Risthal Inscription of Prakāśadharman
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨1⟩ vāmena sandhyā-praṇipāta-kopa-prasaṅginārddhena vighaṭṭyamānaMpinākinaś śānt(i?)-v[i](dh)[e](yam a)[r](d)dha[ṁ]v[ā]m[e]tara[ṁ] vaś śivam ādadhātu||raṇeṣu bhūyassu bhu(vo) mahimnebibhartti ya(ḥ) ⟨2⟩ kārmukam ātata-jyaMjayaty asau svasya kulasya keturlla(lā)ma rājñāṁ bhagavat-prakāśaḥ||bhuvana-sthiti-dhāma-dhar(mm)a-setussakalasyaulikarānvayasya lakṣma|drapavarddhana Ity abhūt pra ⟨3⟩ bhāva-kṣapitārāti-balonnatir nnarendraḥ||śirasīva pinākinas tuṣāra-sruti-śītāmala-dīdhitiś śasāṅkaḥnija-va¿ṅ?śa-lalāmni yattra senā-pati-śabdaḥ spr̥haṇīyatāṁ jagāma||sunayā(va)lambana ⟨4⟩ -dr̥ḍhīkr̥tayābala-sampadā prathitayā bhujayoḥ|Udapādi tena hr̥ta-śattru-jayojayavarddhana-kṣitipatis tanayaḥbahalena yasya sakalaṁ paritaḥparivr̥ṇvatā jalamuceva viyaT⟨5⟩ bala-reṇunā karabha-kaṇṭha-rucāsthagitā babhur nna kiraṇās savituḥ||kirīṭa-ratna-skhalitārkka-dīptiṣupratiṣṭhitājñaḥ pratirāja-mūrddha(s)u|balena tasyājita-pauruṣaḥ parairbbabhūva ⟨6⟩ rājājitavarddhanas sutaḥ||makheṣu somāsava-pāna-lālasesamāgate yasya muhur ddivas-patau|tatāma hastāgra-niveśitānanāviyoga-cintākula-mānasā śacī||śruta-vivikta-manāḥ ⟨7⟩ sthitimān balīsphuṭa-yaśaḥ-kusumodgama-pādapaḥ|jagati tasya sutaḥ prathito guṇaiḥkula-lalāma vibhīṣaṇavarddhaṇaḥ||sad-udayaiḥ pravikāsibhir uj⟨j⟩valairavihata-prasaraiḥ ⟨8⟩ śubha-rohibhiḥ|su-caritaiḥ kiraṇair iva bhānumānkṣata-tamā¿ṅ?si jaganti cakāra yaḥ||bhuvana-sthiti-goptr̥bhir nnr̥pairdhuram ādyair vvidhr̥tāṁ babhāra yaḥ|sva-kulocita-rājya-varddhanastanayas tasya ⟨9⟩ sa rājyavarddhanaḥ||vilalāpa mumoha vivyatheviniśaśvāsa visaṁjñatāṁ yayau|Upatapta-manā baloṣmaṇādviṣatāṁ yasya vilāsinī-janaḥ||kṣitipati-tilakasya tasya b(ā)hu-draviṇa ⟨10⟩ -nipīta-samagra-śatru-dīptiḥ|sucarita-ghaṭita-prakāśa-dharmmānr̥pati-lalāma sutaḥ prakāśadharmmā||Amalina-yaśasāṁ prabhāva-dhāmnāṁsakala-jagan-mahanīya-pauruṣāṇāMAvitatha-janatānurāga ⟨11⟩ -bhā(j)āṁsthiti-padavīm anuyāti yo gurūṇāM||yaḥ svānvaya-krama-paramparayopayātāmāropitāṁ guṇa-rasāpahr̥tena pittrālokopakāra-vidhaye na sukhodayāyarāja-śriyaṁ ⟨12⟩ śu(bha-pha)lodayinīṁ bibhartti||Ā toramāṇa-nr̥pater nr̥pa-mauli-ratna-jyotsnā-pratāna-śabalīkr̥ta-pāda-pīṭhā⟦(M)⟧⟨⟨(T)⟩⟩hūṇādhipasya