Mandsaur Stone Inscription of the Silk Weavers
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨1⟩ [sid]dh[a]m y[o bh]r̥(ty-art)tham upāsyate sura-gaṇ(ais) sid(dhaiś ca) siddhy-artthibhir ddhyānaikāgra-parair vvidheya-viṣayair mmokṣ-ārtthibhir yyogibhiḥ| bhaktyā tīvra-tapodhanaiś ca munibhiś śāpa-prasāda-kṣamair hetur yyo jagataẖ kṣayābhyudayayoḫ pāyāt sa vo bhāskaraḥ| ta¿tv?a-jñāna-vido ⟨’⟩pi yasya na vidur brahmarṣa-
⟨2⟩ yo ⟨’⟩bhyudyatāẖ kr̥tsnaṁ yaś ca gabhastibhiḥ pravisr̥taiḫ puṣ(ṇ)āti loka-trayaM gandharvvāmara-siddha-kinnara-narais saṁstūyate ⟨’⟩bhyutthito bhaktebhyaś ca dadāti yo ⟨’⟩bhila(ṣ)itaṁ tasmai savitre namaḥ| yaḫ pratyaham prativibhāty udayācalendra- vistīrṇṇa-tuṅga-śikhara-skhalitāṁśu-jālaḥ kṣībāṁga(n)[ā]-
⟨3⟩ -(ja)na-kapo(la)-talābhitāmraḫ pāyā(t sa vas s)u-k[i]raṇābha(raṇo) vivasvā(N) kusuma-bhar(ā)nata-taruvara-devakula-sabhā-vihāra-ramaṇīyāT lāṭa-viṣayān nag(ā)vr̥ta-śailāj jagati prathita-śilpāḥ(||) te deśa-pārtthiva-guṇāpahr̥tāḥ prakāśam addhvādi-jāny aviral(ā)ny asukhā-
⟨4⟩ ny apāsya(|) jātādarā daśapuraṁ prathamaṁ manobhir anv āgatās sa-suta-bandhu-janās sametya|| mattebha-gaṇḍa-taṭa-vicyuta-dāna-bindu- siktopalācala-sahasra-vibhūṣaṇāyāḥ puṣpāvanamra-taru-ṣaṇḍa-vataṁsakāyā bhūmeḫ pura¿n? tilaka-bhūtam idaṁ krameṇa|| taṭottha-vr̥kṣa-cyuta-
⟨5⟩ -naika-puṣpa-vicitra-tīrānta-jalāni bhānti(|) praphulla-padmābharaṇāni yatra sarāṁsi kāraṇḍava-saṁkulāni|| vilola-vīcī-calitāravinda-patad-rajaḥ-piñjaritaiś ca hamsaiḥ sva-kesarodāra-bharāvabhugnaiḥ kvacit sarāṁsy amburuhaiś ca bhānti| sva-puṣpa-bhārāvanatair nnagendrair mmada-
⟨6⟩ -pragalbhāli-kula-svanaiś ca| Ajasra-gābhiś ca purāṅganābhir vvanāni yasmin samalaṁkr̥tāni|| calat-patākāny abalā-sanāthāny atyarttha-śuklāny adhikonnatāni| taḍil-latā-citra-sitābbhra-kūṭa- tulyopamānāni gr̥hāṇi yatra|| k¿au?lāsa-tuṅga-śikhara-pratimāni cānyāny ābhānti dīrggha-valabhī-
⟨7⟩ ni sa-vedikāni| gāndharvva-śabda-mukharā¿n?i niviṣṭa-citra-karmmāṇi lola-kadalī-vana-śobhitāni|| prā(s)āda-mālābhir alaṁkr̥tāni dharāṁ vidāryyeva samutthitāni| vimāna-mālā-sadr̥śāni yattra gr̥hāṇi pū(rṇṇe)ndu-karāmalāni|| yad bhāty abhiramya-sari⟨d⟩-dvayena capalormmiṇā samupagūḍhaṁ
⟨8⟩ rahasi kuca-śālinībhyāṁ prīti-ratibhyāṁ smarāṅgam iva|| satya-kṣamā-dama-śama-vrata-śauca-dhairyya- svā(ddhyā)ya-vr̥tta-vinaya-sthiti-buddhy-upetaiḥ| vidyā-tapo-nidhibhir asmayitaiś ca viprair yyad bhrājate graha-gaṇaiẖ kham iva pradīptaiḥ|| Atha sametya nirantara-saṅgatair ahar-ahaḥ pravijr̥mbhita-
⟨9⟩ -sauhr̥dāḥ nr̥patibhis sutavat pratim¿a?nitāḥ pramuditā nyavasanta sukhaṁ pure|| śravaṇa-(su)bhag(e) gāndharvve ⟨’⟩nye dr̥ḍhaṁ pariniṣṭhitāḥ sucarita-śatāsaṅgāẖ keci(d v)icittra-kathāvidaḥ(|) vinaya-nibhr̥tās samyag dharmma-prasaṅga-parāya(ṇā)ḫ priyam aparuṣaṁ patthyaṁ cānye kṣamā bahu bhāṣitu¿ṁ?||
⟨10⟩ kecit sva-karmmaṇy adhikās tathānyair vvijñāyate jyotiṣam ātmavadbhiḥ Adyāpi cānye samara-pragalbhāẖ kurvvanty arīṇām ahitaṁ prasahya|| prājñā manojña-va(puṣ)aḥ prathitoru-vaṁśā vaṁśānurūpa-caritābharaṇās tathānye| satya-vratāḥ praṇayinām upakāra-dakṣā visrambha-
⟨11⟩ -[pūrvva]m apare dr̥ḍha-sauhr̥dāś ca|| vijita-viṣaya-saṅgair ddharmma-śīlais tathānyair m[r̥]dubhir adhika-sa¿tv?ai(r l)l(o)kayātrā-paraiś ca(|?) sva-kula-tilaka-bhūtair mukta-rāgair udārair adhikam abhivibhāti śreṇir evaṁ-prakāraiḥ|| tāruṇya-kānty-upacito ⟨’⟩pi suvarṇṇa-hāra- tāṁbūla-puṣpa-vidhinā sama-
⟨12⟩ [lamkr̥]to ⟨’⟩pi(|?) nārī-janaḥ śriyam upaiti na tāvad agryāṁ yāvan na paṭṭamaya-vastra-y(u)gāni dhatte|| spa(r)śa(vatā?) va(rṇṇ-ān)tara-vibhāga-cittreṇa netra-su(bha)gena (yai)s sakalam idaṁ kṣiti-talam alaṁkr̥taṁ paṭṭa-vastreṇa|| vidyādharī-rucira-pallava-karṇṇapūra- vāteritāsthirataraṁ pravicintya
⟨13⟩ [lo]kaṁ(|?) mānuṣyam arttha-nicayāṁś ca tathā viśālā(n) (t)eṣāṁ śubhe (ma)tir abhūd acal(e ca?) (ta)s(miN?)|| catus-(s)a(mud)r-(ā)(ṁbu?)-vilola-me(kha)l(āṁ) sumer(u)-kailāsa-br̥hat-pa(yo)dharā(M) vanānta-vānta-sphuṭa-puṣpa-hāsinīṁ kumāragupte p¿ri?thivīṁ praśāsati|| samāna-dhīś śukra-br̥haspatibhyāṁ lalāma-bhūto bhuvi
