Deo-Baranark Inscription of Jīvitagupta II
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨1⟩ ⟨Column A⟩ [*****] [na](ma?)(ḥ)⟨.⟩ svasti śakti-ttrayopāt(t)a-jayaśavdān (m)ahā-nau-h¿ā?sty-a ⟨Column B⟩ śva-patti-sambhāra-durnivārāj jaya-skandhāvārā(T) * gomatikoṭṭaka-samīpa-(vāsa)-
⟨2⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[kāt?] [*] [śrī-mādhavagupta](s tas)y(a) [pu]t[tra]s (tat-pā)dānu(dhy)ātaḥ paramabhaṭ(ṭ)ārikā ⟨Column B⟩ yāṁ rā(jñyā)ṁ mahādevyāṁ śrī-śrīmatyām utpannaḥ paramabhāgavataḥ śrī-ādi(tya)[se]-
⟨3⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[na-devas tasya puttras ta](t-pā?)dānu(dhyātaḥ) (pa?)(ra)(mabhaṭṭā?)rikāyāṁ rājñyāṁ (ma)hādevy(āṁ) ⟨Column B⟩ śrī-ko⊔ṇadevyām utpannaḥ parama-māheśvara-parama-bhaṭṭāraka-mahā[rā]-
⟨4⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[jādhirāja-parameśvara]-(śrī-devagupta-de?)vas (tasya) (puttra?)s (t)at-pād-ānudhyātaḥ ⟨Column B⟩ parama-bhaṭṭārikārikāyā(ṁ) rāj(ñ)yā(ṁ) mahādevyāṁ śrī-kama(la)devyām utpannaḥ parama-mā(he?)-
⟨5⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[śvara-parama-bhaṭṭāraka-mahā]r(ā)(jā?)[dhi]rā(ja)-p(ara)m(eś)vara-śr(ī)-v(i)ṣ(ṇ)ugu(pt)a-devas ta ⟨Column B⟩ sya put(tr)as tat-pādānudhyātaḥ parama-bhaṭṭārikāyā(ṁ) rājñyāṁ mahādevyāṁ śrī Ijjāde-
⟨6⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[vyām utpannaḥ pa]ra[ma][māheśvara?]-(pa)[rama](bhaṭṭāraka?)-(mahārā)(jā?)(dh)irāja-parameśva ⟨Column B⟩ ra-śrī-(j)(ī?)vitagupta-deva⟨ḥ⟩ kuśalī nagara-bh(u)k(t)au vālavī-vai(ṣa)yika-śrī-v(ā/o)-
⟨7⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[********************] (pa)(dra?)(li)k(ā)ntaṣpāti-vā ⟨Column B⟩ ruṇikā-grā(ma)-g(o)(care ke?)la-(tala)-(vā?)(ṭaka-tala)-sīm(ā)-ka(rm)(m?)a-(tada?)-ma(hā)-
⟨8⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[******************] [rājā](n)aka-rājaputtra- ⟨Column B⟩ rā(jā)mat(t)ra-mahā-(kārttā?)(kr̥)tika-(mahā-da)ṇ(ḍa)nāyaka-mahāprat(īhā)ra-ma(hā)sā-
⟨9⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[manta?] [**********] (p)ramāt(r̥?)-sa(ra?)-[bhaṅga?]-(k?)[u](mā)rāmātya-rā ⟨Column B⟩ jas(thānī)yopari(ka) [***] (d)[āśāpa](r)[ā]dhi(ka)-cauroddhara(ṇ?)i(ka?)-d(āṇ?)ḍ(i?)ka-da(ṇḍa?)-
⟨10⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[pāśika?] [******] [tad-āyuktaka-viniyukta?]ka-[hasty-aśvo?](ṣṭ)(r?)(a)-vala- ⟨Column B⟩ vyāp[r̥]ta-kiś(o)ra-vaḍav(ā-g)[o]-mahi[ṣ](y-a)[dh](ikr̥?)ta-d[ū]ta-(p?)r[ai](ṣa?)(ṇi)ka-gam(āga)m(an)ika-A-
⟨11⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[bhitvaramāṇa-viṣaya](pati-?)[cāṭa-bhaṭa?] [*] (ra?) [*] s(e)(va?)k[ā](d)[īn anyāṁś cākīrtti]tās(m)at-pā ⟨Column B⟩ da-pras(ā)dopa(jī)vina(ś ca?) (prati)(vā?)sinaś ca vrāhmaṇottarā(n?) mahattara-ku⟨⟨ṭ(u)⟩⟩mvi-pur(o)
⟨12⟩ ⟨Column A⟩ [gān mānayati vodhayati samādiśati ca] (mata)(m a?)s(t)(u bhavatāṁ?) (da) [*] (v)ij(ñ)āp(i)ta[ṁ] ⟨Column B⟩ śrī-vāruṇavāsi-bhaṭṭ(ā)raka-prativa(ddha)-bhojaka-sū(r)yamittreṇa Upari(li)(khi?)-
⟨13⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[ta] [*******] (vāruṇavā?)[si?] [***] grām-ādi-(saṁ)(yu?)(ta)[ṁ] parame ⟨Column B⟩ śvara-śrī-vālā(dit)yade(ve)na sva-śāsanena ¿bhagava-śrī?-varuṇavāsi-bhaṭṭāraka [*]
⟨14⟩ ⟨Column A⟩ [*] (ma?) [*] (ka?)(ra)(ta?) [****] (ka) [*] (tasmāt ta?)(d)(u?)(pari) (gr?)(āhakaṁ) (tāpasa?) bhoja ⟨Column B⟩ ka-ha(nsa-mittra)sya sa(mā)(pat?)⟨t⟩(yā?) yathāk(ā)l(ā)dhy(ā)sibhiś ca Evaṁ parameśvara-
⟨15⟩ ⟨Column A⟩-[śrī]-(śa)rvvava(rmma?) [****] (pra) [*******] bhojaka-(r̥ṣ)imi(tt)ra ⟨Column B⟩ [***](ya?)(ta)ka(ṁ Evaṁ) parameśvara-śrī-¿ma?vantivarmma(ṇā) pūrvva-dattakam avala-