bhuvi yena gataḥ pratiṣṭhāṁnīto yudhā vitathatām adhirāja-śabdaḥ||⟨13⟩ saṁgrāma-mūrddhani vipāṭha-nipātitānāṁtasyaiva yena mada-vāri-mucāṁ gajānāMĀy[ā](m)i-danta-ghaṭitāni taponidhi(bh)y(o)bhadrāsanāni rucimanti niveditāni||tasyaiva cāhava-mukhe tarasā ⟨14⟩ jitasyayenāvarodhana-vara-pramadāḥ pramathya|loka-prakāśa-bhuja-vikrama-cihna-hetorvviśrāṇitā bhagavate vr̥ṣabhadhvajāya||rājñe pitāmaha-vibhīṣaṇavarddhanāyaślāghyānubhāva-guru ⟨15⟩ -puṇya-phalaṁ nivedya(|)vistāri bindu-sarasaḥ pratibimba-bhūtametad vibhīṣaṇa-saras samakhāni tena||Etac ca nr̥tta-rabhasa-skhalitendu-lekhā-vāntā¿ṅ?śu-vicchurita-mecaka-kaṇṭha-bhāsaḥ|⟨16⟩ sthāṇos samagra-bhuvana-ttraya-sr̥ṣṭi-hetoḥprāleya-śaila-taṭa-(ka)lpam akāri sadma||sa-dvy-abda-saptati-samā-samudāyavatsupūrṇṇeṣu pañcasu śateṣu vivatsarāṇāM⟨17⟩ grīṣme ⟨’⟩rkka-tāpa-mr̥dita-pramadā-sanātha-dhārā-gr̥hodara-vijr̥mbhita-puṣpaketau||lakṣma bhārata-varṣasyanideśāt tasya bhū-kṣitaḥ|Akārayad daśapureprakāśeśvara-sadma yaḥ||⟨18⟩ tasyaiva ca purasyā(n)tarbrahmaṇaś cāru mandiraMUnmāpayad iva vyomaśikharair gghana-rodhibhiḥ||Āśrayāya yatīnāñ casāṅkhya-yogābhiyog(in)āMvyadhatta kr̥ṣṇāvasathaṁbujjukāvasathañ ca yaḥ||⟨19⟩ sabhā-kūpa-maṭhārāmānsadmāni ca divaukasāMyo ⟨’⟩nyāṁś cānyāya-vimukhodeya-dharmmān acīkaraT||tenaiva nr̥pates tasyapūrvvajāmātya-sūnunā|rājasthānīya-bhagavad-doṣeṇādoṣa-saṅginā||⟨20⟩ Etaj jala-nidhi-hrepiviśālaṁ khānitaṁ saraḥ|Idañ ca jaladollekhiśūlinas sadma kāritaM||kisalaya-parivarttī vīrudhāṁ vāti yāvatsurabhi-kusuma-gandhāmoda-vāhī nabhasvāN⟨21⟩ sara I(dam a)bhirāmaṁ sadma śambhoś ca tāvadvihata-durita-mārgge kīrtti-vistāriṇī stāM||Iti tuṣṭūṣayā tasya nr̥pateḥpuṇya-karmmaṇaḥvāsulenoparacitāpūrvveyaṁ kakka-sūnunā||
Bibliography
First reported and edited (with rubbing) in Ramesh & Tewari 1983. Re-edited (with a different rubbing) in Mirashi 1984 (also printed as Mirashi 1984, pp. 27–41). Also edited, probably independently, in Sircar 1984. Discussed (with yet another rubbing) in Agrawal 1990. Re-edited (with a plate that seems to be an edited version of Mirashi’s rubbing) in Salomon 1989. Summarised in Trivedi & Trivedi 2001, p. 30 (No. 19). Further discussion: Sircar 1984, Agrawal 1986, pp. 91–94, Agrawal 1989.