⟨14⟩ pārtthivānāṁ(|) raṇeṣu yaḥ pārttha-samāna-(ka)rmmā babhūva goptā nr̥pa-viśvavarmmā(||) dīn-ānukaṁpana-paraḥ kr̥paṇ-ārtta-vargga- sāntva-prado ⟨’⟩dhika-dayālur anātha-nāthaḥ(|?) kalpa-drumaḥ praṇayinām abhayaṁ-pradaś ca bhītasya yo janapadasya ca bandhur āsī(T||) tasyātmajaḥ sthairyya-nayopapanno bandhu-priyo
⟨15⟩ bandhur iva prajānāṁ(|) baṁdhv-artti-harttā nr̥pa-bandhuvarmmā dvi(ḍ-dr̥)pta-pa(kṣa-kṣa)paṇaika-dakṣaḥ| kānt(o y)u(vā) raṇa-paṭur vvinayānvitaś ca rājāpi sann upasr̥to na madaiḥ smayādyai(ḥ|) śr̥ngāra-mūrttir abhibhāty analaṁkr̥to ⟨’⟩pi rūpeṇa yaẖ kusumacāpa Iva dvitīyaḥ|| vaidhavya-tīvra-vyasana-kṣatānāṁ
⟨16⟩ sm¿ri?tvā yam adyāpy ari-sundarīṇāṁ(|) bhayād bhavaty āyata-locanānāṁ ghana-stanāyāsa-karaḥ prakampaḥ|| tasminn eva kṣitipati-v¿ri?ṣe baṁdhuvarmmaṇy (u)dāre samya(k-s)phītaṁ daśapuram idaṁ pālayaty unnatāṁse| śilpāvāpt(ai)r ddhana-samudayaiḥ paṭṭa-vā(yair u)dāraṁ (ś)re(ṇ)ībhūtair bbhavanam atulaṁ kāritaṁ
⟨17⟩ dīpta-raśmeḥ|| vistīrṇṇa-tuṅga-śikharaṁ śikhari-prakāśam abhyudgatendv-amala-raśmi-kalāpa-gauraṁ(|?) yad bhāti paścima-purasya niviṣṭa-kānta- cūḍāmaṇi-pratisaman nayanābhirāmaṁ|| rāmā-sanātha-(bha)van(o)dara-bhāskarāṁśu-vahni-pratāpa-subhage jala-līna-mīne| candrāṁśu-harmya-tala-
⟨18⟩ -candana-tālavr̥nta- hāropabho(g)a-rahite hima-dagdha-padme|| roddhra-priyaṁgu-taru-kunda-latā-vikośa- puṣpā(sa)va-pra(m)u(di)tāli-k(u)l(ā)bhirāme| kāle tuṣāra-kaṇa-karkkaśa-śīta-vāta- vega-pranr̥tta-lavalī-naga-naika-śākhe|| smara-vaśaga-taruṇa-jana-vallabhāṅganā-vipula-kānta-pīnoru-|
⟨19⟩ stana-jaghana-ghanāliṅgana-nirbhartsita-tuhina-hima-pāte|| mālavānāṁ gaṇa-sthityā yāt(e) śata-catuṣṭaye| tri-navaty-adhike ⟨’⟩bdānām ¿ri?tau sevya-ghana-stane|| sahasya-māsa-śuklasya praśaste ⟨’⟩hni trayodaśe maṅgalācāra-vidhinā prāsādo yaṁ niveśitaḥ|| bahunā samatītena
⟨20⟩ kālenānyaiś ca pārtthivaiḥ| vyaśīryyataika-deśo ⟨’⟩sya bhavanasya tato ⟨’⟩dhunā|| sva-yaśo-(v)¿(r)i?ddhaye sa(rvva-?) (dikṣ?)(ūd)āram udārayā| saṁskāritam idaṁ bhūyaḥ (śre)ṇyā bhānumato gr̥haṁ|| Atyunnatam avadātaṁ nabha⟨ḥ⟩ ¿spr̥śann? iva manoharaiś śikharaiḥ(|) śaśi-bhānvor abhyudayeṣv amala-mayūkh-āyatana-
⟨21⟩ -(bhū)taṁ|| vatsara-śateṣu paṁcasu viṁśaty-adhikeṣu navasu cābdeṣu| yāteṣv abhiramya-tapasya-māsa-śukla-dvitīyāyāṁ|| spaṣṭair aśoka-taru-ketaka-siṁduvāra- lolātimuktaka-latā-madayaṁtikānāṁ| puṣpodgamair abhinavair adhigamya nūnam aikyaṁ vijr̥ṁbhita-śare hara-pūta-dehe||
⟨22⟩ madhu-pāna-mudita-madhukara-kulopagīta-naga-naika-pr̥thu-śākhe(|) kāle nava-kusumodgama-daṁtura-kāṁta-pracura-roddhre|| śaśineva nabho vimalaṁ kaus(tu)bha-maṇineva śārṅgiṇo vakṣaḥ| bhavana-vareṇa tathedaṁ puram akhilam alaṁkr̥tam udāraṁ|| Amalina-śaśi-
⟨23⟩ -le(khā)-da(ṁ)turaṁ piṅgalānāṁ parivahati samūhaṁ yāvad īśo jaṭānāṁ| vikaṭa-kamala-mālām aṁsa-saktāṁ ca śārṅgī bhavanam idam udāraṁ śāśvata¿n? tāvad astu|| sreṇy-ādeśena bhaktyā ca kāritaṁ bhavanaṁ raveḥ| pūrvvā ceyaṁ prayatnena racitā vatsabhaṭṭinā||
⟨24⟩ svasti kartr̥-lekhaka-vācaka-śrotr̥bhyaḥ|| siddhir astu||
Bibliography
First reported and briefly discussed in Peterson 1885, pp. 380–381. First edited in Fleet 1886. Re-edited in Fleet 1888. Corrected in Bhandarkar 1889, pp. 94–97. Further corrections in Kielhorn 1890 and in Durgâprasâd & Parab 1892, pp. 107–112 (the inscription is in fact No. 26 in this book, not 51-52 as cited by Bhandarkar et al. 1981, p. 322). Revised in Bühler 1890, pp. 91–96 and discussed in Bühler 1890, pp. 8–31, the latter translated to English in Bühler 1913, pp. 137–148. Correction in Agrawal 1941, p. 60. Summarised in Trivedi & Trivedi 2001, p. 20 (No. 5). Further discussion in Diskalkar 1926, pp. 176–178, Pisharoti 1936, Sharma 1937, Pisharoti 1938, Sharma 1938, Bose [1942] 1937–1938, pp. 327–328, Sharma 1939, Sadhu Ram 1964, Vajpeyi 1972, Basham 1983, Mirashi 1980, Agrawal 1986 (also published as Agrawal 1986, pp. 79–86).
