Koṇḍaṇagūru grant of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00053.

Language: Sanskrit.

Repository: Eastern Cālukya (tfb-vengicalukya-epigraphy).

Version: (765e461), last modified (7554ccb).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ śrī-tyāgadhenu

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨01⟩ svasti

⟨1⟩ śr(ī)matāM sakala-bhuvana-sa(ṁ)stūyamāna-mā(na)vya-sa(go)⟨2⟩tr¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇāM hārīti-putrāṇāM svāmi-mahāsena-p¿a?⟨ā⟩dānu(dhyā)⟨3⟩tānāM kauś¿ī?⟨i⟩kī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājy¿a?⟨ā⟩n(āM) bhagava(n-nārā)ya¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-pra⟨4⟩sāda-samāsādita-varāha-lāñchane(kṣa)ṇa-(kṣa)ṇa-va(śīk)¡(ri)!⟨r̥⟩tā(śe)ṣa⟨Page 2r⟩⟨5⟩mahī(bhr̥t)āṁ (Aśva)m(e)dh(āvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavi)t(rīk)¡(ri)!⟨r̥⟩ta-m(ānasa)-(śarīrā?)⟨6⟩(ṇā)M s(v)a-yaśo-(v)iṣay(īk)¡(ri)!⟨r̥⟩(ta)-tr(ailokyā)nā(M) ca(ḷ)ukyānā(M) ku⟨7⟩lam ala(ṁk)¡(ri)!⟨r̥⟩tya ni(ja)-ja(n)man¿(aḥ)?⟨ā⟩ virājamān¿āḥ?⟨asya⟩ śrī-kī⟨r⟩ttivarmma-mahā⟨8⟩(rā)jasya naptā śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārāja¿ḥ?⟨sya⟩ raṇa-mukha-gata-ripu⟨Page 2v⟩⟨9⟩-vijaya-samupalabdha-śrī-vadhū-nivāsāyamāna-vipula-vakṣ¡a!⟨aḥ⟩-sthala⟨10⟩sya putraḥ śakti-traya-samadhigat¿a?⟨o⟩ mahā-khyāti-vibhūti(ḥ) tri⟨11⟩vargga-sevā-nipuṇaḥ purāṇa-puruṣa Iva bahu-loka-stu⟨12⟩taḥ purārātir iva bhūta-gaṇa-priyaḥ dvitīya Iva makaradhvajaḥ⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨13⟩ pañcama Iva lokapālaḥ ¿pridhagra?⟨pr̥thāgra⟩-suta Iva satya-sandhaḥ śar¿ā?⟨a⟩(t)-k(ā)la (I)va ⟨14⟩ kr̥ta-bandhu-jīvotsava(ḥ) pūrvvācal⟦o⟧⟨⟨e⟩⟩ndra Iva mitrodayānukūla⟨15⟩-mahim¡ā!⟨aḥ⟩ mahīpati-makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭita-mahā-ratna-marīci-ma⟨16⟩ñjarī-rañjita-caraṇāravinda-yuga¡ḷ!⟨l⟩aḥ śrīndrava⟨r⟩mma-mahārājaḥ tyā⟨17⟩ga-dhen¿yā?⟨v-a⟩para-nāma-dheyaḥ Udaka-pūrv(v)akaṁ sarvva-karā!a-parihāropetaM⟨Page 3v⟩ ⟨18⟩ (b)rahmad¿a?⟨e⟩y(ī)k(r̥)tya koṇḍaṇagūru-nāma grāma{grāma}M prādāT

tasya grāmasya ⟨19⟩ (d)ig-(v)ibhāgā(ḥ)⟨.⟩ Uttarataḥ muṁjuṇūru nāma grāma⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ pūrvvataḥ pagu(nū)ru nāma grā⟨20⟩maḥ⟨.⟩ dakṣiṇa-vibhāg¿a?⟨ā⟩vasthitaḥ ceṟupūru nāma grāma⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ pa(ś)c(i)mataḥ Irb(u)⟨21⟩(l)i nāma gr¿a?⟨ā⟩maḥ⟨.⟩ Eteṣāṁ grāmāṇāṁ maddhye{ṁ} niv¿a?⟨ā⟩sī-kr̥taḥ⟨.⟩ vājasaneya-ca⟨22⟩(ra)ṇasya du⟨r⟩ggaśa⟨r⟩mmaṇaḥ brahma-vihita-karmma-niratasya Iṟṟaḷ(ūr)-boya nāma⟨Page 4r⟩ ⟨23⟩ (brāhmaṇa?)sya pautrāya Abhijana-v¿ī?⟨i⟩dyā-v¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ttavataḥ bhāradvā(ja)-sa(go)tra⟨24⟩sya viṣṇuśarmmaṇaḥ putrāya vedavid-vipra-saṁstūyamāna-caritā(ya) ⟨25⟩ ceṇḍiśarmmaṇe mātā-pitror ātmanaś ca puṇy¿o?⟨ā⟩vāptaye

