhyo would be unmetrical.
-->
<l n="b">dīnānuka<surplus>ṁ</surplus>mpana-rataḥ satataṁ prajānāM</l><!--
L11. The halanta M is a small and simplified subscript form with a line above. There is no separate punctuation mark, though Sircar prints one as original.
-->
<l n="c"><lb n="12"/>yasya sarassu kumudoj<supplied reason="omitted">j</supplied>valatāṁ niśāmya</l><!--
L12. As Sircar notes, yasya sarassu is unmetrical in spite of all licences conceivable. I must add that the image itself is very poor. The reading, however, is clear.
--><!--
L12. Sircar reads kamudo° an emends. ku is clear in the stone.
--><!--
L12. Sircar emends niśāmya to niśamya. I believe both forms are correct but I may be wrong. Monier-Williams actually gives only niśāmya (and niśamayya).
-->
<l n="d">śatru-s<supplied reason="omitted">t</supplied>riy<choice><sic>o</sic><corr>aḥ</corr></choice> siṣicur <sic>aṁṅśrubhi</sic> vaktra-padmāN||</l><!--
L12. Sircar reads striyo with an unclear t, but there is definitely no t in the character.
--><!--
L12. Note the word aṁṅśrubhi, which on the one hand must involve a Prakritism (if that is what the nasalisation is; compare Hindi आंसू), and on the other hand another metri causa deviation from grammar.
--><!--
L12. Note also (as Sircar does) that padma is normally neuter; S. would emend to padmaM.
--><!--
L12. The punctuation sign at the end of v10 is a double vertical, the first with a hook at the top left. This is the first such sign in this inscription. The preceding halanta N has a double line above it.
--></lg>
<lg n="11" met="sragdharā">
<l n="a">teneyaṁ bhūta-dhātrī kratubhir iha citā yū<choice><sic>v</sic><corr>p</corr></choice>a-ś<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ṅg<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>e</corr></choice>va bhāti|</l><!--
L12. The vowel mark on ṅg may have been intended for e, but it exactly resembles the preceding i.
-->
<l n="b">prā<supplied reason="lost">sā</supplied><lb n="13" break="no"/>dair ad<choice><sic>r̥</sic><corr>ri</corr></choice>-tuṅgaiḥ śaśi-kara-vapuṣai<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> sthāpitair bhūśitā<surplus>ś</surplus> ca</l><!--
L12. Sircar prints sā at the end of the line as an unclear reading, but the edge of the stone is chipped off here and there is no trace of this character, except possibly the tip of the ā mātr.
--><!--
L13. Note that the syllable preceding śri needs to be metrically short, while that preceding dr̥ must be long.
--><!--
L13. Note the stem vapuṣa for vapus.
-->
<l n="c">nānā-dānen<unclear>d</unclear>u-śubhrair dvija-vara-bhavanair yyena lakṣmī<unclear>r</unclear> vvibhaktā|</l><!--
L13. The repha of rdvi is practically horizontal, going right from the headmark. This is probably to be able to squeeze in the repha and i mātrā, which together would not have fit between d and the descenders of ktra above. rvvi, a bit further on, is similar but not so extreme.
-->
<l n="d">sa<unclear>t</unclear>-putraḥ so <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>timānī sita-yaśa-vapuṣa<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> <lb n="14"/>śrī-mahārāja-gauriḥ</l><!--
L13. Sircar reads vapuṣaḥ. The stone is chipped off here and everything from the top right-hand edge of ṣa is lost, but in Sircar's rubbing the chip seems to be smaller so he may indeed have read, not just restored, this visarga.
--><!--
As Sircar notes, vapuṣaḥ must have been intended as a nominative singular, not a genitive; the stem is *vapuṣa just as in v11b.
--></lg>
<lg n="12" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita">
<l n="a">ten<choice><sic>e</sic><corr>ai</corr></choice>ṣaḥ śaśi-hāra-kunda-dhavalaḥ śailendra-ś<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ṅgonnata<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied></l><!--
L14. As in l11 saḥ ssarvva above, tenaiṣaḥ needs the visarga for the sake of the metre.
-->
<l n="b">prāsādo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>dbhuta-da<choice><sic>riśa</sic><corr>rśa</corr></choice>naḥ k<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>ta<sic>m</sic> aya<sic>M</sic> devyāḥ prasādārtthinā|</l><!--
L14. Note the use of a halanta consonant at the caesura. The use of dariśana, . . . = instead of darśana = . = is also interesting from a metrical point of view, but unfortunately it may be simply due to the incompetence of the composer. Likewise, ayaM with halanta character at caesura could be metrically interesting but we've had other halanta characters inside a pāda without a caesura above.