⟨16⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[mbya] [*] (hata?) [*] (bha?) [*] (ma?) [*] (s?)(ya pra)(diśa?) [*] evaṁ mah(ā)rāja-parameśvara- ⟨Column B⟩ [***] (varmma-deva-nr̥?)pa(ti)ḥ (śā)sana-dānena bhojaka-(du)rddha(ra?)mi(tt)ra(s)yānumo-
⟨17⟩ ⟨Column A⟩[dita] [**] (ta?) [*] (mucyamā?) [***] (stha)(ke?)(na)(bhujyate?) tad ahaṁ (k)i(ma)(pi vara Evaṁ sa?) [***] ⟨Column B⟩ [***] (śvapat)i(nā?) (sa)(rvva?) [**] [.]ānu¿(mau)?ditam i(t)i (sarvva?)-sa(m)ā(jñāpanā?)⟨.⟩ (Etā?) [*]
⟨18⟩ ⟨Column A⟩ [**] (nita?) [*] (pitāmā?) [*****] (tha?) [*] (sagosa?) [*********] (ka?)(ti)pay(a) (ka?) ⟨Column B⟩ [****] (saga?)(vivacchāda)(jj?)(i) [****] [v]āruṇavāsy-āyatanaṁ tad-anu [**] pa [**]
⟨19⟩ ⟨Column A⟩ [***] [*****] (ma)(t?)(i) [*] (gā?) [***] (la?)-(v)āṭa(ka-ta)(la?)-[s?](īmā-ka)(rm?)[m](a) (tadama?) [*] [*] ⟨Column B⟩ ty akṣa(ya)-nīv(y)(ā?) [**] taṁ (d)e [**] sodr{y}aṅga(ṁ) soparikaraṁ sa-da(śā)parā(dha)-pañca-(ro)[*]
⟨20⟩ ⟨Column A⟩ [***] […] ⟨Column B⟩ […] [||]
Bibliography
First reported in Cunningham & Garrick 1883, p. 68, with transcript (by Bhagwanlal Indraji) and discussion in Cunningham & Garrick 1883, pp. 73–78. Discussed in Majumdar 1944–1945, pp. 124–125. Discussed with corrections and restorations in Sircar 1945, pp. 72–74.
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00214). 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 46.
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]. Item 1554.
Sircar, Dines Chandra. 1983. Select inscriptions bearing on Indian history and civilization. Volume II: from the sixth to the eighteenth century A.D. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Book I, item 10.
Thaplyal, Kiran Kumar. 1985. Inscriptions of the Maukharīs, Later Guptas, Puṣpabhūtis and Yaśovarman of Kanauj. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research. Item II.6.
<?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>Deo-Baranark Inscription of Jīvitagupta II</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_INSSiddham00214.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">
<p><!--
This edition is based on #Fleet_1888 (F) and #Thaplyal_1985 (Th) if different from Fleet, with occasional reference to Bhagwanlal Indraji's transcript (BI) in #ASIR_16 and to Sircar's Select Inscriptions (SI).
--><lb n="1"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="5" unit="character"/> <supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->na</supplied><unclear cert="low">ma</unclear><unclear>ḥ</unclear><supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> svasti śakti-ttrayopāt<unclear>t</unclear>a-jayaśavdān <unclear>m</unclear>ahā-nau-h<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>sty-a<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>śva-patti-sambhāra-durnivārāj jaya-skandhāvārā<unclear>T</unclear> <g ref="sym:unclassified" type="symbol">*</g> gomatikoṭṭaka-samīpa-<unclear>vāsa</unclear><!--
L1. BI restores vāruṇavāsi-bhaṭṭārkāya (cited by Fleet as °bhaṭṭārakāya, which was probably BI's intent, since that is his reading in l13). As Fleet correctly notes, the lacuna is 5, at most 6 characters in size, so the restoration is impossible. SI suggests varuṇavāsine namaḥ, and also restores "siddham" at the start.
--><!--
L1 and passim: F and BI transcribes śabdān, but as SI notes, the inscription does not distinguish between v and b, using v for both. In the subsequent text, F uses some b-s (but e.g. he prints vrāhmaṇottarān in l11), and BI uses b and v inconsistently. I agree with Sircar that there is no b in the inscription.
