Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00057.

Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.

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

Version: (d43568b), last modified (7554ccb).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ śrī-viṣamasiddhi

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ @ svasti śrī-vi(ja)ya-skandhāvārāT⟨.⟩ śrīmatā⟨ṁ⟩ mānavya-sago(t)r(ā)ṇā(ṁ) hārītī-putr(ā)ṇāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-(pa)⟨2⟩ripālitānāṁ bhagavan-nārāya(ṇa)-prasāda-samāsādita-varāha-lāñchanekṣa⟨ṇa⟩-vaśīkr̥tā{(ma?)}⟨3⟩śeṣa-mahībhujāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitr¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥ta-gātrāṇāṁ caḷukyā(nāṁ) ⟨4⟩ kulam alaṁkariṣṇor aneka-samara-sāhasāvamardda-labdha-vijayasya śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana⟨5⟩-mahārājasya pautraḥ śrīmad-ind⟨r⟩a-bhaṭṭāraka-mahārājasya priya-tanayaḥ pravarddhamāna⟨6⟩-pratāpopanata-samasta-sāmanta-maṇḍalaḥ manv-ādi-praṇīta-dharmmaś{r}āstra-pracarita-vr̥ddhiḥ ⟨Page 2r⟩ ⟨7⟩ yudhiṣṭhira Iva satya-sandhaḥ br̥haspa(t)i(r) iva naya-jñaḥ (ma)nur iva vinaya-jñaḥ mātā-pitr̥⟨8⟩-pādānudhyātaḥ śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājaḥ (mud)inī-grāmāyyaṇa-kula-tilakasya pr̥thivī⟨9⟩-vallabha-nāmadheyasya putreṇa bhaṭṭāraka-mañcirāj(e)na ponnikal(l)-yāpanī⟨10⟩ya-vr̥kṣa-mūla-saṁgheṣu dramiḷa-viṣaye purucai nāma grāmam adhivasataḥ ⟨11⟩ gihanandy-ācāryyasya śiṣyaḥ kanakanandy-ā⟨cā⟩ryyopadeśa-labdhena vijñapitaḥ Eva⟨12⟩m ājñāpayati minuṁbāka-viṣaye kasimi nāma rājadhānyām adhivasataḥ ⟨Page 2v⟩ ⟨13⟩ (senā)pati-rājapuru[ṣā]d(ī)¿ni?⟨N⟩ (k)(uṭumb?)¿ī?⟨i⟩[na]ś ca

(tā)[ṁ]bra(śā)sanam ida(ṁ sa)[ṁ]pr¿a?⟨ā⟩pta (viditam astu va)⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨14⟩ pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsare dvitīye pravarttamāna-jyeṣṭh¿ā?⟨a⟩-mā(se?) [śu](kla?)(-pa)⟨15⟩kṣe trayodaśyāṁ candra-dine kavi-Alambu-kṣetra-nivarttana-dva(y)aṁ tasya (kṣ)etra(s)ya (pū)⟨16⟩rvvataḥ toṭa-kṣetrañ ca (k)ra(mu)ka-sahasra-vr̥kṣāva(ropa)¡n!⟨ṇ⟩a-mātraṁ tasya sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩-(pramā?)⟨17⟩ṇāni pūrvva-dakṣiṇ¿o?⟨e⟩ viḷaṭ(ṭu?)ra-kuṭi-kṣetraṁ paścime kasimi ¿Īdaḥ? Uttare brah(m)a-(deya?)⟨.⟩⟨18⟩bhaṭṭāra-mañci-vihārāya Arhad-āyatanāya Asmat-puṇyāyur-ārogya-ya(śo)-⟨’⟩(bhivr̥ddha)⟨ye⟩⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨19⟩ sarvva-kara-parih(ā)r(ī)-kr̥tya dattavāN⟨.⟩ na kaiścid bādhā karaṇīyā