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00040). 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 18.
Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna, Bahadur Chand Chhabra & Govind Swamirao Gai. 1981. Inscriptions of the early Gupta kings. Corpus inscriptionum indicarum 3, revised edition. New Delhi: Archaeological survey of India. 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]. Items 6, 8.
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 24.
Agrawala, Prithvi Kumar. 1983. Imperial Gupta Epigraphs (गुप्ताधिराजलेखमण्डल). Ancient Indian Epigraphical Sources (प्रत्नाभिलेखसंहिता) 10, pt. 1 / 2. Varanasi: Books Asia, Distributed by Prithvi Prakashan. Item 40.
Goyal, Śrīrām. 1993. गुप्तकालीन अभिलेख/Guptakālīna Abhilekha (Inscriptions of the Gupta Age). Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan. Items 352-355.
<?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 Stone Inscription of the Silk Weavers</title>
<title type="alt">Mandasor Inscription of Kumāragupta and Bandhuvarman</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_INSSiddham00040.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 Gwalior Museum in January 2017). Alternative opinions are cited from Fleet in CII3 (F), Bühler_1890 (Bü), Bhandarkar in CII3rev (Bh) and Sircar in SI. Restorations, unless otherwise noted, were originally proposed by Fleet. Encoded for Siddham by Dániel Balogh. Version of January 2019. Comments below are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly researched or considered opinion.
--><p><!--
Unless otherwise noted, punctuation signs transcribed as a single daṇḍa are short horizontal dashes; those transcribed as a double daṇḍa are double verticals.
--><lb n="1"/><supplied reason="lost">sid</supplied>dh<supplied reason="lost">a</supplied>m</p>
<lg n="1" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita">
<l n="a">y<supplied reason="lost">o bh</supplied>r̥<unclear>ty-art</unclear>tham upāsyate sura-gaṇ<unclear>ais</unclear> sid<unclear>dhaiś ca</unclear> siddhy-artthibhir<!--
L1. For my restoration bhr̥tyartham, F and SI read vr̥tyartham, emending to vr̥ttyartham. Bh reads dhr̥tyartham. All of them show the first consonant as an unclear reading, not as a restoration. #Basham_1983 translates "that they may live", probably based on vr̥tty. In the rubbing and the stone, only the r̥ mātrā and a vertical stem are visible; I see no trace of a character body, but the bottom part of the body should be extant if it was v or dh. Hence my restoration bh, which I see as slightly more likely than the other alternatives.
--></l>
<l n="b">ddhyānaikāgra-parair vvidheya-viṣayair mmokṣ-ārtthibhir yyogibhiḥ|<!--
L1. The punctuation sign at the half-verse is a very short horizontal dash between (and extending slightly to the right of) the dots of the visarga.
--></l>
<l n="c">bhaktyā tīvra-tapodhanaiś ca munibhiś śāpa-prasāda-kṣamair</l>
<l n="d">hetur yyo jagataẖ kṣayābhyudayayoḫ pāyāt sa vo bhāskaraḥ|
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="2" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita">
<l n="a">ta<sic>tv</sic>a-jñāna-vido <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>pi yasya na vidur brahmarṣa<lb n="2" break="no"/>yo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>bhyudyatāẖ</l>
<l n="b">kr̥tsnaṁ yaś ca gabhastibhiḥ pravisr̥taiḫ puṣ<unclear>ṇ</unclear>āti loka-trayaM<!--
L2. Note regular visarga before pra, but upadhmānīya before puṣṇāti.
--><!--
L2. lo is the cursive looped form.
--><!--
L2. No separate punctuation sign after the halanta M, which is a small subscript form, probably with a line above.
--></l>
<l n="c">gandharvvāmara-siddha-kinnara-narais saṁstūyate <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>bhyutthito</l>
<l n="d">bhaktebhyaś ca dadāti yo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>bhila<unclear>ṣ</unclear>itaṁ tasmai savitre namaḥ|</l>
</lg>
<lg n="3" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">yaḫ pratyaham prativibhāty udayācalendra</l>
<l n="b">-
vistīrṇṇa-tuṅga-śikhara-skhalitāṁśu-jālaḥ</l><!--
L2. No punctuation sign at v3b, but perhaps the visarga (as opposed to jihvāmūlīya) serves as a yati marker. This, however, does not seem to be the case v2b above, where upadhmānīya is used at the caesura.
-->
<l n="c">kṣībāṁga<unclear>n</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ā</supplied><lb n="3" break="no"/>-<unclear>ja</unclear>na-kapo<unclear>la</unclear>-talābhitāmraḫ</l>
<l n="d">pāyā<unclear>t sa vas s</unclear>u-k<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->i</supplied>raṇābha<unclear>raṇo</unclear> vivasvā<unclear>N</unclear><!--
L3. The halanta N's shape is obscured by damage.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="4" met="āryā">
<l n="ab">kusuma-bhar<unclear>ā</unclear>nata-taruvara-devakula-sabhā-vihāra-ramaṇīyāT<!--
L3. The halanta t is a small subscript form with a line above.
--></l>
<l n="cd">lāṭa-viṣayān nag<unclear>ā</unclear>vr̥ta-śailāj jagati prathita-śilpāḥ<unclear>||</unclear></l><!--
L3. The punctuation sign transcribed as a double daṇḍa after śilpāḥ is a single vertical, but given the pattern of punctuation in the inscription, it was probably intended to be a double.
--><!--
L3. Note the use of naga here, as in lavalī.