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00098). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.
Secondary
Goyal, Śrīrām. 1993. गुप्तकालीन अभिलेख/Guptakālīna Abhilekha (Inscriptions of the Gupta Age). Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan. Items 363-365.
<?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>Risthal Inscription of Prakāśadharman</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_INSSiddham00098.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 the Natnagar Shodh Sansthan in January 2017). Alternative opinions are cited from Salomon_1989 (S), Ramesh&Tewari_1983 (RT), Mirashi_1984b (M) and Sircar_1984c (Sir) when I consider them both plausible and significant. Version of January 2019. Comments below are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly researched or considered opinion.
--><!--
The punctuation system appears to be identical to that of IN00097: double vertical at verse ends and short horizontal at half-verses; if the half-verse ends with a halanta consonant, then the stroke above the character doubles as a dash. A visarga also seems to double as a half-verse punctuation symbol (but e.g. in l8 after rohibhiḥ, there is clearly both a visarga and a dash). The double vertical is always plain (no hook etc), though in the rubbing this is not clear.
--><lg n="1" met="upajāti">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes"><lb n="1"/><!--
The first character of the text is indented from the margin by about one character width. The surface of the stone is smooth here, there is definitely no mangala symbol, but one may have been intended to be carved here subsequently.
-->vāmena sandhyā-praṇipāta-kopa</l>
<l n="b">-prasaṅginārddhena vighaṭṭyamānaM</l>
<l n="c">pinākinaś śānt<unclear cert="low">i</unclear>-v<supplied reason="lost">i</supplied><unclear>dh</unclear><supplied reason="lost">e</supplied><unclear>yam a</unclear><supplied reason="lost">r</supplied><unclear>d</unclear>dha<supplied reason="lost">ṁ</supplied></l><!--
L1. śānti, M: śānta. The end of the tail of i is visible in the stone in front of nt.
-->
<l n="d">v<supplied reason="lost">ā</supplied>m<supplied reason="lost">e</supplied>tara<supplied reason="lost">ṁ</supplied> vaś śivam ādadhātu||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="2" met="upajāti"><!--
V2. The metre is in fact pure upendravajrā, but since it is preceded by a mixed upajāti, I'm classifying this as upajāti too.
-->
<l n="a">raṇeṣu bhūyassu bhu<unclear>vo</unclear> mahimne</l><!--
L1. bhūyassu, RT and M: bhūyas sa. The bottom of the lower s is extended and hooked so it must be su. Compare ssu in l6, °varddhanas sutaḥ.
-->
<l n="b">bibhartti ya<unclear>ḥ</unclear> <lb n="2"/>kārmukam ātata-jyaM</l>
<l n="c">jayaty asau svasya kulasya ketur</l>
<l n="d">lla<unclear>lā</unclear>ma rājñāṁ bhagavat-prakāśaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="3" met="mālabhāriṇī"><!--
V3. RT identify the metre as aupacchandasika; in my understanding that is a loose category of which mālabhāriṇī is a more specific instantiation.
-->
<l n="a">bhuvana-sthiti-dhāma-dhar<unclear>mm</unclear>a-setus</l>
<l n="b">sakalasyaulikarānvayasya lakṣma|</l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">drapavarddhana Ity abhūt pra<lb n="3" break="no"/>bhāva</l><!--
L2. drapavarddhana, M: drumavarddhana; Sir: dramavarddhana. Salomon says the reading drapa is quite certain. I concur: the stone is wholly intact here. There is no trace of u for dru, and ma would have a more slanting left limb and a definite tail (compare jagāma right below this point). The only problem left is that drapa is so unlikely. Could it be a metri causa alteration of darpa? Could it be Upa, with a pre-drawn U misinterpreted by the artisan? (Compare Udapādi in l4, the character definitely looks different, so it needs a scribal error to work.) śrama? Would need two scribal errors.