-->
<l n="c">yat p<unclear>u</unclear><choice><sic>n</sic><corr>ṇ</corr></choice>ya<sic>ṁ</sic> I<lb n="15" break="no"/>ha <sic>ṇyapyate</sic> dvija-varaiḥ śās<unclear>t</unclear>reṣu yac cocyate<unclear cert="low">|</unclear></l><!--
L14. Sircar reads pūnya and emends the ū as well as the n. I think this is more likely u, though the identification is problematic, see note on punya in l5.
--><!--
L14. As Sircar notes, the use of anusvāra in punyaṁ is probably metri causa: a vowel with anusvāra must have been implicitly heavy.
--><!--
L15. For ṇyapyate, Sircar believes "An expression like khyāpyate is apparently intended". The reading is clear. I believe the intent was jñapyate.
--><!--
L15. There may be a punctuation mark (a dot or very short horizontal) at the end of v12c.
-->
<l n="d">tat sarvva<sic>M</sic> mama Akṣayaṁ bhavatu n<sic>aḥ</sic> mātā-pit<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>bhyām idaṁ|</l>
</lg>
<lg n="13" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">yāteṣu paṁcasu śateṣv atha vatsarāṇāṁ|</l>
<l n="b"><lb n="16"/>dve vi<sic>ṅ</sic>śatī-samadhikeṣu sa-saptakeṣu</l>
<l n="c">māghasya śukla-divase sa gamat pratiṣ<choice><sic>ṭ</sic><corr>ṭh</corr></choice>āM</l><!--
L16. Sircar suggests emending sagamat to tv agamat. I believe sa was intended as a pronoun to serve as a subject for the sentence (and point back to prāsāda in the preceding verse); gamat must have been meant for an aorist. Another possibility is that Agamat had been intended and incorrectly engraved, in which case we have non-standard sandhi but no serious grammatical error.
-->
<l n="d">prot<choice><sic>p</sic><corr>ph</corr></choice>ulla-kunda-<surplus>d</surplus>dhavaloj<supplied reason="omitted">j</supplied>valite daśamyāM</l><!--
L16. Sircar reads protphulla, but the character is tpu, perfectly identical to the one in yat punya in l14.
--></lg>
<p>jīva<sic>ddha</sic>raṇa-samutpannasya <lb n="17"/>mitrasoma-sūno<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied> bhramarasomasya k<choice><sic>ri</sic><corr>r̥</corr></choice>tiḥ<g ref="sym:flourish" type="symbol">*</g>|| likhitā ceyaṁ pūrvvā Aparājitena| rājaputra-gobhaṭa-pādānuddhyātena <g ref="sym:flourish" type="symbol">*</g><!--
L16. The name Jīvaddharaṇa may stand for Jīvadharaṇa (compare ddhavala just above and ddharmma in l7), but it could also be a mistake for Jīvoddharaṇa.
--><!--
L17. As Sircar observes, the intent must have been mitrasomasya, that is to say, the guy's father is Mitrasoma and his grandfather is Jīvaddharaṇa.
--><!--
L17. The first ornamental glyph consists of two concentric circles, the outer one slightly larger than an average character body. The following punctuation mark is a double plain (unhooked) vertical.
--><!--
L17. The closing ornament is a branch with leaves and many round fruits or stylised flowers. It lies horizontally, leaves and fruits branching off up and down. It extends for 6-7 character widths, to the margin.
--></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 noticed by Hirananda Sastri in <bibl><ptr target="bib:ARASI1929-1930"/><citedRange>187</citedRange></bibl>. Also noticed by G. H. Ojha in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Ojha1930_01"/><citedRange>2</citedRange></bibl> and discussed by hin in Hindi in <title>Rājputāne kā Itihās</title> Vol. 2. (1932), p1442ff. Subsequently reported (by Chhabra) in the paper <title>Nāgarī Pracāriṇī Patrikā</title> (Banāras), vol. 57 (Vikram Samvat 2009), p149ff, and (by unknown author) in Bengali in <title>Pravāsī</title> (Calcutta) in Bangla San 1359 (Phālguna), p559ff (all untraced). Also reported in <bibl><ptr target="bib:IAR1953-1954"/><citedRange>13</citedRange></bibl>. Edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1953-1954_02"/><citedRange>120-127</citedRange></bibl>. Discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1957_01"/></bibl>. Summarised in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Trivedi+Trivedi2001_01"/><citedRange>24-25</citedRange></bibl> (No. 11-12).</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">IN00203</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>