--></lg>
<lg n="5" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">te deśa-pārtthiva-guṇāpahr̥tāḥ prakāśam</l>
<l n="b">addhvādi-jāny aviral<unclear>ā</unclear>ny asukhā<lb n="4" break="no"/>ny apāsya<unclear>|</unclear>
</l>
<l n="c">jātādarā daśapuraṁ prathamaṁ manobhir</l>
<l n="d">anv āgatās sa-suta-bandhu-janās sametya||<!--
L4. Fleet and Bhandarkar construe anvāgatāḥ, understanding that they came first with their minds, then followed bodily. I believe this is forced, since the only verb would be anvāgatāḥ. I prefer to understand prathamam and anu as paired adverbs, and see just āgatāḥ as the verb.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="6" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">mattebha-gaṇḍa-taṭa-vicyuta-dāna-bindu</l>
<l n="b">-
siktopalācala-sahasra-vibhūṣaṇāyāḥ
</l>
<l n="c">puṣpāvanamra-taru-ṣaṇḍa-vataṁsakāyā<!--
L4. ṣaṇḍa initially read by Fleet as maṇḍa. RG Bhandarkar (Bhandarkar_RG_1889:95) and Durgaprasad corrected to khaṇḍa. #Bühler_1890 was first to point out that the actual text is ṣaṇḍa (#Agrawal_1940:60 also says so, perhaps independently of Bühler). Bhandarkar concurs, so do I.
--></l>
<l n="d">bhūmeḫ pura<sic>n</sic> tilaka-bhūtam idaṁ krameṇa||<!--
L4. Fleet and Bühler read paran for puran. Bhandarkar is certain it's puran; so am I.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="7" met="upendravajrā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">taṭottha-vr̥kṣa-cyuta<lb n="5" break="no"/>-naika-puṣpa</l><!--
L4. Note the use of naika as in naga-naika.
-->
<l n="b">-vicitra-tīrānta-jalāni bhānti<unclear>|</unclear>
</l>
<l n="c">praphulla-padmābharaṇāni yatra</l>
<l n="d">sarāṁsi kāraṇḍava-saṁkulāni||
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="8" met="upendravajrā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">vilola-vīcī-calitāravinda</l>
<l n="b">-patad-rajaḥ-piñjaritaiś ca hamsaiḥ
</l>
<l n="c">sva-kesarodāra-bharāvabhugnaiḥ</l>
<l n="d">kvacit sarāṁsy amburuhaiś ca bhānti|
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="9" met="upendravajrā">
<l n="a">sva-puṣpa-bhārāvanatair nnagendrair</l><!--
L5. naga again.
-->
<l n="b">mmada<lb n="6" break="no"/>-pragalbhāli-kula-svanaiś ca|
</l>
<l n="c">Ajasra-gābhiś ca purāṅganābhir</l>
<l n="d">vvanāni yasmin samalaṁkr̥tāni||
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="10" met="upajāti">
<l n="a">calat-patākāny abalā-sanāthāny</l><!--
L6. Note abalā-sanāthāni as a parallel for rāmā-sanātha. There is also pramadā-sanātha in l17 of the Risthal inscription.
-->
<l n="b">atyarttha-śuklāny adhikonnatāni|
</l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">taḍil-latā-citra-sitābbhra-kūṭa</l>
<l n="d">-
tulyopamānāni gr̥hāṇi yatra||
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="11" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">k<choice><sic>au</sic><corr>ai</corr></choice>lāsa-tuṅga-śikhara-pratimāni cānyāny</l>
<l n="b">ābhānti dīrggha-valabhī<lb n="7" break="no"/>ni sa-vedikāni|
</l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">gāndharvva-śabda-mukharā<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>ṇ</corr></choice>i niviṣṭa-citra</l><!--
L7. Note gāndharvva as a parallel for gāndharve (as against dhānurvaidye) below.
-->
<l n="d">-karmmāṇi lola-kadalī-vana-śobhitāni||
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="12" met="upajāti">
<l n="a">prā<unclear>s</unclear>āda-mālābhir alaṁkr̥tāni</l><!--
L7. F and SI read prāsāda, while Bh reads prāṣāda, emending to s. In the rubbing, the character looks like s, but in the stone it does indeed resemble ṣ very much. I give the engraver the benefit of doubt.
-->
<l n="b">dharāṁ vidāryyeva samutthitāni|</l>
<l n="c">vimāna-mālā-sadr̥śāni yattra</l>
<l n="d">gr̥hāṇi pū<unclear>rṇṇe</unclear>ndu-karāmalāni||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="13" met="āryā">
<l n="ab">yad bhāty abhiramya-sari<supplied reason="omitted">d</supplied>-dvayena capalormmiṇā samupagūḍhaṁ</l>
<l n="cd"><lb n="8"/>rahasi kuca-śālinībhyāṁ prīti-ratibhyāṁ smarāṅgam iva||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="14" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">satya-kṣamā-dama-śama-vrata-śauca-dhairyya</l>
<l n="b">-
svā<unclear>ddhyā</unclear>ya-vr̥tta-vinaya-sthiti-buddhy-upetaiḥ|</l>
<l n="c">vidyā-tapo-nidhibhir asmayitaiś ca viprair</l>
<l n="d">yyad bhrājate graha-gaṇaiẖ kham iva pradīptaiḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="15" met="drutavilambita">
<l n="a">Atha sametya nirantara-saṅgatair</l>
<l n="b">ahar-ahaḥ pravijr̥mbhita<lb n="9" break="no"/>-sauhr̥dāḥ</l>
<l n="c">nr̥patibhis sutavat pratim<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>nitāḥ</l>
<l n="d">pramuditā nyavasanta sukhaṁ pure||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="16" met="hariṇī">
<l n="a">śravaṇa-<unclear>su</unclear>bhag<unclear>e</unclear> gāndharvve <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>nye dr̥ḍhaṁ pariniṣṭhitāḥ<!--
L9. Initially read by Fleet as śravaṇa-subhagaṁ dhānurvvaidyaṁ; correct reading first pointed out by RG Bhandarkar.
--></l>
<l n="b">sucarita-śatāsaṅgāẖ keci<unclear>d v</unclear>icittra-kathāvidaḥ<unclear>|</unclear><!--
L9. Obscured caesura at hariṇī1.
--></l>
<l n="c">vinaya-nibhr̥tās samyag dharmma-prasaṅga-parāya<unclear>ṇā</unclear>ḫ</l>
<l n="d">priyam aparuṣaṁ patthyaṁ cānye kṣamā bahu bhāṣitu<sic>ṁ</sic>||
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="17" met="indravajrā">
<l n="a"><lb n="10"/>kecit sva-karmmaṇy adhikās tathānyair</l>
<l n="b">vvijñāyate jyotiṣam ātmavadbhiḥ<!--
L10. SI reads jyotimam and emends to jyotiṣam. The character does look rather like m, but its body is not triangular like m's and was definitely meant to be ṣ.