Iti (ca) ⟨26⟩ bhāvino rāja⟨r⟩ṣīN yathopacāra-purassaraM sammānayati

Āryy(ā)⟨27⟩hū-va(ṁ)śa-gagana-tilaka-bhūta-(r/k)oṇ(ḍi)varmmaṇo mahārājasyāgra-sut¡a-I!⟨a-I⟩⟨Page 4v⟩⟨28⟩ndrava(r)mma{(ṇa?)}-(n)āma-dheya-vi¿ñj?⟨jñ⟩āpanayā⟨.⟩ tasyā¿ñjā?⟨jña⟩ptir ¿o?⟨e⟩vaM Ālapāka-(boḶ) ⟨29⟩ [2×](ppi-boḶ) somayājula-veḷḷekki-boḶ māraṭa-boḶ

Api ca mohā(l lobhā)⟨30⟩d vā yaẖ kaścid vighna-karttā{ra} sa pañca-mahāpātaka-yukto bhaviṣyati⟨.⟩ Iti ca ⟨31⟩ veda-vyā⟨sa⟩sya ślok¿a?⟨ā⟩ś cātra

I. Anuṣṭubh

nighnato bha⟨r⟩t¡ri!⟨r̥⟩-go-vipra-

a

-bāla-yoṣit-(t)a⟨32⟩pasvinaḥ

b

yā gatis sā bhave¿t?⟨d⟩ vr̥ttiM

c

harata⟨ḥ⟩ śāsanāṅkitāM

d
II. Anuṣṭubh

ṣaṣṭiṁ{ma} varṣa-sa⟨Page 5r⟩⟨33⟩h¿ā?⟨a⟩srāṇi

a

svargge tiṣṭhati bhūmi-da(ḥ)

b

Ākṣeptā cānumant¿a?⟨ā⟩ ca

c

tāny eva na⟨34⟩⟦(ra)⟧rake vaseT

d
III. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhir vva⟨su⟩dhā dattā

a

bahubhiś cā(nu)pālitā

b

yasya ya⟨35⟩sya yad(ā bh)ūmi⟨s⟩

c

tasya tasya tadā phalaM

d

Iti

kanakarāma-li(kh)i⟨36⟩te śā¿ś?⟨s⟩ane catu⟨ḥ⟩ṣaṣ¿ṭh?⟨ṭ⟩y-¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨ṁ⟩ś¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ⟨.⟩ Eteṣā⟨ṁ⟩ nāmānāM Ekaikā⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ @

⟨37⟩ [ca. 2×](pājñā?) ¿kuṁḷḷ? ekāṁśa(ṁ?) (c/v)(o?)ḍa-boḶ t¡ri!⟨r̥⟩t¿i?⟨ī⟩yā¿śaṁ?⟨ṁśa⟩⟨ḥ⟩

⟨Page 5v⟩

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

⟨3⟩ -(nārā)ya¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a- ⬦ -(nārā)yaṇa- EH. — ⟨3⟩ mahī(bhr̥t)āṁ ⬦ mahībhr̥tāM EH • Hultzsch’s edition prints literally “mahībhr̥itām[=*]”, which I interpret to mean that he reads a final M here and normalises to m (in an akṣara with the following a). In the facsimile the text seems to have an anusvāra.

⟨5⟩ -(śarīrā?)° EH • I accept Huntzsch’s reading, shown as unclear in his edition, but cannot confirm it from the facsimile, in which nothing can be made out here. It seems possible that four rather than three characters were engraved here.

⟨7⟩ -ja(n)man¿(aḥ)?⟨ā⟩ virājamān¿āḥ?⟨asya⟩ ⬦ -janman¿aḥ?⟨ā⟩ virājamān¿āḥ?⟨aḥ⟩ EH • Hultzsch offers both of his emendations tentatively. I agree with the first (though it is also possible that the composer’s intent had been alaṁkr̥ta-nija-janmanaḥ), but disagree with the second, which I prefer to emend so that it agrees with kīrttivarmma-mahārājasya.