--><!--
L1. The halanta T seems to be a tiny subscript character after rā. It is followed by a rather large ornamental character that I take to be a maṅgala symbol. BI transcribes it as śrī, while all other editors just ignore it (unless they read it as a halanta T, ignoring the little subscript thing - but this seems unlikely). The character has some resemblance to śr̥ (or better, gr̥), but it is not śrī, cf. e.g śrī-śrīmatyām in l2. It is probably not an alphabetic character. It looks somewhat like a mirrored S rotated 45 degrees counterclockwise, with a dot in the centre of the upper curve.
--><!--
L1. vāsa at the end of the line is very faint compared to preceding characters. vā is almost clear, but sa is uncertain.
--><lb n="2" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->kāt</supplied> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->śrī-mādhavagupta</supplied><unclear>s tas</unclear>y<unclear>a</unclear> <supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->pu</supplied>t<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->tra</supplied>s <unclear>tat-pā</unclear>dānu<unclear>dhy</unclear>ātaḥ
paramabhaṭ<unclear>ṭ</unclear>ārikā<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>yāṁ rā<unclear>jñyā</unclear>ṁ mahādevyāṁ śrī-śrīmatyām utpannaḥ paramabhāgavataḥ śrī-ādi<unclear>tya</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->se</supplied><!--
L2. F prints a lacuna between the restored kāt and the restored śrī and notes that "Some sectarian title of Mādhavagupta must have been destroyed here; but there seems hardly room enough for paramabhāgavata or paramamāheśvara." BI tentatively restores paramabhaṭṭāraka. SI restores vāsakān mahārāja. In fact, if the basic assumptions are correct, there may be no further text lost at all in addition to "kāt śrī-mādhavagupta". Also, the restoration vāsakāt is in my opinion uncertain given that vāsa at the end of l1 is unclear, and there seems to be a semantic boundary after skandhāvārāt.
--><!--
L2. BI reads sutas instead of puttras. The photo easily permits either. Since puttras is quite clear in l5 (though not before), I prefer puttras here too.
--><!--
L2. Fleet prints gupta as clear; nothing of these characters is recognisable in the photo, though they may be cleared in Fleet's rubbing. I mark them up as restored, and add unclear markup wherever the photo is unclear.
--><!--
L2. At the end of the line F prints tya as clear and se as unclear. In fact tya is faint though quite certain. No trace of se is visible, and I'm not at all certain the character was ever there; it may well have been in the next line.
--><lb n="3" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->na-devas tasya puttras ta</supplied><unclear cert="low">t-pā</unclear>dānu<unclear>dhyātaḥ</unclear> <unclear cert="low">pa</unclear><unclear>ra</unclear><unclear cert="low">mabhaṭṭā</unclear>rikāyāṁ rājñyāṁ
<unclear>ma</unclear>hādevy<unclear>āṁ</unclear> <milestone unit="column" n="B"/>śrī-ko<space type="descender"/>ṇadevyām utpannaḥ parama-māheśvara-parama-bhaṭṭāraka-mahā<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->rā</supplied><!--
L3. F only prints the ttra of puttras as unclear. I mark up restored and unclear according to what I can see in the photo. I'm also uncertain about whether or not any additional text was lost. Fleet assumes there wasn't any and I follow suit; actually, there may have been less text, e.g. deva may not have been part of the name; on the other hand, se may have been at the beginning of this line instead of the end of the previous line.
--><!--
L3. BI's restoration has sutas instead of puttras.
--><!--
L3. What's visible of the supposed characters "paramabhaṭṭā" doesn't seem to permit this reading. I follow F (who prints this as clear) because this is what one would expect.
--><!--
L3. F prints the e of koṇadevyām as supplied (and SI prints the whole of de as supplied), but it is quite clear in the photo.
--><!--
L3. F prints rājā at the end of l3, with only the ā-s as unclear. Nothing of these characters is visible in the photo, and I strongly doubt jā could have been there, so I restore it at the beginning of l4. rā too may have been in l4, and BI ends line 3 after mahā.
--><lb n="4" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->jādhirāja-parameśvara</supplied>-<unclear cert="low">śrī-devagupta-de</unclear>vas <unclear>tasya</unclear> <unclear cert="low">puttra</unclear>s <unclear>t</unclear>at-pād-ānudhyātaḥ <milestone unit="column" n="B"/>parama-bhaṭṭārikārikāyā<unclear>ṁ</unclear> rāj<unclear>ñ</unclear>yā<unclear>ṁ</unclear> mahādevyāṁ śrī-kama<unclear>la</unclear>devyām utpannaḥ parama-mā<unclear cert="low">he</unclear><!--
L4. It is far from certain that the restored text fills the lacuna; a couple of characters more or less would easily be possible. I accept śrī-devagupta as a (very tentative) reading rather than a restoration, since BI prints it (as clear), and Fleet notes that it "is very indistinct; but I agree with Bhagwanlal Indraji that it can be read with sufficient certainty." Nothing of it is recognisable in the photo.
--><!--
L4. As before, BI reads sutas instead of F's puttras.
--><!--
L4. For F's kamala, BI reads kumāra. Fleet asserts that the reading is "distinctly kamala". I mark up la as unclear (it looks rather different from clear instances of l later on). ku is out of the question, and mā is unlikely.