--></l>
<l n="c">Adyāpi cānye samara-pragalbhāẖ</l>
<l n="d">kurvvanty arīṇām ahitaṁ prasahya||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="18" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">prājñā manojña-va<unclear>puṣ</unclear>aḥ prathitoru-vaṁśā<!--
L10. For vapuṣaḥ, Fleet reads vadhavaḥ. RG Bhandarkar proposed vapuṣaḥ or vibhavāḥ as an emendation. Durgaprasad actually read vapuṣaḥ. Bhandarkar says the text is certainly vadhuṣaḥ, and emends to vapuṣaḥ. Agrawal_1986:57 claims to have "verified the reading from the original stone" and says "The reading is certainly manojña-vapuṣaḥ". The characters are damaged, so anyone who calls a reading certain is subjective. The subscript u is practically clear so vibhavāḥ is out, and the top of the character is wide and seems to have two separate points, so dh is also probably out and p is as certain (in my own subjective opinion) as one can be.
--></l>
<l n="b">vaṁśānurūpa-caritābharaṇās tathānye|</l>
<l n="c">satya-vratāḥ praṇayinām upakāra-dakṣā</l>
<l n="d">visrambha<lb n="11" break="no"/>-<supplied reason="lost">pūrvva</supplied>m apare dr̥ḍha-sauhr̥dāś ca||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="19" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">vijita-viṣaya-saṅgair ddharmma-śīlais tathānyair</l>
<l n="b">m<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->r̥</supplied>dubhir adhika-sa<sic>tv</sic>ai<unclear>r l</unclear>l<unclear>o</unclear>kayātrā-paraiś ca<unclear cert="low">|</unclear><!--
L11. Fleet had read lokayātrāmaraiś, accepted by Bühler and SI. Durgaprasad corrected to loka-yātrā-paraiś; according to Bhandarkar, the impressions give the reading loka-yātr-āparaiś. Frankly, I don't see how this could look any different in the inscription from what Durgaprasad said; in any case, lokayātrā-para makes sense, while lokayātrā-apara does not, to me. At any rate, the problematic character is definitely p in the stone.
--><!--
L11. There may be original punctuation at the end of 19b, but only a space is visible. Editors do not print a daṇḍa here.
--></l>
<l n="c">sva-kula-tilaka-bhūtair mukta-rāgair udārair</l><!--
L11. Note rm, not rmm in mr̥dubhir and mukta.
-->
<l n="d">adhikam abhivibhāti śreṇir evaṁ-prakāraiḥ||
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="20" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">tāruṇya-kānty-upacito <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>pi suvarṇṇa-hāra</l>
<l n="b">-
tāṁbūla-puṣpa-vidhinā sama<lb n="12" break="no"/><supplied reason="lost">lamkr̥</supplied>to <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>pi<unclear cert="low">|</unclear></l>
<l n="c">nārī-janaḥ śriyam upaiti na tāvad agryāṁ<!--
L12. Fleet reads priyam and emends agryāṁ to aśryāṁ. Correct reading first pointed out by Bühler_1890 (also, perhaps independently, by #Agrawal_1940:60). Basham translates "go to meet her lover" and says the verse is about an abhisārikā, so he was not aware of or rejected the correction. gryā is clear; śri is not quite clear but certain.
--></l>
<l n="d">yāvan na paṭṭamaya-vastra-y<unclear>u</unclear>gāni dhatte||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="21" met="āryā">
<l n="ab">spa<unclear>r</unclear>śa<unclear cert="low">vatā</unclear> va<unclear>rṇṇ-ān</unclear>tara-vibhāga-cittreṇa netra-su<unclear>bha</unclear>gena<!--
L12. Instead of sparśavatā, #Agrawal_1940:60 proposes to read sparśāj jāta, which seems unmetrical to me. He says Fleet's va is a conjunct, and the lower letter is probably j; of the rest he is not certain. Sircar agrees it is unmetrical but notes that sparśajāta would be OK. This, however, would go against Agrawal's claim that the third character is a ligature. In the rubbing, the third character does indeed seem to have a subscript component which may well be j. It could also be d or y or something else. The upper part of the character is indistinct due to damage. In my photos, the apparent subscript component also seems to be nothing more than shallow damage, so I retain sparśavatā. The word is attested in the MBh and Kumārasambhava as meaning "pleasant to the touch".
--></l>
<l n="cd"><unclear>yai</unclear>s sakalam idaṁ kṣiti-talam alaṁkr̥taṁ paṭṭa-vastreṇa||
</l>
</lg>
<lg n="22" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">vidyādharī-rucira-pallava-karṇṇapūra</l>
<l n="b">-
vāteritāsthirataraṁ pravicintya <lb n="13"/><supplied reason="lost">lo</supplied>kaṁ<unclear cert="low">|</unclear>
</l>
<l n="c">mānuṣyam arttha-nicayāṁś ca tathā viśālā<unclear>n</unclear><!--
L13. Note viśālān teṣāṁ, without standard sandhi but with a nte ligature. Bhandarkar observes that both Fleet and Bühler print viśālāṁs teṣām as original, not as an emendation. The reading is quite certain.
--></l>
<l n="d"><unclear>t</unclear>eṣāṁ śubhe <unclear>ma</unclear>tir abhūd acal<unclear cert="low">e ca</unclear> <unclear>ta</unclear>s<unclear cert="low">miN</unclear>||<!--
L13. Fleet: viśālāṁs teṣāṁ śubhā matir abhūd acalā tatas tu. Bühler: śubhe. Bhandarkar: viśālān teṣāṁ śubhe matir abhūd acalā tatas taiḥ. SI: viśālāṁ(ste)ṣāṁ śubhā (ma)ti(r abhūd a)calā tatas tu. Sircar connects the end of this stanza to kāritaṁ in v29, saying "The intervening verses are by way of a parenthesis." Bhandarkar's taiḥ still requires (even more strongly) that we continue the sentence in v29, but seems to be more likely on the basis of the stone. (His translation seems to imply he took taiḥ as the logical subject of pravicintya, but I don't think that is possible.)