⟨8⟩ -gata- ⬦ -¿g?⟨ś⟩ata- EH • I consider Hultzsch’s emendation unnecessary. — ⟨8⟩ -samadhigat¿a?⟨o⟩ ⬦ -samadhigata- EH • I prefer to see the end of a compound here, since being equipped with the three śaktis is listed as a separate item in numerous grants of the dynasty.

⟨14⟩ -jīvotsava(ḥ) EH • I accept Hultzsch’s reading (which he prints as clear), but the last character looks in the estampage rather like a vertical bar.

⟨19⟩ -(v)ibhāgā(ḥ)⟨.⟩ ⬦ -vibhāgā⟨ḥ⟩| EH • Hultzsch may be correct in reading the sign as a punctuation mark, but it looks more like a visarga to me; compare the note on line 14 above. — ⟨19⟩ muṁjuṇūru- ⬦ mujuṁṇūru- EH • The anusvāra is on top of ju, but I assume it is to be read after mu.

⟨20⟩ Irb(u)⟨21⟩(l)i- ⬦ Irbba⟨21⟩(l)i- EH • In the estampage, the last character in line 20 is almost certainly rbu, not rbba. The village Irbuli is mentioned in line 11 of the Kopparam plates of Pulakeśin II as being in proximity to the village Koṇḍaceṟupūr, which I believe is identical to the Ceṟupūru of the present grant.

⟨22⟩ Iṟṟaḷ(ūr)- ⬦ Iṟṟalū(r)- EH • The l in EH’s edition is probably a typo, since the consonant is clear in the estampage. The subscript of that consonant may perhaps be a second consonant, but it is most likely the vocalisation ū as read by Hultzsch.

⟨23⟩ (brāhmaṇa?)sya • Here too I accept EH’s reading, but cannot confirm it from the estampage. There may have been only two characters engraved here. — ⟨23⟩ -v¿ī?⟨i⟩dyā- ⬦ vidyā- EH.

⟨25⟩ Iti (ca) • Hultzsch construes these words with the preceding sentence, but to me the lack of sandhi before them, as well as the context, suggest that they go with the following one. See my translation and commentary for details.

⟨26⟩ Āryy(ā)⟨27⟩hū- • Could āryyāhva have been intended here? The vowel at the end of line 23 may also be o instead of ā.

⟨27⟩ -(r/k)oṇ(ḍi)varmmaṇo ⬦ -ko(ṇḍi)varmmaṇā EH • I think the ṇ at the end of this word has a quite clear second vowel stroke attached at the bottom left. See my translation and commentary about how my interpetation differs from that of Hultzsch here. The first character of the name looks like ro in the estampage; if it was indended for ko, then it has no headmark. The second character may have been corrected from something else. Its consonants are probably intended to be ṇḍ, but ḍ is attached to the right of ṇ rather than to the bottom (as e.g. in l25, ceṇḍiśarmmaṇe). The vowel marker includes a second curved stroke to the left of a recognisable i. — ⟨27⟩ āgra-sut¡a-I!⟨a-I⟩⟨Page 4v⟩⟨28⟩ndrava(r)mma{(ṇa?)}-nāma-dheya- ⬦ āgra-suta I⟨Page 4v⟩⟨28⟩ndravarmma{ṇa}-n¿a?⟨ā⟩madhey¿a?⟨o⟩ EH • I feel quite sure that all of this sequence describes the petitioner, so the words are technically in compound (in fact simply being used without case endings). See my translation and commentary about how my interpetation differs from that of Hultzsch here. Hultzsch’s nama may be a typo in the edition, since the ā is the clearest part of the character nā; his emendation concerns the locus as a whole, not this particular character. In the facsimile, I see nothing of Hultzsch’s ṇa. The damaged space is slightly wider than expected for ṇa, but I assume that Hultzsch read this character correctly. If so, this genitive ending, though syntactically incorrect here, is nonetheless in my opinion an indication that I am correct to interpret all of this stretch as a description of the petitioner.

⟨28⟩ -vi¿ñj?⟨jñ⟩āpanayā⟨.⟩ tasyā¿ñjā?⟨jña⟩ptir ¿o?⟨e⟩vaM ⬦ -vi¿ñj?⟨jñ⟩āpanayā tasyā¿ñjā?⟨jña⟩pti¿r?⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ ¿o?⟨E⟩vaM EH • See my translation and commentary about how my interpetation differs from that of Hultzsch here. There is in fact a dot at median height after this word, which may be a punctuation mark or the remnant of one.