-->
<l n="d">-kṣapitārāti-balonnatir nnarendraḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="4" met="mālabhāriṇī">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">śirasīva pinākinas tuṣāra</l>
<l n="b">-sruti-śītāmala-dīdhitiś śasāṅkaḥ</l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">nija-va<sic>ṅ</sic>śa-lalāmni yattra senā</l>
<l n="d">-pati-śabdaḥ spr̥haṇīyatāṁ jagāma||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="5" met="pramitākṣarā"><!--
V5. RT call this stanza and the next āryāgīti. Mora counts match but foot specifications and caesurae do not; it is, however, a perfect pramitākṣarā.
-->
<l n="a">sunayā<unclear>va</unclear>lambana<lb n="4" break="no"/>-dr̥ḍhīkr̥tayā</l>
<l n="b">bala-sampadā prathitayā bhujayoḥ|</l><!--
L3. sunayā° RT: anayā°. Salomon is definitely correct in reading sunayā°, compare Amalina in l10.
-->
<l n="c">Udapādi tena hr̥ta-śattru-jayo</l><!--
L4. hr̥ta, M: hata. The r̥ is clear in the stone.
-->
<l n="d">jayavarddhana-kṣitipatis tanayaḥ</l>
</lg>
<lg n="6" met="pramitākṣarā">
<l n="a">bahalena yasya sakalaṁ paritaḥ</l>
<l n="b">parivr̥ṇvatā jalamuceva viyaT</l><!--
L4. Sir: parivr̥ṇhatā em. parivr̥ṁḥatā. ṇv is clear in the stone.
--><!--
L4. The halanta T, in addition to a simplified subscript ta and a line above, includes a curl at the bottom that looks like an u mātrā: is this a virāma symbol? The halanta T in l12 (pīṭhāT) has some damage but does not have this curly stroke.
-->
<l n="c"><lb n="5"/>bala-reṇunā karabha-kaṇṭha-rucā</l>
<l n="d">sthagitā babhur nna kiraṇās savituḥ||</l><!--
L5. In kiraṇā, ā is attached to ṇ at the bottom right endpoint, going straight up to well above headline, then curling right. (so too in l9)
--></lg>
<lg n="7" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a">kirīṭa-ratna-skhalitārkka-dīptiṣu</l>
<l n="b">pratiṣṭhitājñaḥ pratirāja-mūrddha<unclear>s</unclear>u|</l>
<l n="c">balena tasyājita-pauruṣaḥ parair</l>
<l n="d">bbabhūva <lb n="6"/>rājājitavarddhanas sutaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="8" met="vaṁśastha">
<l n="a">makheṣu somāsava-pāna-lālase</l>
<l n="b">samāgate yasya muhur ddivas-patau|</l>
<l n="c">tatāma hastāgra-niveśitānanā</l>
<l n="d">viyoga-cintākula-mānasā śacī||</l><!--
L6. viyoga, Sir: viyogra em. viyoga. There must have been a fault in his rubbing, there's nothing resembing a subscript r.
--></lg>
<lg n="9" met="drutavilambita">
<l n="a">śruta-vivikta-manāḥ <lb n="7"/>sthitimān balī</l>
<l n="b">sphuṭa-yaśaḥ-kusumodgama-pādapaḥ|</l>
<l n="c">jagati tasya sutaḥ prathito guṇaiḥ</l>
<l n="d">kula-lalāma vibhīṣaṇavarddhaṇaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="10" met="drutavilambita">
<l n="a">sad-udayaiḥ pravikāsibhir uj<supplied reason="omitted">j</supplied>valair</l><!--
L7. yai is a cursive form. Regular y is looped tripartite, while this one is looped bipartite, with the loop lying horizontally to leave room above it for the pr̥ṣṭhamātrā part of ai.
