Moga grant of Bhīma I

Seal

⟨1⟩ (śrī?)-(t)ri(bhu)(vanāṁku?)(śa) • SS reports it as śrī-tri(bhuvanāṁku)śa, and the reading is of course in all probability correct, but from the published photos, it can only be confirmed as far as I indicate here.

Plates

⟨3⟩ -⟨⟨mahāse⟩⟩na- • The first three characters of this word are closely spaced, and hā and se are awkwardly formed (both in body shape and in the unusual positioning of their vowel markers). They thus seem to be a correction (possibly along with the preceding i marker), but there is no clear indication of the pre-correction text. Possibly, svāmihāsena or svāmahāsena was first engraved.

⟨4⟩ -pras(ā)da- • The vowel marker goes horizontally from the headmark, but bends downward still on the left of the consonant’s leg (rather than, as expected, passing above the leg and then bending down to the right of the consonant). It may have been added subsequently. — ⟨4⟩ -lāṁch¿ā?⟨a⟩nekṣaṇa- NV ⬦ -lāṁchanekṣaṇa- SS.

⟨10⟩ -¿āgrā?⟨agra⟩jo NV ⬦ -¿ā?⟨a⟩grajo SS • Pre-modern correction may be present here. The superfluous ā mātrās may have been deleted, and it is also possible that tadānujo was first engraved and then corrected into the expected text.

⟨11⟩ viṣṇurā(jaṣ) SS ⬦ viṣṇurājo NV.

⟨13⟩ ⟨‘⟩ddhyarddha- ⬦ dhyarddha- SS; ‘dvārddha- NV • The character ddhya is faint but reasonably clear in the photo. NV’s v is probably a typo, but his omission of y may not be, as the sbuscript y is indiscernible in his estampage.

⟨14⟩ (kośa)le¿ṣ?⟨ś⟩(a)- SS ⬦ (kośaleṣu) NV • I prefer SS’s reading even though it requires emendation, because I see no indication of u in either facsimile of the plate. I also find it more likely that a compound was used here, as in the other claims of this stanza. Nonetheless, NV may be correct that the composer’s intent had been kośaleṣu, and I cannot fully exclude the possibility that this is in fact engraved. In a footnote, NV emends his text to kosaleṣu, but this is unnecessary. — ⟨14⟩ -hemādi NV ⬦ -hemādir SS • Possibly a typo in SS’s edition. — ⟨14⟩ balā⟨t⟩ tyā(gārt)th(am) SS ⬦ balātyārtham NV • Probably a typo in NV’s edition.

⟨17⟩ -deśam SS ⬦ -d¿a?⟨e⟩śam NV • The vowel marker (on top of the consonant) is clear in the photo, though not in the rubbing. — ⟨17⟩ -dvay(e) SS ⬦ -dvayaṁ NV • The vowel marker (on top of the consonant) is clear in the photo, though not in the rubbing.

⟨21⟩ (Adhyāsta) NV ⬦ Adhyasta SS • Probably only a typo in SS. — ⟨21⟩ (ārddidad) SS ⬦ (a)rddayad NV • NV may be right that only a is present here, but if so, then emendation into ā is warranted. SS’s reading (which he prints as clear throughout) is definitely superior and mostly confirmed by the facsimiles. — ⟨21⟩ api(spaśa)d (bh)ūmim SS ⬦ api sva{va}-bhūmi¿n?⟨m⟩ NV • SS’s reading is again far superior and, except for the illegible spa, confirmable from the facsimiles. NV’s emendation is unmetrical. — ⟨21⟩ a(pīpala?)⟨Page 3r⟩⟨22⟩t ⬦ a(naṁdaya)⟨Page 3r⟩⟨22⟩t SS; avarakṣa⟨Page 3r⟩⟨22⟩t NV • While NV’s reading is again definitely inferior (and unmetrical), in this case SS’s reading also seems to be incorrect. I see no indication of a subscript consonant where he reads nda, nor space at the end where ya might fit. My own suggestion is also very tentative; I must note that I see no vestige of ī, but the reading fits the context, and p-s seem probable as the main components of two successive characters.