⟨30⟩ bhaviṣyati⟨.⟩ Iti (ca) ⬦ bhaviṣyat¿i I?⟨ī⟩ti (ca)⟨.⟩ EH • Hultzsch construes Iti ca with the preceding sentence, but to me the lack of sandhi before these words, as well as the context, suggest that they go with the following one. See the translation for my interpretation.

⟨31⟩ nighnato □ • After this word, there is a thick, roughly horizontal line at about median height, occupying about one character width. This may be a pre-existing defect in the copper surface that the engraver skipped, or it may be an aborted character.

⟨33⟩ bhūmi-da(ḥ) ⬦ bhūmi-da⟨ḥ⟩| EH • If Hultzsch is correct in reading a punctuation mark here, then this may be the only punctuation mark in the charter. It thus seems more likely to me that we have a visarga here, similar to the apparent vertical bar read by Hultzsch as a visarga in line 14. — ⟨33⟩ na⟨34⟩⟦(ra)⟧◯rake • In line 34 above the hole (slightly to the left of its centreline) there is a mark that resembles a capital T. It does not appear to be a numeral for foliation, and thus I take it to be part of an aborted ra that the scribe commenced here, then decided not to squeeze it in above the binding hole and re-engraved to the right of the hole. — ⟨33⟩ cā(nu)pālitā • The intended nu looks very much like ka.

⟨36⟩ nāmānāM • Hultzsch tentatively suggests emending this word to brāhmaṇānāṁ.

⟨37⟩ Ekaikā⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ • It is also possible that Ekaikaśaḥ was intended here. — ⟨37⟩ @ • This symbol may have been intended for the very end of the text, but it is clearly at the end of line 37. — ⟨37⟩ [ca. 2×](pājñā?) ⬦ [ca. 2×](pālvā) EH • The lacuna at the beginning may be only one character in extent; if it is two characters, then the first is rather narrow. The second (or only) illegible character seems to have a roundish body. The first tentatively read character seems to be pā, but may perhaps be dā instead. The second looks to me like jñā with the vowel ā attached twice, once to the middle prong and curling over the top as occasionally done with j, and a second time in the standard way, attached to the top right. It is also possible that Hultzsch is correct in interpreting the curled upper part (which I see as the first ā) as l, but in that case the subscript component seems to me to be too large and complex for v, looking more like a consonant+r combination. — ⟨37⟩ (c/v)(o?)ḍa- ⬦ coḍa- EH • The vowel marker on the first character looks like that for ā, but is connected to the body with a double-humped line resembling the single-stroke cursive form of o. The humps are, however, to the right of and in line with the head of the character instead of being above it. Given that this inscription does not use the cursive o, I am not sure what vowel was intended here. — ⟨37⟩ -boḶ • As Hultzsch also observes, there is a dot (or short dash) at median height after bo. This is probably irrelevant to the text even if it is not a product of later damage. — ⟨37⟩ t¡ri!⟨r̥⟩t¿i?⟨ī⟩yā° ⬦ t¡ri!⟨r̥⟩tīyā° EH.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–18) Greetings. The grandson of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Kīrtivarman, who by [the mere fact of] his birth shone [like an ornament] adorning the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, to whom all kings instantaneously submit at the [mere] sight of the Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, whose ¿minds and? bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice, and who have subjected the triple world to themselves by their inherent glory—; the son of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (I), the wide face of whose chest became the dwelling-place of Lady Majesty acquired by defeating enemies who had positioned themselves at the battlefront: His Majesty King (mahārāja) Indravarman (Indra Bhaṭṭāraka)—whose other name is Milchcow of Liberality (tyāga-dhenu), who is endowed with the three powers (śakti-traya), whose fame and might are great, who is adept in serving the three goals (trivarga),1 who is praised by many people as the Primeval Man (purāṇa-puruṣa, i.e. probably Viṣṇu) {is praised by many worlds}, who is the beloved of hosts of creatures as the Enemy of Pura (Śiva) {is the beloved of troops of ghosts (bhūta)}, who is like a second Crocodile-Bannered (Kāma), like a fifth Guardian of the World (lokapāla), who is true to his word like the firstborn son of Pr̥thā (Yudhiṣṭhira), who creates a feast for his kinsmen and for living beings (in general) like the autumn season {which creates a feast of bandhujīva flowers}, whose power is inclined toward the elevation of his friends, like the Lordly Mountain of the East {whose bulk is inclined toward the rising of the sun}, whose pair of lotus feet are tinted by clusters of rays from great gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of kings—(this King Indravarman) has donated the village named Koṇḍaṇagūru, converted into a Brahmanic gift (brahma-deya) and with a remission of all taxes, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water.