-->
<l n="b">avihata-prasaraiḥ <lb n="8"/>śubha-rohibhiḥ|</l>
<l n="c">su-caritaiḥ kiraṇair iva bhānumān</l>
<l n="d">kṣata-tamā<sic>ṅ</sic>si jaganti cakāra yaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="11" met="viyoginī"><!--
V11. RT classify this verse as a gīti, which is wrong. The mora count matches, but foot specifications and caesurae do not.
-->
<l n="a">bhuvana-sthiti-goptr̥bhir nnr̥pair</l>
<l n="b">dhuram ādyair vvidhr̥tāṁ babhāra yaḥ|</l><!--
L8. °dhr̥tāṁ. RT, S: °dhr̥taṁ. M and Sir correctly read tāṁ, clear in the stone.
-->
<l n="c">sva-kulocita-rājya-varddhanas</l>
<l n="d">tanayas tasya <lb n="9"/>sa rājyavarddhanaḥ||</l><!--
L8. sta in tanayas tasya seems to be in a shallow pit on the otherwise level surface. The character may be a correction made after rubbing out an earlier character, perhaps sya (eyeskip).
--></lg>
<lg n="12" met="viyoginī">
<l n="a">vilalāpa mumoha vivyathe</l>
<l n="b">viniśaśvāsa visaṁjñatāṁ yayau|</l>
<l n="c">Upatapta-manā baloṣmaṇā</l>
<l n="d">dviṣatāṁ yasya vilāsinī-janaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="13" met="puṣpitāgrā"><!--
V13 and V14 called aupacchandasika by RT.
-->
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">kṣitipati-tilakasya tasya b<unclear>ā</unclear>hu</l><!--
L9. tilakasya tasya, M: tilaka-sthitasya. tilakasya clear in stone.
-->
<l n="b">-draviṇa<lb n="10" break="no"/>-nipīta-samagra-śatru-dīptiḥ|</l><!--
L10. dīptiḥ, M: dīpteḥ. i is clear.
-->
<l n="c">sucarita-ghaṭita-prakāśa-dharmmā</l>
<l n="d">nr̥pati-lalāma sutaḥ prakāśadharmmā||</l><!--
L10. RT and M take sutaḥ in compound with the preceding. Salomon prints lālama, which is unmetrical and must be a typo. He takes lalāma separate from sutaḥ, which sounds like a good idea; the word was also lalāman, neuter, in l2 and 3 above.
--></lg>
<lg n="14" met="puṣpitāgrā">
<l n="a">Amalina-yaśasāṁ prabhāva-dhāmnāṁ</l>
<l n="b">sakala-jagan-mahanīya-pauruṣāṇāM</l>
<l n="c">Avitatha-janatānurāga<lb n="11" break="no"/>-bhā<unclear>j</unclear>āṁ</l><!--
L10. M: jana-cāru-rāga. janatānurāga is clear.
-->
<l n="d">sthiti-padavīm anuyāti yo gurūṇāM||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="15" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">yaḥ svānvaya-krama-paramparayopayātām</l>
<l n="b">āropitāṁ guṇa-rasāpahr̥tena pittrā</l><!--
L11. RT: guṇa-rasām ahr̥tena; Sir: guṇa-rasām abr̥tena (sic, typo for ahr̥tena?). Agrawal 1986:91, 1990:129 reads ahr̥tena but wants to translate "by the father who had not been captivated" i.e. that his father was not merely carried away by paternal affection. The reading pa is clear.
-->
<l n="c">lokopakāra-vidhaye na sukhodayāya</l>
<l n="d">rāja-śriyaṁ <lb n="12"/>śu<unclear>bha-pha</unclear>lodayinīṁ bibhartti||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="16" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">Ā toramāṇa-nr̥pater nr̥pa-mauli-ratna</l>
<l n="b">-jyotsnā-pratāna-śabalīkr̥ta-pāda-pīṭhā<subst><del rend="corrected"><unclear>M</unclear></del><add place="overstrike"><unclear>T</unclear></add></subst></l><!--
L12. RT, M: pīṭhāM. Agrawal 1986:93, 1990:130 was first to correct to pīṭhāT. After careful scrutiny I believe both are correct in a way: the character has been corrected in the stone from a halanta M to T. The body of the former M may have been chipped off. The body of the T is now the opening curve of the former M, and a stem seems to have been added to this, but the u-like stroke/virāma is missing below the t. Also, the resulting T is too close to the previous character, and the horizontal line above it is to the right of it, above the original M.