--><lb n="5" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->śvara-parama-bhaṭṭāraka-mahā</supplied>r<unclear>ā</unclear><unclear cert="low">jā</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->dhi</supplied>rā<unclear>ja</unclear>-p<unclear>ara</unclear>m<unclear>eś</unclear>vara-śr<unclear>ī</unclear>-v<unclear>i</unclear>ṣ<unclear>ṇ</unclear>ugu<unclear>pt</unclear>a-devas ta<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>sya
put<unclear>tr</unclear>as tat-pādānudhyātaḥ parama-bhaṭṭārikāyā<unclear>ṁ</unclear> rājñyāṁ mahādevyāṁ
śrī Ijjāde<!--
L5. At the beginning of the line, F prints hārājā as clear, dhi as unclear (or restored?) and everything afterward as clear. BI also prints parama as clear. The surface of the stone does not seem to have peeled off in that region, but there are no discernible characters in the photo.
--><!--
L5. At the end of l5 Fleet prints vyā as unclear (meant to be restored?). Indraji, contrarily, does not even read de here. Actually, de is clear; I don't think there is enough space for vyā and there is certainly no discernible trace of it.
--><lb n="6" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->vyām utpannaḥ pa</supplied>ra<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ma</supplied><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->māheśvara</supplied>-<unclear>pa</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->rama</supplied><unclear cert="low">bhaṭṭāraka</unclear>-<unclear>mahārā</unclear><unclear cert="low">jā</unclear><unclear>dh</unclear>irāja-parameśva<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>ra-śrī-<unclear>j</unclear><unclear cert="low">ī</unclear>vitagupta-deva<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied>
kuśalī nagara-bh<unclear>u</unclear>k<unclear>t</unclear>au vālavī-vai<unclear>ṣa</unclear>yika-śrī-v<choice><unclear>ā</unclear><unclear>o</unclear></choice><!--
L6. At the beginning of the line, F prints everything before bhaṭṭāraka as unclear, with only dots for māheśvara, with a note to the effect that "Either bhāgavata or māheśvara is illegible here." BI actually reads paramabhāgavataḥ here. I prefer to restore māheśvaraḥ (tentatively) because that's what Devagupta was above. (SI too prefers to restore māheśvaraḥ, but also mentions bhāgavataḥ as possible) Clear/unclear/restored markup as per the photo.
--><!--
L6. For jīvitagupta, BI reads savitr̥gupta. Fleet says the reading is "distinctly jīvita", and this is also Cunningham's reading (in his commentary accompanying Indraji's transliteration, #ASIR_16:68). In the photo, jī is far from clear, but sa seems even less likely.
--><!--
L6. The l of kuśalī is strange, it has an additional curved stroke below the left-hand side.
--><lb n="7" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="20" unit="character"/> <unclear>pa</unclear><unclear cert="low">dra</unclear><unclear>li</unclear>k<unclear>ā</unclear>ntaṣpāti-vā<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>ruṇikā-grā<unclear>ma</unclear>-g<unclear>o</unclear><unclear cert="low">care ke</unclear>la-<unclear>tala</unclear>-<unclear cert="low">vā</unclear><unclear>ṭaka-tala</unclear>-sīm<unclear>ā</unclear>-ka<unclear>rm</unclear><unclear cert="low">m</unclear>a-<unclear cert="low">tada</unclear>-ma<unclear>hā</unclear><!--
L7. I accept Fleet's tentative reading of padralikā, but these characters are very uncertain. Indraji only reads ...likā; SI tentatively suggests paṭṭolikā.
--><!--
L7. I'd be tempted to read fp instead of ṣp. The reason I do not (and, probably, why F and BI did not, though SI prints upadhmānīya) is that ṣ is full sized at regular height, with a smaller subscript p. To qualify as upadhmānīya, I'd expect the character to be superscript and smaller. Still, the use of ṣp here is probably a vestigial upadhmānīya, i.e. it's not a phonemic but a graphemic peculiarity.
--><!--
L7. F prints the ā of vāruṇikā as supplied. I feel it is definitely there, but it's an extension of the top to the right (with a vertical serif at the end), whereas most other ās in the inscription go upward from the top.
--><!--
L7. F: grāma-goṣṭh(ā)(?na)-kula-talāvāṭaka-dūta-sīmakarmakara-ma(?dyā). BI: grāmā gā ... la-talavāṭaka-dūta-sīmākarmakara-mahā. (SI follows F, except in emending vāṭaka to vāṭake and reading madyā at the end.) My reading is tentative at best and serves mainly to show where I find Fleet's readings untenable. In particular: goṣṭhāna seems impossible. The character after go (which may be gā) actually looks rather like ja; the next one looks like pe; reading gocare is a desperate attempt to make sense of it. F's dūta also seems impossible even though it's also BI's reading; the sequence kata is almost clear. (Did F and BI read my ka as dū and see another ka before that?) At the end, F's madyā is not impossible, but BI's mahā is much more likely. Cf also the very similar sequence in l19.