⟨23⟩ -¿j?⟨s⟩rajaḥ SS ⬦ -¿j?⟨v⟩rajaḥ NV.

⟨25⟩ goḷā- ⬦ godā- SS; go¿l?⟨d⟩ā- NV • NV’s reading l is probably a typo for ḷ. Both editors understand this name to mean the Godāvarī, but given the received spelling, this does not seem so certain.

⟨26⟩ jhaṭiti SS ⬦ jhaḍiti NV. — ⟨26⟩ lāṭa⟨27⟩kāṁś • The vowel marker in lā is attached to the subscript l.

⟨27⟩ -vi⟨⟨ṣṇuvarddhana-cālukya⟩⟩- • The first of the indicated characters, ṣṇu, may have been engraved only once; the following ones are definitely engraved over erased text, but nothing of the pre-correction text can be read.

⟨31⟩ -baladakayyākhy¿ā?⟨a⟩- ⬦ -baladakayyākhy¿ā?⟨aḥ⟩ NV; -baladakayyākhya- SS.

⟨34⟩ -talāṁguliṁ NV ⬦ -talāṁgu¿lliṁ?⟨lim⟩ SS • The double l is probably a typo in Sankaranarayanan’s edition, and the reason he emends is only to normalise anusvāra. — ⟨34⟩ pīn{n}onnata- NV ⬦ pīnonnata- SS.

⟨39⟩ (I)va • The scribe has omitted the two circles that form the lower part of I.

⟨43⟩ jñānavat(āṁ) [ma]⟨44⟩(tan) tu NV ⬦ jñānavatām⟨44⟩(ta)mtu SS.

⟨44⟩ -vijayāditya⟨45⟩(s sa?)tya- ⬦ -vijayāditya(ḥ) ⟨45⟩ [sa]tya- SS; -vijayāditya ⟨45⟩ (satya)- NV.

⟨45⟩ -vādya◯ḫ ⬦ -vādyaḥ SS; -vā¿d?⟨k⟩yaḥ NV • NV’s emendation is unnecessary. — ⟨45⟩ (yāṁ) ⬦ (yaṁ) NV; ya⟨ḥ⟩ SS • This character is slightly awkward in shape (but not unique, compare the likewise narrow yaṁ in the previous line). I am quite certain that its right extremity is a downward-bending hook for ā rather than the upwar d arm of y. This is clearer in the rubbing, but also discernible in the photo. — ⟨45⟩ kr̥⟨ta⟩(vā)(n loka?)⟨46⟩(sā?)t kr̥t(ī) ⬦ k¿ri?⟨r̥⟩[tavān loka]⟨46⟩-[sa]t-kr̥tiṁ SS; kr̥cchra⟨46⟩vat-kr̥tī NV • SS’s kri is probably a typo for kr̥, since this character is clear. The next character is almost certainly vā, definitely without an intervening ta, so SS probably intended to supply an omitted ta here. After this point, the plate is badly effaced, with only vestiges visible in the rubbing and less than that in the photo. Nonetheless, these vestiges give some confirmation for most of SS’s reading, which he offers as a tentative restoration. After vā, nlo (especially a subscript l and the vocalisation o, the whole character being lowered because of the overhanging subscript y) is very plausible. Conversely, NV’s kr̥cchra is impossible; what he apparently saw as the subscript part of cchra is in fact the vowel marker of rvvo in the following line (which he misreads as rvva, see the apparatus there). NV’s reading is, moreover, hypometrical. Since there are probably only two characters after vā (though a very narrow additional character right after vā cannot be ruled out), I agree that one more syllable needs to be supplied and accept SS’s restoration with minor changes. I endorse NV’s reading of kr̥tī at the end of this segment. I construe the text very differently from how SS must have understood it, since I feel certain of the reading yāṁ earlier in the stanza, and to obtain a coherent sentence, read lokasāt instead of loka-sat. I remain far from certain in this reconstruction and my interpretation of the stanza. A scrutiny of the original may be helpful here.