-->
<l n="c">hūṇādhipasya bhuvi yena gataḥ pratiṣṭhāṁ</l>
<l n="d">nīto yudhā vitathatām adhirāja-śabdaḥ||</l><!--
L12. RT apparently construed yudhā+avitathatām. The correct parsing was first suggested by Agrawal.
--></lg>
<lg n="17" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a"><lb n="13"/>saṁgrāma-mūrddhani vipāṭha-nipātitānāṁ</l>
<l n="b">tasyaiva yena mada-vāri-mucāṁ gajānāM</l><!--
L13. ye is the cursive bipartite y like yai in l7 above. However, most instances of ye are the regular tripartite form, e.g. yena in l12, yenā in l14.
-->
<l n="c">Āy<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ā</supplied><unclear>m</unclear>i-danta-ghaṭitāni taponidhi<unclear>bh</unclear>y<unclear>o</unclear></l><!--
L13. āyāmi, M: ā(bhānti) danta; Sir ā = . danta. The left side and part of the central stem of y are clear, the rest of that character is obliterated by flaking. Part if m is clear and much of the rest is faintly visible in the chipped-off part.
-->
<l n="d">bhadrāsanāni rucimanti niveditāni||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="18" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">tasyaiva cāhava-mukhe tarasā <lb n="14"/>jitasya</l>
<l n="b">yenāvarodhana-vara-pramadāḥ pramathya|</l>
<l n="c">loka-prakāśa-bhuja-vikrama-cihna-hetor</l>
<l n="d">vviśrāṇitā bhagavate vr̥ṣabhadhvajāya||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="19" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">rājñe pitāmaha-vibhīṣaṇavarddhanāya</l>
<l n="b">ślāghyānubhāva-guru<lb n="15" break="no"/>-puṇya-phalaṁ nivedya<unclear>|</unclear></l>
<l n="c">vistāri bindu-sarasaḥ pratibimba-bhūtam</l>
<l n="d">etad vibhīṣaṇa-saras samakhāni tena||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="20" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">Etac ca nr̥tta-rabhasa-skhalitendu-lekhā</l>
<l n="b">-vāntā<sic>ṅ</sic>śu-vicchurita-mecaka-kaṇṭha-bhāsaḥ|</l>
<l n="c"><lb n="16"/>sthāṇos samagra-bhuvana-ttraya-sr̥ṣṭi-hetoḥ</l>
<l n="d">prāleya-śaila-taṭa-<unclear>ka</unclear>lpam akāri sadma||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="21" met="vasantatilakā">
<l n="a">sa-dvy-abda-saptati-samā-samudāyavatsu</l>
<l n="b">pūrṇṇeṣu pañcasu śateṣu vivatsarāṇāM</l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes"><lb n="17"/>grīṣme <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>rkka-tāpa-mr̥dita-pramadā-sanātha</l>
<l n="d">-dhārā-gr̥hodara-vijr̥mbhita-puṣpaketau||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="22" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">lakṣma bhārata-varṣasya</l>
<l n="b">nideśāt tasya bhū-kṣitaḥ|</l>
<l n="c">Akārayad daśapure</l>
<l n="d">prakāśeśvara-sadma yaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="23" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="18"/>tasyaiva ca purasyā<unclear>n</unclear>tar</l>
<l n="b">brahmaṇaś cāru mandiraM</l>
<l n="c">Unmāpayad iva vyoma</l>
<l n="d">śikharair gghana-rodhibhiḥ||</l><!--
L18. Sir: purasyante (sic) and yena rodhibhiḥ. purasyāntar and ghana-rodhibhiḥ are beyond doubt. However, rggha is formed in a very strange way: the g part and the gh part are completely on the same level, and the right-hand leg of g is the same stroke as the left-hand limb of gh; moreover, the repha is attached to the central limb of gh, not to the top of g. The character thus does, superficially, look like rye, but that reading would only be possible if 1. y was not looped, 2. e was a full-height pr̥ṣṭhamātrā with a footmark, and 3. e was attached to the left limb, not to the centre of y - but none of these are the case elsewhere in this inscription.
