Mḻopaṟṟu grant attributed to Maṅgi Yuvarāja

Seal

Plates

⟨1⟩ -bhagava(T)- ⬦ bhāgavata RM.

⟨2⟩ hārit(ī)- ⬦ h¿a?⟨ā⟩ritī- RM. — ⟨2⟩ a⟨3⟩¿(mvro)?⟨mbho⟩dhi- ⬦ a⟨3⟩mbhodhi- RM.

⟨3⟩ sa(mud)it(e)[nd]o(r) nna(ya-vinaya)- ⬦ -samudita [ca. 6×] RM • Compare the Nutulapaṟu grant and London Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, both of which use the same wording, though for Jayasiṁha rather than Kīrtivarman.

⟨4⟩ -(sa)ma⟦saṁ⟧⟨⟨ra⟩⟩- ⬦ -samara- RM • According to RM’s note, ra “looks like ru. However, the ū sign is curved upwards.” In fact, it looks like saṁ was first engraved, then corrected to ra. In addition to this character, there may be something added below the line at this point, just to the right of the descender of ra. The strokes are quite conspicuous in the estampage, but not visible at all in the photos. No insertion seems to be required either here or in the next line at this point. I cannot read the inserted text, if that is what it is. Its first character may be a small ṇa, and this may be followed by one to three further small characters of whose shape nothing can be discerned. — ⟨4⟩ sa(ṁ)ghaṭ⟨ṭ⟩opalabdha- • The engraved text may in fact be saṁghāṭopalabdha-. — ⟨4⟩ -(jaya-śrī)-lat¿i?⟨ā⟩⟨5⟩-pra¿ś?⟨s⟩ūta-ya⟨śaḥ⟩-prasūty-āmoda- ⬦ (jayaśilat)¿(i)?⟨ā⟩⟨5⟩-pra¿ś?⟨s⟩ūtāya [praroha]-prasūty-āmoda- RM • The characters taya are at the lower edge of the binding hole, and are therefore reduced in size and slightly distorted in shape. I cannot fully reconstruct RM’s reading and emendation. At the end of line 4, he apparently reads jayaśilati and emends the final vowel to ā. A footnote by his editor completes this emendation to jayāsi-latā. In line 5 it is also clear that RM emends śū to sū, but I fail to understand what he intends with the word praroha, shown in his edition in round parentheses. He probably means this to replace the preceding word he reads as praśūtāya, but if so, then I do not see why he first emends that to prasūtāya. No matter what RM intended, we have a close parallel in lines 10-11 of the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II, which describe Jayasiṁha I as °āneka-samara-saṁghaṭṭa-labdha-vijaya-śīlatā-prasūta-yaśaḥ-prasūtāmoda-gandhādhivāsita-sakala-dig-maṇḍalasya (where -prasūtāmoda- is probably erroneous for -prasūty-āmoda-). The phrase jaya-śrī-latā in place of jaya-śīlatā is unexpected, but the subscript r is unmistakeable in the photo even in its worn state. It is possible that all of praśūtaya at the beginning of line 5 was intended to be cancelled, in which case we are left with a more elegant compound involving jaya-śrī-latā; but the text is interpretable with the above minor emendations even if all characters are retained.

⟨6⟩ -(lo)kāśr¿ā?⟨a⟩yaḥ ⬦ -lokāśraya- RM • I am certain that the compound ending here is not subordinate to the one beginning after this point. — ⟨6⟩ -bhu(ja?){bhu(ja)}- • I follow RM in dismissing the second bhuja as superfluous dittography. There is a slight possibility that the first bhuja is in fact a different word beginning with bhu, and thus the second is not redundant. It is also possible that the second bhuja is not simply a product of dittography, but an erroneously engraved word influenced by the first bhuja. The Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II has sakala-lokāśraya-bhuja-yugaḷa-bala-namitāśeṣa- (describing Jayasiṁha), and the composer’s intent may have been -bhuja-yuga- here.

⟨8⟩ -bh¿a?⟨ā⟩gavata- ⬦ -bh¿a?⟨ā⟩gavataḥ RM. — ⟨8⟩ śrī-(ma)ṁgi- • I endorse RM’s reading, which he prints as clear. In fact, the first character differs conspicuously from instances of ma in the same line: it has an exaggerated headmark and its right is attached too low. Given its closeness to the next character, it may be a correction from va. — ⟨8⟩ ca(vu?)ḻpallya- ⬦ ca(nu)ḻpallyā-viṣaye RM • The ARIE report says the granted village is in canū(ṟpa)lli viṣaya, having probably read the locative ending pallyāṁ. On the testimony of the Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III, I prefer to read the partly effaced second character as vu. I believe there is neither an anusvāra nor an ā marker here; the dot at the top right of llya is simply a serif-like feature of the engraving, like the dot at the top right of the subscript p, or that at the top left of ṣa, both of which clearly lack a function.