⟨46⟩ ta◯(s)yai (śrī?)- NV ⬦ tasyai[va ca] SS • Although SS prints a single dot for this lacuna, in a footnote he proposes to restore two characters into it, which definitely cannot fit here. The vestiges indicate śrī, which may thus be an integral part of the lady’s name rather than just an honorific. — ⟨46⟩ -(k)r̥ta- SS • There are some additional strokes here, including a circle that is almost certainly an i marker. It may be that kr̥ was engraved with a superfluous i; most likely, this character is a correction from a previously engraved ti. — ⟨46⟩ -pūrvvo(pakāra)- SS ⬦ -pūrva-dāna-karmma NV • NV’s failure to read rvvo is because he mistook the vowel marker for a subscript component belonging to the line above. The rest of his reading is impossible to fit in the damaged part (he may have read the last character of the line first as rmma, then changed his reading to sma in light of the next line, but neglected to discard the initial rmma), while SS’s reading is fully in line with the vestiges.

⟨49⟩ nadī NV ⬦ taṭī SS. — ⟨49⟩ mūṇṭha- ⬦ muṇṭha- SS NV. — ⟨49⟩ guṇṭha SS ⬦ guṭṭa NV.

⟨50⟩ ceṁbaṟka ⬦ ceṁbaṟu SS; veṁbaṟku NV • The first character looks more like ce than ve, but these characters are too similar to tell apart for certain in an unfamiliar word. The last character, as engraved, is definitely ṟka. — ⟨50⟩ tai(la)-(śa?)⟨51⟩(rvva)-kṣetraM SS ⬦ tai ⟨51⟩ kṣetraṁ NV • NV apparently disregards the badly legible characters and even the fairly distinct rvva in the next line. In his discussion he speaks about taila-kṣetra, so he probably did read la here. SS prints only śa as unclear, and indeed, no decisive vestiges of this character are present. He assumes that this is the name of a Śiva temple connected to Tailāmbā. I accept the reading on his authority, but this needs confirmation from the original. Lacking such confirmation, it may be possible instead to restore taila-pūrvva-kṣetram, meaning a field that was already in the possession of the family of Tailāmbā.

⟨51⟩ devu(la-ce)ṟuvu ⬦ devula-ceṟuva SS; devuḍu-ceṟuvu NV • The final a is probably a typo in SS. NV’s devuḍu can be ruled out. SS further notes that this term is engraved over an erasure. This is not obvious in the available facsimiles, but may well be the case, at least for the characters la-ceṟu. — ⟨51⟩ ca(rmma)⟨52⟩ṇḍ(i)- SS ⬦ cava⟨52⟩ṇḍi- NV • SS’s reading (which he prints as clear) is quite certain; the subscript m is clear and a superscript repha is likely in the last character of line 51. NV prints the name as cāvanṭi (sic) in his discussion. — ⟨51⟩ r(i?)◯ṇṭha-mrāṁkulu ⬦ reṇṭhamrākulu SS; renṭha-mrānkulu NV • The anusvāra in the second term is quite clear and is probably what NV had intended to indicate here. The vowel of the first character is distorted and damaged due to being on the edge of the hole. Reading it as e is possible, but I am more inclined to read i, encouraged by the fact that NV uses riṇṭha in his discussion.

⟨55⟩ Asyājñapti⟨ḥ⟩ SS ⬦ Ājñaptiḥ NV. — ⟨55⟩ (ka)ḍeya-rāja SS ⬦ kaḍiya-rāja NV. — ⟨55⟩ E⟨56⟩(va) SS ⬦ E⟨56⟩vaṁ NV • The plate is badly weathered here, so an anusvāra cannot be ruled out, but I see no indication of one, and find the reading better without.