--><lb n="8" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="18" unit="character"/> <supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->rājā</supplied><unclear>n</unclear>aka-rājaputtra-<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>rā<unclear>jā</unclear>mat<unclear>t</unclear>ra-mahā-<unclear cert="low">kārttā</unclear><unclear>kr̥</unclear>tika-<unclear>mahā-da</unclear>ṇ<unclear>ḍa</unclear>nāyaka-mahāprat<unclear>īhā</unclear>ra-ma<unclear>hā</unclear>sā<!--
L8. F and BI read taka at the beginning of the legible bit. Sircar proposes to read naka, as the end of rājānaka which frequently precedes rājaputra. I find this very likely. SI goes on to restore ...samupāgatān sarvvān eva rāja-rājānaka, which may be correct, but is only a conjecture.
--><!--
L8. All editors emend rājāmattra to rājāmātya. I wonder; couldn't the title be rājamātra? Also, the characters themselves are not entirely clear; in particular, jā seems uncertain: if there is an ā mātrā to that character, it is attached to the top prong, while jā would normally have the ā extending upward from the middle prong (compare ijjāde at the end of l5).
--><!--
L8. F reads mahā...kṣatika, BI only mahā...ka. The reading mahākārttākr̥tika is from Sircar who thinks "there can hardly be any doubt" about it and refers to the Monghyr plate of Devapāla for a parallel.
--><lb n="9" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->manta</supplied> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="10" unit="character"/> <unclear>p</unclear>ramāt<unclear cert="low">r̥</unclear>-sa<unclear cert="low">ra</unclear>-<supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->bhaṅga</supplied>-<unclear cert="low">k</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->u</supplied><unclear>mā</unclear>rāmātya-rā<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>jas<unclear>thānī</unclear>yopari<unclear>ka</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <unclear>d</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->āśāpa</supplied><unclear>r</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ā</supplied>dhi<unclear>ka</unclear>-cauroddhara<unclear cert="low">ṇ</unclear>i<unclear cert="low">ka</unclear>-d<unclear cert="low">āṇ</unclear>ḍ<unclear cert="low">i</unclear>ka-da<unclear cert="low">ṇḍa</unclear><!--
L9. BI tentatively restores ndhivigrahika at the beginning of the line, then reads nothing before (ku)mārāmātya. F does not restore the beginning, and reads (?pra)mātasā in the lacuna. SI restores manta-mahā-dauḥsādhasādhanika-pramātr̥sarabhaṅga, again on the basis of the Monghyr plate. I partially adopt his restoration.
--><!--
L9. dāśāparādhika is Sircar's restoration (from the Monghyr plate), F reads only dhika. SI does not note that d and r are actually more or less visible in the photograph; BI actually reads da (though not ra) in the lacuna.
--><lb n="10" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->pāśika</supplied> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="6" unit="character"/> <supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->tad-āyuktaka-viniyukta</supplied>ka-<supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->hasty-aśvo</supplied><unclear>ṣṭ</unclear><unclear cert="low">r</unclear><unclear>a</unclear>-vala-<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>vyāp<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->r̥</supplied>ta-kiś<unclear>o</unclear>ra-vaḍav<unclear>ā-g</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->o</supplied>-mahi<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ṣ</supplied><unclear>y-a</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->dh</supplied><unclear cert="low">ikr̥</unclear>ta-d<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ū</supplied>ta-<unclear cert="low">p</unclear>r<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ai</supplied><unclear cert="low">ṣa</unclear><unclear>ṇi</unclear>ka-gam<unclear>āga</unclear>m<unclear>an</unclear>ika-A<!--
L10. I adopt all of Sircar's restorations from the Monghyr plate. F restores only pāśika, then reads ### ka ### (?rṣṇi)vala-vyāyata-ki(?śo)ra(?vāṭaka)-g(r)āma-h ### d #t ### vaṇikaga ### pati-ka(?rma). BI reads ### ka ### barmmavala vyāhataki śūravaṭaka grāma(?sta) # tadatra vāruṇika grāma-ma-ka(?rma). The Monghyr plate, as cited by SI, has the initial part letter for letter up to vyāpr̥ta, reading vyāpr̥taka. The bit corresponding to the latter part is kiśora-vaḍavā-go-mahiṣāvikādhyakṣa-dūtapraiṣaṇika-gamāgamika; go-mahiṣādhikr̥ta occurs in the Nalanda plate of Devapāla. I diverge from Sircar in only one detail: he reads gamāgamika here (as per the Monghyr plate), but that is impossible. The correct reading is probably gamāgamanika (my manika corresponding to Fleet's patika and BI's mamaka), though the n is unclear.
--><lb n="11" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->bhitvaramāṇa-viṣaya</supplied><unclear cert="low">pati-</unclear><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->cāṭa-bhaṭa</supplied> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">ra</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/> s<unclear>e</unclear><unclear cert="low">va</unclear>k<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ā</supplied><unclear>d</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->īn anyāṁś cākīrtti</supplied>tās<unclear>m</unclear>at-pā<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>da-pras<unclear>ā</unclear>dopa<unclear>jī</unclear>vina<unclear cert="low">ś ca</unclear> <unclear>prati</unclear><unclear cert="low">vā</unclear>sinaś ca vrāhmaṇottarā<unclear cert="low">n</unclear> mahattara-ku<add place="below">ṭ<unclear>u</unclear></add>mvi-pur<unclear>o</unclear><!--
L11. At the beginning, I again adopt SI's restorations from the Monghyr plate, which reads abhitvaramāṇa-viṣayapati after gamāgamika. The restoration cāṭa-bhaṭa is from "similar passages of other early inscriptions" and is thus more uncertain. F reads nothing in the lacuna except rasaka, which probably corresponds to the sa and ka of Sircar's sevakādīn, plus a trace that may indeed be an r, one or two characters before this sa.