(Ā)jñaptis (sv)a-mu(kh)aM

I. Anuṣṭubh

⟨20⟩ bah(u)¿v?⟨bh⟩hir vasudhā dattā

a

bahubhi(ś cānu)pālitā

b

yasya yasya ya(dā) bhūmi(ḥ)

c

tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ

d
II. Anuṣṭubh

⟨21⟩ ṣa¿p?⟨ṣ⟩ṭiṁ varṣa-sahasrā(ṇi)

a

s(v)argge modati bhūmi-daḥ

b

Ākṣeptā cā(numantā) ca

c

tā(n)y eva ⟨22⟩ narake vaseT

d
III. Anuṣṭubh

nighnat(o) bhartr̥-go-vipra-

a

-bāla-yoṣit-tapasvi(nāṁ)

b

yā (ga)tis sā bhavet tasya

c

⟨23⟩ harataś śāsanāṁkitaM

d
IV. Indravajrā

yānīha dattāni purā narendraiḥ

a

dānāni dharmmārttha-yaśas-karāṇi

b

⟨24⟩ (n)i[rmmā]lya-(v)ānta-pratimāni tāni|

c

ko vā manuṣyaḥ punar ādadīta|

d

namo ⟨’⟩rhat(e) ◯

⟨Page 3v⟩ ⟨25⟩ pūrvva-sīma(M) kaṁsārivāda dakṣiṇa-sīmaM cāki Illu ⟨26⟩ paścima-sīmaM taruvu Uttara-sīmaM (nob)ipā ⟨27⟩ ka(de?)veluvu vr̥kṣamūla-caityaṁbu kṣetraṁ @

Apparatus

Seal

⟨1⟩ śrī-viṣamasiddhi PS • The reading reported by PS may not be the genuine seal of these plates; see the commentary.

Plates

⟨1⟩ vijaya- • The intent may have been vijayavāṭa-; compare vijayavāṭi-skandhāvārāT in the first set of Peddāpurappāḍu plates.

⟨3⟩ -mahībhujāṁ ⬦ -mahī-maṇḍa[lānāṁ] PS. — ⟨3⟩ -gātrāṇāṁ ⬦ -gotrāṇāṁ PS.

⟨4⟩ -sāhasāvamardda-labdha- ⬦ -sāhasāvalabdha- PS.

⟨7⟩ naya-jñaḥ (ma)nur iva vinaya-jñaḥ ⬦ nāma-jñaḥ manur iva [ca. 3*]-jñaḥ PS.

⟨8⟩ (mud)inī-grāmāyyaṇa-kula-tilakasya ⬦ (mu)dinī grāmau [ca. 2*] vī lokasya PS • The locus is corroded or otherwise damaged, but the reading has been established beyond doubt (except as to the name of the village) from some of my photos of the plate.

⟨9⟩ putreṇa ⬦ putr¿iṇo?⟨o⟩ PS. — ⟨9⟩ -mañcirāj(e)na ⬦ -maṅgirājaḥ PS. — ⟨9⟩ ponnikal(l)-yāpanī⟨10⟩ya- ⬦ pontikalyaupanī⟨10⟩ya- PS.

⟨10⟩ dramiḷa- ⬦ draviḷa- PS. — ⟨10⟩ adhivasat(purucai nāma?) ⬦ purucaināḍu- PS. — ⟨10⟩ adhivasataḥ ⬦ adhivasat PS.

⟨11⟩ kanakanandy-ā⟨cā⟩ryyopadeśa- ⬦ kanakanandyā Upadeśa- PS.

⟨12⟩ minuṁbāka- ⬦ mīnuṁbāka- PS. — ⟨12⟩ kasimi ⬦ kisimi PS. — ⟨12⟩ adhivasataḥ ⬦ adhivasat PS.

⟨13⟩ (senā)pati- … (viditam astu va)⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ saparirājapura viditam astu vo […] PS • Much of this line is badly damaged, which is why PS seems to have read only a small part of it. There is certainly no lacuna where he indicates one, but there are plenty of unmarked gaps in his reading. My reading is fraught with uncertainty, but plausible. I make no further emendation to saṁprāpta, whose function in the syntax is uncertain. Perhaps saṁprāpya was intended, or more simply but resulting in an awkwardly divided sentence, saṁprāptaṁ.