--><!--
L13. In my opinion, viśālān teṣāṁ is very likely. The end of the stanza is unclear both in the rubbing and unfortunately also in my photographs. I am quite certain there is a halanta consonant at the end, not a visarga. My own reading is also awkward, since tasmin (meant to go with śubhe) doesn't really serve any function in the sentence, but less awkward than tatas tu or tatas taiḥ. Aside from acale ca, acalaiva or acaleva may also be possible, and so may tasmāt instead of tasmin. tasmāt may give a better sentence (having thought, they therefore...), but I think i is more likely than ā. Le seems to be formed in two different ways in the inscription. In l22, kāle has an e mātrā attached to the bottom left corner of the body. But more commonly, e.g. kāle in l18, it is basically a cross-stroke in the stem of l, probably intended so that the long curl of the stem is cut off by the cross stroke, and an e mātrā looking like the curl is attached to the top of that. In this particular locus, neither of these solutions is clearly visible, but either may be possible and both are in my opinion more likely than an ā. What looks like a downward slanting (thus not really a-like) stroke from the top right corner in the rubbing does not, in the photos, seem to be a carved line. In l11, lai seems to use neither of these strokes; instead, it seems to consist of a regular long-tailed l, with two little slanted mātrās on top of the curve.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="23" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a">catus-<unclear>s</unclear>a<unclear>mud</unclear>r-<unclear>ā</unclear><unclear cert="low">ṁbu</unclear>-vilola-me<unclear>kha</unclear>l<unclear>āṁ</unclear><!--
L13. F reads samudrānta, Bü and SI follow. Bhandarkar avers that samudrāmbu is more likely. The problematic character doesn't look like a conjunct to me, but the top part may well be b (compare br̥hat a little later on), and there may well be an anusvāra before it, so I opt to read samudrāṁbu. This may have been what Bhandarkar intended, though he spells m, not anusvāra, both in his edition and in his footnote. (He also prints anukampana in l14 where the stone clearly has anukaṁpana, and kṣatānām at the end of l15 where the stone has ṁ.)
--></l>
<l n="b">sumer<unclear>u</unclear>-kailāsa-br̥hat-pa<unclear>yo</unclear>dharā<unclear>M</unclear></l><!--
L13. The e of me is attached at the bottom left part of the body.
-->
<l n="c">vanānta-vānta-sphuṭa-puṣpa-hāsinīṁ</l>
<l n="d">kumāragupte p<sic>ri</sic>thivīṁ praśāsati||<!--
L13. Instead of pri in prithivīṁ, the character may be p with both r̥ and i attached.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="24" met="upendravajrā">
<l n="a">samāna-dhīś śukra-br̥haspatibhyāṁ</l>
<l n="b">lalāma-bhūto bhuvi <lb n="14"/>pārtthivānāṁ<unclear>|</unclear>
</l>
<l n="c">raṇeṣu yaḥ pārttha-samāna-<unclear>ka</unclear>rmmā</l>
<l n="d">babhūva goptā nr̥pa-viśvavarmmā<unclear>||</unclear></l>
</lg>
<lg n="25" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">dīn-ānukaṁpana-paraḥ kr̥paṇ-ārtta-vargga-
</l>
<l n="b">sāntva-prado <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>dhika-dayālur anātha-nāthaḥ<unclear cert="low">|</unclear><!--
L14. Fleet read sandhā; RG Bhandarkar first corrected to sāntva.
--></l>
<l n="c">kalpa-drumaḥ praṇayinām abhayaṁ-pradaś ca
</l>
<l n="d">bhītasya yo janapadasya ca bandhur āsī<unclear>T||</unclear></l>
</lg>
<lg n="26" met="indravajrā">
<l n="a">tasyātmajaḥ sthairyya-nayopapanno</l>
<l n="b">bandhu-priyo <lb n="15"/>bandhur iva prajānāṁ<unclear>|</unclear></l>
<l n="c">baṁdhv-artti-harttā nr̥pa-bandhuvarmmā</l>
<l n="d">dvi<unclear>ḍ-dr̥</unclear>pta-pa<unclear>kṣa-kṣa</unclear>paṇaika-dakṣaḥ|</l>
</lg>
<lg n="27" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">kānt<unclear>o y</unclear>u<unclear>vā</unclear> raṇa-paṭur vvinayānvitaś ca</l><!--
L15. kānto yuvā is shown as clear by all previous editors, but nto looks more like nte, yu like pu and vā like vo or ṇa; there is also some additional funniness near the bottom of r. Since kānto yuvā fits the context admirably, I retain the reading.
-->
<l n="b">rājāpi sann upasr̥to na madaiḥ smayādyai<unclear>ḥ|</unclear></l>
<l n="c">śr̥ngāra-mūrttir abhibhāty analaṁkr̥to <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>pi</l>
<l n="d">rūpeṇa yaẖ kusumacāpa Iva dvitīyaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="28" met="upajāti">
<l n="a">vaidhavya-tīvra-vyasana-kṣatānāṁ
</l>
<l n="b"><lb n="16"/>sm<sic>ri</sic>tvā yam adyāpy ari-sundarīṇāṁ<unclear>|</unclear><!--
L16. Again, instead of smri the "correct" reading may be sm with both r̥ and i.
--><!--
L16. SI believes a halanta M was inscribed and then deleted after sundarīṇāṁ. I prefer to see this bit as a punctuation dash and some damage below it, but a halanta M (and no separate punctuation sign) is also possible. In this case the anusvāra over ṇā may be just damage.
--></l>
<l n="c">bhayād bhavaty āyata-locanānāṁ</l>
<l n="d">ghana-stanāyāsa-karaḥ prakampaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="29" met="mandākrāntā">
<l n="a">tasminn eva kṣitipati-v<sic>ri</sic>ṣe baṁdhuvarmmaṇy <unclear>u</unclear>dāre</l>
<l n="b">samya<unclear>k-s</unclear>phītaṁ daśapuram idaṁ pālayaty unnatāṁse|</l>
<l n="c">śilpāvāpt<unclear>ai</unclear>r ddhana-samudayaiḥ paṭṭa-vā<unclear>yair u</unclear>dāraṁ</l>
<l n="d"><unclear>ś</unclear>re<unclear>ṇ</unclear>ībhūtair bbhavanam atulaṁ kāritaṁ <lb n="17"/>dīpta-raśmeḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="30" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">vistīrṇṇa-tuṅga-śikharaṁ śikhari-prakāśam</l>
<l n="b">abhyudgatendv-amala-raśmi-kalāpa-gauraṁ<unclear cert="low">|</unclear></l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">yad bhāti paścima-purasya niviṣṭa-kānta</l>
<l n="d">-
cūḍāmaṇi-pratisaman nayanābhirāmaṁ||</l><!--
L17. Basham says paścimapura, "City of the West" is Daśapura itself. Bhandarkar translates "the western ward (of the town)."