--><!--
L11. For the second part of the first panel, I again follow Sircar's restoration (based on "similar passages of other early inscriptions"), except that he supplies a "na" to read "kīrttitān asmat." There is absolutely no trace of any engraving between tā and sma, and though the space is a bit more than normal between characters, it's rather narrow for an additional character. So I think the original reading was kīrttitāsmat. (Sircar may have meant the additional na as the correction of an omission, not as supplying lost text - but it isn't really necessary.) F reads ###tāsmat, and BI reads ### dhyāsitāsmat.
--><!--
L11. The second panel is largely clear and editors generally agree. F reads ka(?kukṣi) for Sircar's kuṭumvi (BI reads nothing after mahattara). Sircar prints the n of °ottarān as supplied; as usual, he may have thought it either lost or omitted. Since the tail of the following ma is much longer than expected, I believe that is actually an n prefixed to the ma. SI notes that the Monghyr inscription also has the expression mahattara-kuṭumvi-puroga, and prints the ṭu of kuṭumvi as unclear. Actually, ṭu (or at least ṭa) is added below the line, under the i mātrā of mvi. It is probably what Fleet read as the u of his kukṣi. I'm not sure if Sircar saw this.
--><lb n="12"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->gān mānayati vodhayati samādiśati ca</supplied></p>
<p><unclear>mata</unclear><unclear cert="low">m a</unclear>s<unclear>t</unclear><unclear cert="low">u bhavatāṁ</unclear> <unclear>da</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear>v</unclear>ij<unclear>ñ</unclear>āp<unclear>i</unclear>ta<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ṁ</supplied>
<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>śrī-vāruṇavāsi-bhaṭṭ<unclear>ā</unclear>raka-prativa<unclear>ddha</unclear>-bhojaka-sū<unclear>r</unclear>yamittreṇa Upari<unclear>li</unclear><unclear cert="low">khi</unclear><!--
L12. Again I adopt Sircar's restorations and readings. F (and BI) reads nothing before vijñāpita. SI, contrarily, prints everything as clear, except matamastu bhavatāṁ - this is obviously a typo and everything printed as clear was meant as supplied. However, SI reads nothing between bhavatāṁ and vijñāpitaṁ, but as far as I can see on the photo, there are two additional characters in between, the first of which is almost certainly d. Sircar's matam astu is plausible; his bhavatāṁ is doubtful, but I have no better reading. If we accept bhavatāṁ, could the next two characters be devyā, making this a queen's grant? The character after de seems quite narrow and there is no trace of a subscript y. Possibly read ya instead of da, and get yathā here?
--><!--
L12. F and SI read varuṇa, but vā is clear in the photo and not impossible from the rubbing. BI reads vāruṇa.
--><lb n="13" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ta</supplied> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="7" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">vāruṇavā</unclear><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->si</supplied> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> grām-ādi-<unclear>saṁ</unclear><unclear cert="low">yu</unclear><unclear>ta</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ṁ</supplied> parame<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>śvara-śrī-vālā<unclear>dit</unclear>yade<unclear>ve</unclear>na
sva-śāsanena <choice><sic>bhagava-śrī</sic><corr>bhagavac-chrī</corr></choice>-varuṇavāsi-bhaṭṭāraka <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/><!--
L13. The unclear characters in the lacuna are not shown by any editor. The reading is far from certain; the characters look most like vatumara, but vāruṇavā is not impossible.
--><!--
L13. I wonder if there is a small and damaged halanta character after bhagava, which does not sound very likely. Perhaps bhagavat śrī or bhagavān śrī? BI reads bhagavān śrī, but he may be improvising.
--><!--
L13. This time the reading does seem to be varuṇavāsi. BI reads vāruṇa here too.
--><!--
L13. There is probably at least one, possibly two characters lost at the end of the line.
--><lb n="14"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">ma</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">ka</unclear><unclear>ra</unclear><unclear cert="low">ta</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="4" unit="character"/> <unclear>ka</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">tasmāt ta</unclear><unclear>d</unclear><unclear cert="low">u</unclear><unclear>pari</unclear> <unclear cert="low">gr</unclear><unclear>āhakaṁ</unclear> <unclear cert="low">tāpasa</unclear> bhoja<milestone unit="column" n="B"/>ka-ha<unclear>nsa-mittra</unclear>sya
sa<unclear>mā</unclear><unclear cert="low">pat</unclear><supplied reason="omitted">t</supplied><unclear cert="low">yā</unclear> yathāk<unclear>ā</unclear>l<unclear>ā</unclear>dhy<unclear>ā</unclear>sibhiś ca Evaṁ parameśvara<!--
L14. In the first half of the line, F reads . . . ka . . . va-pari(?vā)haka . . . . bhojaka. SI follows fleet, printing vahaka instead of vāhaka, and adding a note "this is doubtful" anchored after haka, but perhaps pertaining to everything up to that point. BI reads ... taddatta . paravāhaka .. bhojaka.