⟨14⟩ pravarttamāna- ⬦ pravarddhamāna- PS. — ⟨14⟩ [śu](kla?)- PS • This word has been all but obliterated. PS shows it as clear and I accept his testimony because I can make out faint vestiges of kla. The preceding syllable may have been su, intended for śu.

⟨15⟩ tasya ⬦ Asya PS.

⟨16⟩ (k)ra(mu)ka-sahasra-vr̥kṣāva(ropa)¡n!⟨ṇ⟩a-mātraṁ ⬦ [ca. 2*] kaṁ sahasra-vr̥kṣa-varāhana [ca. 2*] PS • The reading is quite certain, although °āvaropana looks rather like °āvaśahana. — ⟨16⟩ sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩-(pramā?)⟨17⟩ṇāni ⬦ sīmā-cihna⟨17⟩ni PS.

⟨17⟩ pūrvva-dakṣiṇ¿o?⟨e⟩ ⬦ pūrvvaṇdakṣinā PS. — ⟨17⟩ viḷaṭ(ṭu?)ra-kuṭi- ⬦ vihajara-kūṭa- PS. — ⟨17⟩ paścime kasimi ¿Īdaḥ? Uttare brah(m)a-(deya?) ⬦ paścimeka-sīmaṁ [ca. 3*] Uttare brāhma(ṇi)ya PS • I cannot interpret Īdaḥ, but the reading is quite certain apart from some ambiguity in da, which could always be a retroflex stop.

⟨18⟩ bhaṭṭāra-mañci- ⬦ bhaṭṭāraka-nañci- PS • The name of the vihāra is reported correctly in the ARIE. — ⟨18⟩ Arhad-āyatanāya ⬦ Aghaṭāyaya nāma PS.

⟨19⟩ dattavāN⟨.⟩ na kaiścid bādhā karaṇīyā ⬦ gokaraṇīyā PS. — ⟨19⟩ (Ā)jñaptis (sv)a-mu(kh)aM ⬦ Ājñapti sośa⟨r⟩mā PS.

⟨21⟩ bhūmi-daḥ ⬦ bhūmi-dānaḥ PS. — ⟨21⟩ tā(n)y eva • PS does not read these words, nor anything on the rest of this page, noting that lines 22 to 24 are “completely erased”. The lines in question are in fact reasonably well preserved, although they may have been covered in encrustation when PS studied the plate.

⟨25⟩ pūrvva-sīma(M) ⬦ [ca. 3*] p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvva-sīma PS • This word begins above and slightly to the right of the centre of the binding hole. ALthough the left edge of this outer face is badly damaged, I am reasonably certain that nothing was inscribed before this word. — ⟨25⟩ kaṁsārivāda ⬦ sorivāḍa PS. — ⟨25⟩ dakṣiṇa-sīmaM ⬦ dakṣiṇa-sīmā PS. — ⟨25⟩ cāki Illu ⬦ vā[ca. 3*] PS.

⟨26⟩ paścima-sīmaM taruvu ⬦ paścima nāgaruvuḥ PS. — ⟨26⟩ Uttara-sīmaM (nob)ipā ⬦ Uttara-sīmā [ca. 1*]po PS • Although nobipā does not sound likely to me, the reading is reasonably secure.

⟨27⟩ Uttara-sīmaM (nob)ipā ⬦ ka(vi)velupu[…] PS.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–13) Greetings from the majestic encampment of victory.1 The grandson of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana, who attained victory by quashing the aggression (of enemies) in many battles and who was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra, who are sons of Hārītī, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who have conquered the entirety of rulers by means of the [mere] sight of the Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose limbs have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice—; the dear son of the majestic King (mahārāja) Indra Bhaṭṭāraka, His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (II), who was deliberately appointed [as heir] by his mother and father and whose ever-increasing valour forces the entire circle of subordinate rulers (sāmanta) to bow, who achieves prosperity by (means in accordance with) the textbooks of moral duty (dharmaśāstra) composed by Manu and so on, who is true to his word like Yudhiṣṭhira, as versed in polity (naya) as Br̥haspati and as versed in discipline (vinaya) as Manu—having been petitioned by the son of the forehead ornament of the Ayyaṇa family of Mudinī village named Pr̥thivīvallabha, [namely] by Bhaṭṭāraka Mañcirāja, who had received instruction from Kanakanandi Ācārya, who was a disciple of Gihanandi Ācārya who inhabited the village named Purucai in Dramiḷa territory (viṣaya) [and was a member] in the Yāpanīya Vr̥kṣamūla congregation (saṁgha) ¿of? Ponnikall—(Viṣṇuvardhana II) commands ¿military officers (senāpati), royal agents (rāja-puruṣa) and other [functionaries] as well as householders? inhabiting the royal seat (rājadhānī) named Kasimi in Minuṁbāka district (viṣaya) as follows:2