(18–25) The demarcations of directions for that village [are as follows]. To the north, the village named Muṁjuṇūru. To the east, the village named Pagunūru. The village named Ceṟupūru is established as the southern demarcation. To the west, the village named Irbuli. [The donee?] has been allocated a residence amidst these villages. [The donation has been made] to the grandson of the Brāhmin Durgaśarman (also) named Iṟṟaḷūr-boya, who belonged to the Vājasaneya caraṇa and was dedicated to the rituals (karma) ordained for Brahmins; the son of Viṣṇuśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, who possessed a high birth, knowledge and (virtuous) conduct; (namely,) to Ceṇḍiśarman, whose demeanour is praised by Brahmins knowledgeable in the Vedas. [The donation has been made] in order to acquire merit for [my (Indravarman’s)] mother and father as well as for myself (Indravarman).

(25–26) He (Indravarman) further respects (i.e. respectfully informs) future kingly sages (rājarṣi) with all due courtesy as follows:2

(26–29) [The donation has been made] at the petition of the firstborn son, named Indravarman, of King (mahārāja) Koṇḍivarman3, who was an ornament of the sky4 of the ¿Āryāhū? lineage.5 The executor (ājñapti) of that (decree) is thus Ālapāka-boḷ, […]ppi-boḷ, Somayājula-veḷḷekki-boḷ (and) Māraṭa-boḷ.6

(29–31) Moreover, whosoever would pose an obstacle (to the donee’s rights) out of a lack of discernment (moha) or out of greed shall be conjoined with the five great sins. In addition, there are also the following verses of Veda-vyāsa on this matter.

I
It is the fate of a killer of his lord, a cow, a Brahmin, a woman or an ascetic that meets one who takes away revenues (vr̥tti) allotted (aṅkita) by [royal] charter (śāsana).
II
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.
III
Many (kings) have granted land, and many have preserved it (as formerly granted). Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit {reward (accrued of granting it)} belongs to him at that time.

(35–36) With regard to this decree written (likhita) by Kanakarāma, there are sixty-four shares. One share each for these ¿names?. 7

(35–37) […] … one share. Coḍa-boḷ, one third share.8

Commentary

The opening text svasti level with (or slightly above) line 2 of the body text, placed on the left (beginning around 1 o’ clock of the binding hole), so that the body text of line 2 is indented by about 3 character widths.

On most pages, lines next to the binding hole are indented to avoid the hole, but occasionally (where the hole is indicated in my edition), a character is inserted into the narrow space before the hole.

I feel quite sure that nāma grāmagrāmaM in line 18 is dittography, where the scribe engraved grāma, then skipped believing he was still at nāma and re-engraved grāma. Hultzsch 1925–1926, p. 4, n. 11 believes otherwise and thinks grāma-grāma is deliberately used, meaning perhaps a large village or a chief village. He points out a parallel in line 18 of the Peṇukapaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha I (where, however, the original editor of that grant, Fleet, deems the repetition to be dittography).