--></lg>
<lg n="24" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">Āśrayāya yatīnāñ ca</l>
<l n="b">sāṅkhya-yogābhiyog<unclear>in</unclear>āM</l><!--
L18. S: yatīnāṁ, probably a typo.
-->
<l n="c">vyadhatta kr̥ṣṇāvasathaṁ</l>
<l n="d">bujjukāvasathañ ca yaḥ||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="25" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="19"/>sabhā-kūpa-maṭhārāmān</l>
<l n="b">sadmāni ca divaukasāM</l>
<l n="c">yo <supplied reason="subaudible">’</supplied>nyāṁś cānyāya-vimukho</l>
<l n="d">deya-dharmmān acīkaraT||</l><!--
L19. The halanta T again has an u-like curl (virāma sign?) attached to the bottom, like the one in l4 and unlike the one in l12.
--></lg>
<lg n="26" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">tenaiva nr̥pates tasya</l>
<l n="b">pūrvvajāmātya-sūnunā|</l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">rājasthānīya-bhagavad</l>
<l n="d">-doṣeṇādoṣa-saṅginā||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="27" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="20"/>Etaj jala-nidhi-hrepi</l>
<l n="b">viśālaṁ khānitaṁ saraḥ|</l>
<l n="c">Idañ ca jaladollekhi</l>
<l n="d">śūlinas sadma kāritaM||</l>
</lg>
<lg n="28" met="mālinī">
<l n="a">kisalaya-parivarttī vīrudhāṁ vāti yāvat</l>
<l n="b">surabhi-kusuma-gandhāmoda-vāhī nabhasvāN</l><!--
L20. The halanta N is a slightly subscript and slightly simplified form with a line above. The line is level with the headline of the regular characters. There is almost certainly no punctuation mark after it.
-->
<l n="c"><lb n="21"/>sara I<unclear>dam a</unclear>bhirāmaṁ sadma śambhoś ca tāvad</l>
<l n="d">vihata-durita-mārgge kīrtti-vistāriṇī stāM||</l><!--
L21. RT: vihita; vistāriṇis tāM.
--></lg>
<lg n="29" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">Iti tuṣṭūṣayā tasya nr̥pateḥ</l>
<l n="b">puṇya-karmmaṇaḥ</l>
<l n="c">vāsulenoparacitā</l>
<l n="d">pūrvveyaṁ kakka-sūnunā||</l>
</lg>
</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 edited (with rubbing) in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Ramesh+Tewari1983_01"/></bibl>. Re-edited (with a different rubbing) in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1984_01"/></bibl> (also printed as <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1984_02"/><citedRange>27-41</citedRange></bibl>). Also edited, probably independently, in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1984_03"/></bibl>. Discussed (with yet another rubbing) in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Agrawal1990_01"/></bibl>. Re-edited (with a plate that seems to be an edited version of Mirashi’s rubbing) in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Salomon1989_01"/></bibl>. Summarised in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Trivedi+Trivedi2001_01"/><citedRange>30</citedRange></bibl> (No. 19). Further discussion: <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1984_04"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Agrawal1986_01"/><citedRange>91-94</citedRange></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Agrawal1989_01"/></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">IN00098</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:Goyal1993_01"/><citedRange unit="item">363-365</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>