⟨9⟩ itth¿ā?⟨a⟩m ¿a?⟨ā⟩(jñāpa)yati ⬦ ittham ājñāpayati RM.

⟨10⟩ va¡c(ch)!⟨ts⟩a- • The lower part of ccha is lost to the edge of the binding hole. It may also have been c. — ⟨10⟩ (guṇava?)[to] (Āḍ?)i(śa)rmma(ṇaḥ) ⬦ ¿śu?⟨su⟩śarmmaṇe| vveṁgiśarmma(ṇaḥ) RM • Although RM prints most of this text as clearly legible, neither the estampage nor the photo confirms his reading. Though the syntax of the sentence is garbled, I expect only one name here (see the note to the translation). My own reading is largely conjectural, based on very faint and ambiguous vestiges. What I read as va looks in fact more like vā or ma. In the name, my tentatively read Ā (apparently ignored or read as a punctuation mark by RM) could, on its own, be dra or vra, and my tentative ḍi (RM’s gi, which I find impossible) may also be di or dhi.

⟨11⟩¿(Astiśahasana?)?⟨12⟩¿ma(ṁñcūdhūkaṁ?)? ⬦ Astivihasana⟨12⟩-maṇḍūṟūre RM • I am unable to propose a meaningful reading here, and show what I deem to be the most likely reading on the basis of the vestiges. This is unlikely to be exactly what was inscribed on the plates, and an examination of the original may reveal some further clues. I cannot agree with RM’s reading maṇḍūṟūre even though his editor in a footnote suggests that this is a toponym identifiable as the village Maṇḍūru near the modern village Mopaṟṟu, which he believes was “the camping place” (presumably of Maṅgi Yuvarāja). I note that, on Google Maps at least, that village’s name is Manduru with a dental d. In line 11, what I and RM read as A us identifiable only by a large and curling tail; the body is fully effaced. In principle, almost any consonant with a subscript r is also conceivable. The second character is most likely to be sti, but a different subscript consonant is possible. Reading smai (for Asmai) is not entirely out of the question, although the vowel is unlikely to be anything other than i. The third character is almost certainly śa, discernible both in the estampage and the photo. What RM reads as an i marker is the subscript m of śarmmaṇaḥ in the previous line. After this, ha and sa are reasonably clear. The former could perhaps also be ḷa; the latter is badly worn, but not too ambiguous. At the end of the line, na might also be va. In line 12, the second character, which I read as ñcū, is definitely not ṇḍa: compare the very different ṇḍa further on in this line, and the very similar ñca in line 15. It is preceded by a conspicuous dot that may be an anusvāra or an irrelevant pit in the metal. The following character is somewhat distorted to fit in below the binding hole, and its upper part may be lost to wear at the edge of the hole. Assuming that it is fully preserved, its most likely reading is dhū, but ḻū is also possible. Compare dha in line 13 which, though slightly damaged, looks very similar. If the upper right part is lost to wear, then thū and ṟū are also conceivable. The upper part of the line’s fourth character is definitely lost to the widening of the hole, but it seems to have had a crossbar, so ka is a more likely reading than ra. It is followed by another possible anusvāra that may also be meaningless damage, but since the next character is inscribed at some distance, an anusvāra is more likely.

⟨12⟩ -bhaktāḥ ⬦ -bhakt(āya?) RM • The plate is worn here, but the reading is unambiguous. — ⟨12⟩ -par(i)h(ā)ra(M) ⬦ -parihāraṁ RM.

⟨13⟩ -nimitta¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ -nimittaṁ RM. — ⟨13⟩ m(ḻ)opaṟṟu ⬦ mḻoṁpaṟṟu RM • The ARIE report reads the name as mṟōpaṟṟu. I see no anusvāra here. The subscript part of the first character is more likely to be ḻ than ṟ. — ⟨13⟩ -n(ā)mā ⬦ -nāma RM. — ⟨13⟩ (ve?)l(ḻ?)(a)vaṟṟu ⬦ I(l)avaṟṟu RM • Although this is in all probability the modern village Yellavarru identified in an editorial footnote in RM’s edition, RM’s reading cannot be right. The first character is probably ve. The subscript part of the second looks like ḻ, but could be ṟ or th. A clumsily reduced l cannot be excluded, but it is definitely not the usual cursive simplification of subscript l.