--><!--
L14. I follow F and SI in reading samāpatyā, which sounds plausible, though other readings may also be possible. BI: samarpitaṁ.
--><lb n="15" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/>-<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->śrī</supplied>-<unclear>śa</unclear>rvvava<unclear cert="low">rmma</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="4" unit="character"/> <unclear>pra</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="7" unit="character"/> bhojaka-<unclear>r̥ṣ</unclear>imi<unclear>tt</unclear>ra<milestone unit="column" n="B"/><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/><unclear cert="low">ya</unclear><unclear>ta</unclear>ka<unclear>ṁ Evaṁ</unclear>
parameśvara-śrī-<choice><sic>ma</sic><corr>A</corr></choice>vantivarmma<unclear>ṇā</unclear> pūrvva-dattakam avala<!--
L15. F and SI print śrī-śarvvavarmma as clear; in fact, there's not even a trace of śrī, and only indistinct traces of rmma.
--><!--
L15. For r̥ṣimittra, F and SI read riṣimittra. (BI reads bhoja kara bimila.) I'm pretty certain what we have here is meant to be r̥, not ri: the left-hand part looks like r, and the top looks like an i mātrā, but there is also a right-hand vertical stroke. Previous editors must have deemed this vertical to be an extension of the i mātrā of the following ṣi, but I find this unlikely, since the i-like curve on top of the alleged r comes from this vertical, not from the top of the r-like part. Altogether, the character is very similar to r̥ characters from Bhañja and Pāla records in IndoSkript, except that this one has the i-like curve on top, and does not (clearly) have the slanted connection between the r-like left-hand part and the vertical right-hand part.
--><!--
L15. I adopt F and SI's ...yatakaṁ evaṁ, but this seems uncertaion. ya could be practically anything else; ta looks like tā, and there's hardly a trace of e, though on the basis of the E in l14 above, I'd expect at least a recognisable trace here.
--><!--
L15. F and SI read śrīdavanti, emending to śrīmad-avanti. BI reads śrīmavanti, also emending to śrīmadavanti. I'm quite certain the reading is ma, not da, but I feel the intent was śrī-Avanti. My reasons to think so are 1. the apparent tendency of the inscription not to apply vowel sandhi to the beginnings of names (L6 śrī-Ijjā; L15 bhojaka r̥ṣimittra [if my reading is correct]), and 2. the observation that though the beginning of l15 is unclear, śrīmac-charvva or śrīmat śarvva would probably not have fit in the space there.
--><lb n="16" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost">mbya</supplied> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">hata</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">bha</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">ma</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">s</unclear><unclear>ya pra</unclear><unclear cert="low">diśa</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> evaṁ mah<unclear>ā</unclear>rāja-parameśvara-<milestone unit="column" n="B"/><gap reason="lost" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">varmma-deva-nr̥</unclear>pa<unclear>ti</unclear>ḥ <unclear>śā</unclear>sana-dānena bhojaka-<unclear>du</unclear>rddha<unclear cert="low">ra</unclear>mi<unclear>tt</unclear>ra<unclear>s</unclear>yānumo<!--
L16. Previous editors read nothing before evaṁ (but all restore mbya). I transcribe the traces as best I can, but I find no intelligible words (unless my "hata" is actually datta). Still, this part is not hopeless, a re-examination of the original would probably be productive.
--><!--
L16. F and SI emend mahārāja to mahārājādhirāja. I don't think the engraver would have written plain mahārāja if the intent had been mahārājādhirāja.
--><!--
L16. The name of the king is irretrievably gone with a chip of stone. F and SI read nothing before śāsana, which is strange, since patiḥ is quite clear. The rest is just traces, but BI's varmma-deva-nr̥patiḥ makes sense and fits what is visible in the photo. SI restores śrī-jīvitaguptadeva after parameśvara; this seems slightly less likely than varmma-deva.
--><!--
L16. In the name durddhara, F and SI mark rddha as very uncertain and the rest as clear; I see it just the other way round: rddha, though faint, is practically clear. du is stronger, but not quite certain (the left-hand part is too rounded) and could, perhaps, be vu or something else; ra is completely indistinct, but it is certainly narrow.
--><lb n="17" break="no"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><supplied reason="lost">dita</supplied> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">ta</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">mucyamā</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <unclear>stha</unclear><unclear cert="low">ke</unclear><unclear>na</unclear><unclear cert="low">bhujyate</unclear></p>
<p>tad ahaṁ <unclear>k</unclear>i<unclear>ma</unclear><unclear cert="low">pi vara Evaṁ sa</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <milestone unit="column" n="B"/><gap reason="lost" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <unclear>śvapat</unclear>i<unclear cert="low">nā</unclear> <unclear>sa</unclear><unclear cert="low">rvva</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> <seg type="component" subtype="consonant"><gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="component"/></seg>ānu<choice><sic><unclear>mau</unclear></sic><corr>mo</corr></choice>ditam i<unclear>t</unclear>i <unclear cert="low">sarvva</unclear>-sa<unclear>m</unclear>ā<unclear cert="low">jñāpanā</unclear><supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied>
<unclear cert="low">Etā</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/><!--
L17. Previous editors read nothing at the beginning of the line apart from supplying dita. Autopsy may again be fruitful here. Next, all read tena bhujyate, marked as very uncertain (BI: mujyate, probably a typo; and of course no marking as uncertain). The character I tentatively read as stha is strong but not recognisable; I think stha (or sthā, sthe, stho) are possible, assuming some parts lost to damage. The next character, read as te by all editors, is completely indistinct; te is possible but so are many other things. It may even have an i mātrā (in which case the next character would probably be nā, not na). Afterward, all editors agree on tad ahaṁ kimapi. Then, vara is my addition and is very tentative. The following evaṁ is from F and SI (BI reads nothing here). I don't believe evaṁ very likely (but this is, in all probability, where Fleet saw these characters). The last character on this face, partially lost to chipping, may be a number of things other than sa.