--></lg>
<lg n="31" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">rāmā-sanātha-<unclear>bha</unclear>van<unclear>o</unclear>dara-bhāskarāṁśu<!--
L17. For bhavane dara, Fleet's reading was (ra)cane dara, translated "which unites men with (their) lovely mistresses; which is agreeable with the warmth of the fire of the rays of the sun (shining) in the glens." Sircar and Agrawala keep this reading. R. G. Bhandarkar suggested bhavane dara instead, translating "in which there are lovely women in the houses ... which is agreeable with the moderated heat of the fire of the rays of the Sun." Bühler adpots this (p24, Zur Zeit, wo die Häuser voll schöner Frauen sind, die angenehm ist ob der schwachen Sonnenstrahlen und der Wärme des Feuers, also noting that dara is synonymous with komala here). Kielhorn (1890:252) in turn suggested bhavanodara, saying that "heat of the fire of the Sun" would be redundant and dara would not be used by a poet to describe sunbeams. His conjecture is endorsed by Jagannath Agrawal and (D. R.) Bhandarkar, who also notes that gamanādara is also a possible reading (not that it makes much sense). On the basis of my photos of the stone, I deem racane impossible; bhavane and bhavano seem equally possible depending on whether the stroke to the right of the n is part of the vowel mark or a result of damage. Contra Kielhorn (ibid.) I believe that dara-bhāskarāṁśu would be semantically acceptable if interpreted to mean that the sun's rays are mild (ergo pleasant). Vahni-pratāpa in this reading would be attached to the preceding members of the compound as a dvandva, meaning not the fire of the sun's rays but that heat, when one needs it, comes from fires. However, the parallel r̥tusaṁhāra passage cited by Kielhorn (5.1-2) speaks of mandirodara and, separately, of bhānumato gabhastayaḥ. For this reason I am convinced that Kielhorn is right after all, and Vatsabhaṭṭi's verse had bhavanodara and bhāskarāṁśu.
--></l>
<l n="b">-vahni-pratāpa-subhage jala-līna-mīne|</l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">candrāṁśu-harmya-tala<lb n="18" break="no"/>-candana-tālavr̥nta</l>
<l n="d">-
hāropabho<unclear>g</unclear>a-rahite hima-dagdha-padme||<!--
L18. F and SI read hāropabhodha, Bh reads hāropabhoba. Both, of course, emend to °bhoga, which was clearly intended. In the rubbing, the bottom is connected and the character looks like a neat rectangle, which resembles dh much more than it resembles b. In my photos of the stone the bottom stroke does not seem to be an engraved line, rather a pointlike bit of damage between the feet of g, so I give the engraver the benefit of doubt.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="32" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">roddhra-priyaṁgu-taru-kunda-latā-vikośa</l>
<l n="b">-
puṣpā<unclear>sa</unclear>va-pra<unclear>m</unclear>u<unclear>di</unclear>tāli-k<unclear>u</unclear>l<unclear>ā</unclear>bhirāme|<!--
L18. F, SI read kalā°. PD conjecturally corrects to kulā°, which Bü feels is confirmed by the facsimile. Bh, however, rejects the correction believing it is based on a fault in Fleet's plate (however, he retains Fleet's translation "swarms of bees"). Indeed, while ku is quite clear in the rubbing, the possible vowel mark is indistinct in my photos. The readings are both permitted by the evidence and both make sense in the context. I prefer to read kulā° on the one hand because joyous swarms of bees has been mentioned once before in the inscription (mada-pragalbhāli-kula, l6-7), and on the other hand because kala is primarily an adjective meaning "soft" applicable to sound (though it may also be a substantive meaning "soft sound").
--></l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">kāle tuṣāra-kaṇa-karkkaśa-śīta-vāta</l>
<l n="d">-
vega-pranr̥tta-lavalī-naga-naika-śākhe||<!--
L18. F reads nagaṇaika, translating "nagaṇā-bushes" and identifying this as Cardiospermum Halicacabum. SI keeps the reading nagaṇaika. Bühler (p24) translates "den Zweige der Lavalî und des Nagana" (n, not ṇ) but his edition (p95) has nagaṇa. Bhandarkar says the reading is clearly naganaika (analysed as nagan-aika). He translates "solitary branches of myriads of the lavalī creepers" and notes (330n2) that the interpretation "myriads" had been suggested by Shembavnekar in JIH, vol. X. p. 146 and Jagannath JIH, Vol. XVIII, pp. 118-119 (untraced, not in bibliography). From this it appears that he understands na-gaṇa as "myriad", interpreting ekaśākhe as "solitary branches." I don't quite see how this myriad thing works out (haven't checked Shembavanekar or Jagannath). Funny, am I the only one to understand naga+naika? Agrawal_1986a:77-78 has an entire (brief) article dedicated to explaining "nagaṇā" in this inscription. The paper is said to be reprinted from JIH 18 (is Agrawal the same as the above Jagannath?). He says it is indeed Cardiospermum halicacabum, as identified by Fleet; also known as heart pea and in Skt by various names including īngudī (sic). This is from the lexicon called ratnamālā, cited in HH Wilson's Skt dictionary.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="33" met="āryā"><!--
L18. SI says v33 is defective as it has yatibhaṅgadoṣa. It is a mukhavipulā, with no caesura after the third foot of the first half, but this is not a problem. Note also the use of the word vipula near that expected caesura - this may be an intentional wink. Sircar's problem may be what Bühler (1890:11) also points out, that there is a compound across the halfverse boundary. Also, there is no caesura before the 5th foot of the second half, though this foot comprises four light syllables, so a caesura may be required by convention before it. But I think this convention is not binding, and if Sircar is not aware of vipulā āryās (see v29), then he is probably not aware of the convention either.
-->
<l n="ab">smara-vaśaga-taruṇa-jana-vallabhāṅganā-vipula-kānta-pīnoru-|</l><!--
L18. Note the clear punctuation sign at the end even though there is a compound extending over the half-verse boundary.
-->
<l n="cd"><lb n="19"/>stana-jaghana-ghanāliṅgana-nirbhartsita-tuhina-hima-pāte||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="34" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">mālavānāṁ gaṇa-sthityā</l>
<l n="b">yāt<unclear>e</unclear> śata-catuṣṭaye|</l>
<l n="c">tri-navaty-adhike <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>bdānām</l>
<l n="d"><sic>ri</sic>tau sevya-ghana-stane||<!--
L19. Fleet read svane at the end. Durgaprasad conjectured stane, Bühler confirmed on the basis of impressions. Bhandarkar agrees. The rubbing looks like sva, but sta is clear in the stone.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="35" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">sahasya-māsa-śuklasya</l>
<l n="b">praśaste <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>hni trayodaśe</l>
<l n="c">maṅgalācāra-vidhinā</l>
<l n="d">prāsādo yaṁ niveśitaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="36" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">bahunā samatītena</l>
<l n="b"><lb n="20"/>kālenānyaiś ca pārtthivaiḥ|</l>
<l n="c">vyaśīryyataika-deśo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>sya</l>
<l n="d">bhavanasya tato <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>dhunā||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="37" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">sva-yaśo-<unclear>v</unclear><sic><unclear>r</unclear>i</sic>ddhaye sa<unclear cert="low">rvva-</unclear></l>
<l n="b"><unclear cert="low">dikṣ</unclear><unclear>ūd</unclear>āram udārayā|</l><!--
F (and everyone else) reads sarvvam atyudāram. But their ma is unlikely and the bottom part of the next character is not tyu but almost definitely ū.