By my interpretation of the rather ellpitical and vague passage in lines 26-29, the Eastern Cālukya king Indravarman is hereby issuing a grant at the request of (or endorsing a grant made by) a petty ruler likewise named Indravarman, the son of Koṇḍivarman/Roṇḍivarman. The four boḷs listed here were probably persons of note in the territory concerned, which was ruled by the petty Indravarman as a vassal of the Cālukya Indravarman, and were therefore (evam in the text) given the task of conveying the grant to the village and publicising it. It is also conceivable that they were, in the first place, the messengers sent by the vassal Indravarman to the suzerain Indravarman’s court to ask for this grant to be made or endorsed. Hultzsch, however, interprets the passage differently. He believes that the subordinate who petitioned for the grant was Koṇḍivarman, and the Indravarman mentioned in this passage was the son of the Cālukya Indravarman, who was appointed as the executor of the grant at the request of Koṇḍivarman. As for the four boḷs, according to Hultzsch they were probably witnesses to the grant, which he sees as being implied by the word evam, “thus”, in the text. I find his interpretation unconvincing for the following reasons. 1) it requires two emendations (nāma-dheya to nāma-dheyo and °ājñaptir to °ājñaptiḥ|) , whereas my proposal only assumes a lack of sandhi at a point where the writer may well have preferred hiatus for the sake of clarity. 2) even with Hultzsch’s emendations, the resulting syntax is extremely awkward and staggered, with the possessive phrase koṇḍivarmmaṇo … vijñāpanayā split into two widely separated parts, containing another possessive phrase in the intervening text, whereas the text as I read it involves only the minimal awkwardness of a long and not-quite-regular compound. 3) I perceive my own scenario as quite coherent, while I do not see such coherence in Hultzsch’s scenario. Why would the vassal have requested that the suzerain’s son be appointed as executor? Why is the text not clearer if the vassal actually made two requests, one for the grant to be made, and another for the prince to be appointed as executor? Why would witnesses need to be involved at all, and—since I am not aware of witnesses being named in any Eastern Cālukya grant—why is their function and the reason for their inclusion not clearly stated? 4) I believe that the reason why Hultzsch did not choose to interpret the text along lines similar to my thinking was the fact that by my interpretation, both the vassal and the suzerain bear the style mahārāja, whereas by his understanding, only the suzerain gets this style. Since mahārāja is often used as a title of subordinate rulers, I see no difficulty in understanding this to refer to the vassal Koṇḍivarman here; and conversely, Eastern Cālukya grants frequently use mahārāja (as well as even more unassuming styles) for their kings without any implication of inferior status.

The meaning and purpose of the last line is obscure. It may have been added subsequently, since it comes after the closing sign at the end of line 36 and it seems to be in a different hand. If I am correct in reading the word ājñā in line 37, then it may be that the executors were also granted shares in the donated land, and if so, Coḍa-boḷ may have been another agent instrumental to the implementation of the grant.

Bibliography

Reported in Venkoba Rao 1923, p. 9, appendices A/1921-22, № 2 with some further details at Venkoba Rao 1923, pp. 96–97, § 4. Edited from inked impressions by E. Hultzsch (1925–1926), with facsimiles9 and an abstract of the contents. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Hultzsch’s edition with his facsimiles.

Primary

[EH] Hultzsch, Eugen Julius Theodor. 1925–1926. “Kondanaguru grant of Indravarman.” EI 18, pp. 1–5.

Secondary

Venkoba Rao, G. 1923. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for the year 1921-1922. Madras: Governement Press. Page 9, appendixes A/1921-22, item 2.

Venkoba Rao, G. 1923. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for the year 1921-1922. Madras: Governement Press. Pages 96–97, section 4.

Notes

  1. 1. I assume that trivarga refers here to the three puruṣārthas: dharma, artha and kāma. Compare verse 14 of the Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II. However, some other group of three may have been meant, e.g. the three higher orders of society.
  2. 2. I construe iti at the beginning of this passage to refer to the following text. See also the apparatus to line 25.
  3. 3. Or Roṇḍivarman.
  4. 4. Although tilaka, “ornament” and gagana, “sky” are not normally associated, I believe the composer’s intent was to say that this ruler was a moon (“sky-ornament”) to the sky that was his dynasty.
  5. 5. Or possibly the lineage named Ārya.
  6. 6. The word boḷ probably means either a village officer or the landlord of a village. It is thus likely that four persons are listed here not by name but by their titles (except probably for Somayājula, who seems to have both a name and a title); but since ājñapti appears in the singular, it is also possible that a single unnamed person was boḷ of four villages. See the commentary for my interpretation and how it differs from that of Hultzsch.
  7. 7. This passage is again obscure. Hultzsch tentatively emends the text to mean “One share each for these Brahmins” and believes that the Brahmins referred to may include the four boḷs mentioned in lines 28-29 above, in addition to the principal donee Ceṇḍiśarman. He further assumes that the pronoun eteṣām, “these”, implies that the Brahmins in question would have been assembled in the king’s presence when he made the grant. I have no opinion pro or contra, except that the required emendation is a major one (not the rectification of a scribal error), and that is the assumption that the donees were assembled is correct, this gathering would probably have taken place at the village in question and not in the king’s presence. I wonder if the donees were in fact listed on an additional plate that is now lost.
  8. 8. See the commentary.
  9. 9. A photograph of the seal is included in the plate showing the seal of the Niḍupaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha I, between pages 56 and 57.