--><!--
L17. In the second part, F and SI read ...matimān... (BI: matiḥ). I think śvapati is more likely; śca and mati are not out of the question either. I see no m after the ti. sarvva is my addition and is very uncertain apart from sa.
--><!--
L17. F and SI read °ānupāditam, emending to °ānumoditam; BI reads mo. I think the character is mau, erroneously for mo.
--><!--
L17. The sarvva after iti is from F and SI; it is not impossible, but doesn't seem very likely from the traces. BI's paramaṁ is no better. At the end of the line, etā is from BI [who actually prints rātā, but his text has rā instead of e repeatedly - this must have been the typesetter's mistake], retained by both F and SI, but very uncertain in my opinion. I could just as easily conceive of śrutaḥ, and doubtless other readings are possible too.
--><lb n="18"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><gap reason="lost" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">nita</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">pitāmā</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="5" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">tha</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">sagosa</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="9" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">ka</unclear><unclear>ti</unclear>pay<unclear>a</unclear> <unclear cert="low">ka</unclear><milestone unit="column" n="B"/><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="4" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">saga</unclear><unclear>vivacchāda</unclear><unclear cert="low">jj</unclear><unclear>i</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="4" unit="character"/> <supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->v</supplied>āruṇavāsy-āyatanaṁ tad-anu <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> pa <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/><!--
L18. In this line F and SI only read ... payu ... varuṇavāsy-āyatanaṁ tadanu dattaṁ ...; BI reads ...prayukta ... bibācchādita . . vāruṇavāsyāyatanaṁ tadanu. There are almost-recognisable traces practically throughout the line. All my readings are of course tentative and I haven't been able to make out anything meaningful. In the name of the deity, v is indistinct, but the ā mātrā is clear. F and SI's dattaṁ is indiscernible, though it may be correct.
--><lb n="19"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><gap reason="lost" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="5" unit="character"/> <unclear>ma</unclear><unclear cert="low">t</unclear><unclear>i</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">gā</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <unclear cert="low">la</unclear>-<unclear>v</unclear>āṭa<unclear>ka-ta</unclear><unclear cert="low">la</unclear>-<supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->s</supplied><unclear>īmā-ka</unclear><unclear cert="low">rm</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->m</supplied><unclear>a</unclear> <unclear cert="low">tadama</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <gap reason="lost" quantity="1" unit="character"/> <milestone unit="column" n="B"/>ty akṣa<unclear>ya</unclear>-nīv<unclear>y</unclear><unclear cert="low">ā</unclear> <gap reason="illegible" quantity="2" unit="character"/> taṁ <unclear>d</unclear>e <gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="2" unit="character"/> sodr<surplus>y</surplus>aṅga<unclear>ṁ</unclear> soparikaraṁ sa-da<unclear>śā</unclear>parā<unclear>dha</unclear>-pañca-<unclear>ro</unclear><gap reason="illegible" precision="low" quantity="1" unit="character"/><!--
L19. F and SI read nothing before ...tyakṣa. BI reads ... talacāṭaka talasīmā karmakara pratyakṣanaṁ . . taṁ. The sequence is remarkably similar to the one in l7.
--><!--
L19. BI reads pratyakṣanaṁ . . taṁ . . sodryaṁṅgaṁ. F and SI read nothing between tyakṣa and sodraṅga. I'm quite convinced of my reading of akṣaya-nīvy, and I agree with BI about drya instead of dra.
--><!--
L19. The sa of sa-daśāparādha looks like su.
--><lb n="20"/><milestone unit="column" n="A"/><gap reason="lost" precision="low" quantity="3" unit="character"/> <gap reason="illegible" extent="unknown" unit="character"/> <milestone unit="column" n="B"/><gap reason="illegible" extent="unknown" unit="character"/> <supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->||</supplied><!--
L20. Nothing is discernible of line 20; I cannot even tell if the writing extended to the second panel.
--></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 in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Cunningham+Garrick1883_01"/><citedRange>68</citedRange></bibl>, with transcript (by Bhagwanlal Indraji) and discussion in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Cunningham+Garrick1883_01"/><citedRange>73-78</citedRange></bibl>. Discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Majumdar1944-1945_01"/><citedRange>124-125</citedRange></bibl>. Discussed with corrections and restorations in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1945_01"/><citedRange>72-74</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">IN00214</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">46</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1927-1936_01"/><citedRange unit="item">1554</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1983_01"/><citedRange unit="book">I</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">10</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Thaplyal1985_01"/><citedRange unit="item">II.6</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>