⟨14⟩ pulgoṭlapabulūru ⬦ pulgoḷḷipa(ṟu)[2×] RM • These characters are quite effaced in the estampage, but all are reasonably clear in the photo. The name is attested in the as yet unedited Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III. — ⟨14⟩ A(g)ūnakṣayyaṁ ⬦ Agūnakṣayya RM. — ⟨14⟩ Utt¿ā?⟨a⟩rataḥ ⬦ Uttarataḥ RM. — ⟨14⟩ k(ḻ?)(o)cce ḍoḍu ⟨Page 2v⟩ ⟨15⟩ (ca?)⟨.⟩(Ete)ṣām madhya- ⬦ k(ṟ?)(o)cce (d)o(p?)u ⟨Page 2v⟩ ⟨15⟩ [3×]mmadhya- RM • If RM’s reading at the end of 2r is interpretable, then it may be correct. Both the estampage and the photo are quite clear, but many of the characters can be ambiguous. The first may perhaps also be kṣo. The first character on 2v seems to belong to this phrase, but it may be va rathre than ca. The Sanskrit words from the second character onward are reasonably clear in the photo.

⟨15⟩ k¿ā?⟨a⟩rot(i) ⬦ karot¿a?⟨i⟩ RM.

⟨17⟩ °pālit¿a?⟨ā⟩ ⬦ °pālitā RM. — ⟨17⟩ bhūm¿a?⟨i⟩s ⬦ bhūmis RM.

⟨18⟩ ⟨va⟩sundh¿a?⟨ā⟩r¿a?⟨ā⟩(ṁ) ⬦ ⟨va⟩sundharā⟨M⟩ RM. — ⟨18⟩ ṣaṣ¿ṭh?⟨ṭ⟩i- ⬦ ṣaṣṭir RM. — ⟨18⟩ koṭi-pra⟨19⟩dānena ⬦ koṭi⟨19⟩-pradānena RM.

⟨19⟩ Aśva⟦(śe)⟧⟨⟨(me)⟩⟩dha- ⬦ Aśvamedha- RM • In this place, śe or ge was first inscribed, then the right-hand side of the consonant was incorporated into an m, but the left and top parts were left in place.

⟨20⟩ ¿a?⟨ā⟩hu⟨r⟩ ⬦ āhuḥ RM. — ⟨20⟩ hanti ⬦ ha¡ṁ!⟨n⟩ti RM.

⟨21⟩ bh¿a?⟨ā⟩vi- ⬦ bhāvi- RM.

⟨22⟩ p(ā)la(ya)nti ⬦ pālayaṁti RM. — ⟨22⟩ ima(ṁ) ⬦ imāṁ RM.

⟨23⟩ mū⟨r⟩dhni ⬦ mūrddhni RM. — ⟨23⟩ narendra ⬦ narendr¿a?⟨aiḥ⟩ RM • Since the text is meaningful as received, I prefer not to emend to the standard version of this stanza. — ⟨23⟩ dān¿a?⟨ā⟩(ni) ⬦ dānāni RM. — ⟨23⟩ (dha)rmm(ā)rttha- ⬦ dharmārttha- RM. — ⟨23⟩ nirmm¿a?⟨ā⟩(l)y¿ā?⟨a⟩-vā⟨24⟩nti- ⬦ nirmāly¿ā?⟨a⟩-¿m?⟨v⟩ā⟨24⟩nt¿i?⟨a⟩- RM.

⟨24⟩ -pra◯tim¿a?⟨ā⟩ni ⬦ -pratimāni RM. — ⟨24⟩ n¿a?⟨ā⟩ma ⬦ nāma RM. — ⟨24⟩ s¿a?⟨ā⟩dhuḥ ⬦ sādhuḥ RM. — ⟨24⟩ sarvv(ā)n et¿a?⟨ā⟩n ⬦ sarvān etān RM. — ⟨24⟩ bhāvinaḥ pā(r)tthivendr¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨N⟩ ⬦ bhāv-naḥ (pā)ratthivendrā⟨N⟩ RM • Seems to be a typo in RM.

⟨25⟩ y¿a?⟨ā⟩ca(te) ⬦ yācate RM. — ⟨25⟩ r(āma)devaḥ • Since the reading is clear, intelligible and metrically correct, I do not emend. However, this stanza normally has Rāmabhadra here. — ⟨25⟩ dharmma- ⬦ dharma- RM. — ⟨25⟩ -(se)tu⟨r⟩ ⬦ -setur RM. — ⟨25⟩ nr̥p¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇāṁ ⬦ nr̥pāṇāṁ RM.

⟨26⟩ as(min gha)(gha)narāśir ⬦ asmin dhana-rāśir RM • The problematic is quite worn and faint, but is quite certainly ngha, especially from the photo. Since RM does not mention Dhanarāśi in his discussion, this is probably not a typo in his edition. — ⟨26⟩ -bh¿a?⟨ā⟩nu° ⬦ -bhānu° RM. — ⟨26⟩ praj¿a?⟨ā⟩n¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ prajānāṁ RM. — ⟨26⟩ śā¿ś?⟨s⟩an¿ā?⟨a⟩sya li(@?) ⬦ śā¿ś?⟨s⟩anasya li RM • The last symbol on the page may be a circle with a concentric dot instad of a spiral.