-->
<l n="c">saṁskāritam idaṁ bhūyaḥ</l>
<l n="d"><unclear>śre</unclear>ṇyā bhānumato gr̥haṁ||</l><!--
L20. Note standard gr̥, not gri in gr̥haṁ; also in spr̥śann.
--></lg>
<lg n="38" met="āryā"><!--
L20. V38 has a slurred caesura in the second half, which is the first one I notice in āryā. Sircar does not flag it as a doṣa.
-->
<l n="ab">Atyunnatam avadātaṁ nabha<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> <sic>spr̥śann</sic> iva manoharaiś śikharaiḥ<unclear>|</unclear>
</l>
<l n="cd">śaśi-bhānvor abhyudayeṣv amala-mayūkh-āyatana<lb n="21" break="no"/>-<unclear>bhū</unclear>taṁ||</l><!--
L20. nvo in bhānvor has the right-hand vowel mark attached to the body, not the head.
--></lg>
<lg n="39" met="āryā"><!--
L21. SI again says v39 has yatibhaṅgadoṣa. This time the stanza is a jaghanavipulā (tapa:sya), not faulty.
-->
<l n="ab">vatsara-śateṣu paṁcasu viṁśaty-adhikeṣu navasu cābdeṣu|<!--
L21. The word viṁśaty is recorded as "viśaṁty" and emended to viṁśaty by all previous editors (Bhandarkar erroneously prints viśamty) except Bühler. However, it is actually clearly meant to be viṁśaty, only the engraver didn't want to put the anusvāra over the i of vi (which would have been way too high), so it's been pushed ahead above the śa. It is very near the left edge of that character, not at the right. Compare siṁduvāra a little further on in this line and prithivīṁ in line 13: for all we know, this may be a completely regular execution for this engraver. I say this is a feature, not a bug.
--></l>
<l n="cd">yāteṣv abhiramya-tapasya-māsa-śukla-dvitīyāyāṁ||</l><!--
L21. Interesting how ubiquitous final anusvāras have become: I think the earlier part of the inscription only had halanta m-s. It may be worth checking this. Is it an attempt to fit into the space? Or a change of hand? Or just random? The use of anusvāra instead of nasal conjunct also seems to predominate in these parts, but not earlier on. (e.g. siṁduvāra, madayaṁtikā in v40).
--></lg>
<lg n="40" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">spaṣṭair aśoka-taru-ketaka-siṁduvāra</l>
<l n="b">-
lolātimuktaka-latā-madayaṁtikānāṁ|
</l>
<l n="c">puṣpodgamair abhinavair adhigamya nūnam</l><!--
L21. Note how mai in nūnam aikyaṁ has a vowel mātrā at top left and one at bottom left attached to the body.
-->
<l n="d">aikyaṁ vijr̥ṁbhita-śare hara-pūta-dehe||<!--
L21. Fleet suggests correcting pūta to dhūta, which (as Bhandarkar notes and I agree), "is altogether unnecessary." (Though dhūta can mean destroyed, so the word would be apt. Yet pūta is, I think, a good lectio difficilior.)
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="41" met="āryā">
<l n="ab"><lb n="22"/>madhu-pāna-mudita-madhukara-kulopagīta-naga-naika-pr̥thu-śākhe<unclear>|</unclear><!--
L22. Bhandarkar again wants to correct to nagaṇ-aika, Agrawala likewise. Bhandarkar translates "solitary large branches of the Nagana," whatever that may be. I vote for naga as tree/plant, compare line 18.
--></l>
<l n="cd">kāle nava-kusumodgama-daṁtura-kāṁta-pracura-roddhre||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="42" met="āryā">
<l n="ab">śaśineva nabho vimalaṁ kaus<unclear>tu</unclear>bha-maṇineva śārṅgiṇo vakṣaḥ|<!--
L22. The punctuation dash at v42b is after, not between, the visarga dots. It's quite clear even though Bhandarkar does not print it at all.
--></l>
<l n="cd">bhavana-vareṇa tathedaṁ puram akhilam alaṁkr̥tam udāraṁ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="43" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">Amalina-śaśi<lb n="23" break="no"/>-le<unclear>khā</unclear>-da<unclear>ṁ</unclear>turaṁ piṅgalānāṁ</l>
<l n="b">parivahati samūhaṁ yāvad īśo jaṭānāṁ|</l>
<l n="c">vikaṭa-kamala-mālām aṁsa-saktāṁ ca śārṅgī</l>
<l n="d">bhavanam idam udāraṁ śāśvata<sic>n</sic> tāvad astu||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="44" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">sreṇy-ādeśena bhaktyā ca</l>
<l n="b">kāritaṁ bhavanaṁ raveḥ|</l>
<l n="c">pūrvvā ceyaṁ prayatnena</l>
<l n="d">racitā vatsabhaṭṭinā||
</l>
</lg>
<p><lb n="24"/>svasti kartr̥-lekhaka-vācaka-śrotr̥bhyaḥ|| siddhir astu||
</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 reported and briefly discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Peterson1885_01"/><citedRange>380-381</citedRange></bibl>. First edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Fleet1886_03"/></bibl>. Re-edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Fleet1888_01"/></bibl>. Corrected in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1889_01"/><citedRange>94-97</citedRange></bibl>. Further corrections in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Kielhorn1890_02"/></bibl> and in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Durgaprasad+Parab1892_01"/><citedRange>107-112</citedRange></bibl> (the inscription is in fact No. 26 in this book, not 51-52 as cited by <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/><citedRange>322</citedRange></bibl>). Revised in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Buhler1890_01"/><citedRange>91-96</citedRange></bibl> and discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Buhler1890_01"/><citedRange>8-31</citedRange></bibl>, the latter translated to English in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Buhler1913_01"/><citedRange>137-148</citedRange></bibl>. Correction in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Agrawal1941_01"/><citedRange>60</citedRange></bibl>. Summarised in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Trivedi+Trivedi2001_01"/><citedRange>20</citedRange></bibl> (No. 5). Further discussion in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Diskalkar1926_01"/><citedRange>176-178</citedRange></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Pisharoti1936_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sharma1937_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Pisharoti1938_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sharma1938_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bose1937-1938_01"/><citedRange>327-328</citedRange></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sharma1939_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:SadhuRam1964_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Vajpeyi1972_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Basham1983_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1980_03"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Agrawal1986_02"/></bibl> (also published as <bibl><ptr target="bib:Agrawal1986_01"/><citedRange>79-86</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">IN00040</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">18</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/><citedRange unit="item">35</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1927-1936_01"/><citedRange unit="item">6, 8</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1965_02"/><citedRange unit="book">III</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">24</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Agrawala1983_01"/><citedRange unit="item">40</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Goyal1993_01"/><citedRange unit="item">352-355</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>