(13–19) ¿Upon receipt of this copperplate charter?, let it be known to you that in the ongoing second year of the victorious reign, in the course of the month Jyeṣṭha, in the bright fortnight, on the thirteenth, a Monday,3 in order to augment our merit, vitality, health and glory, [I] have given to the Bhaṭṭāra Mañci monastery (vihāra), [which is] a residence of the Arhats, with a remission of all taxes, the Kavi Alambu field [which has an extent of] two nivartanas and, to the east of that field, the Toṭa field which is of an extent [suitable for] the planting of a thousand betelnut trees. The extents of its4 borders [are as follows]. To the east and south, the Viḷaṭṭura Kuṭi field. To the west, Kasimi. To the north, a Brahmin’s granted [land] (brahma-deya).

(19) The authority (ājñapti) is [the king’s] own mouth.

I
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.
II
A donor of land rejoices in heaven for sixty millennia, [while] a seizer [of granted land] and a condoner [of such seizure] shall reside in hell for just as many.
III
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 that which has been allotted (aṅkita) by [royal] charter (śāsana).
IV
The donations given by kings in olden days to generate merit (dharma), wealth (artha) and fame are [now] comparable to discarded garlands or vomit. Pray what man would ever partake of them again?

(24) Homage to the Arhat!

(25–27) ¿The eastern border is Kaṁsārivāda; the southern border is cāki illu; the western border is a tree (taruvu); the northern border is nobipā. The field of the Vr̥kṣamūla monastery (caitya) of Kadeveluvu.?5

Commentary

PS reports the seal of this set as engraved with the legend śrī-viṣamasiddhi and depicting the sun and moon above it and the varāha and an aṅkuśa below it. I include the reported seal inscription in my edition, but note that the plates were loose when I inspected them in 2023 and no seal was attached to the bundle. It may have been misplaced in the meantime, or a seal may have been wrongly associated with the plates when PS studied them.

There has been some confusion about the identity of the issuer of these plates, which has now been cleared up on the basis of good photographs of the original. According to the ARIE report, the plates were issued by a “Maṅgi, son of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka”, but the report makes no issue of the fact that no such ruler is known, and treats another set of plates, issued by Maṅgi son of Viṣṇuvardhana and grandson of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka as belonging to the same king. According to Padmanabha Sastry’s discussion, the issuer is “the King Bhaṭṭāraka Maṅgi mahārāja, the son of Pr̥thivīvallabha (… pr̥thivīvallabha nāmadheyasya putriṇa bhaṭṭāraka Maṅgirājan…)”. Even before photographing the original plates in 2023, I had proposed that this person may rather have been the instigator of the grant, and the issuing king is more likely to be Viṣṇuvardhana II, whom the plate introduces in regular succession as the grandson of Viṣṇuvardhana (I) and son of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka.

Having now studied the photographs, I can ascertain beyond a shadow of doubt that this is indeed the case. Further, the instigator is named Bhaṭṭāraka Mañcirāja, not Maṅgirāja. Indeed, the Jain institution receiving the donation bears his name (line 18), which was correctly read for the ARIE report and printed almost correctly in PS’s edition, but the connection between this name and that of the instigator has not been made previously. The reason for the confusion, apart from the similarity of the names Maṅgi and Mañci, may have been that Mañcirāja is the son of a person named Pr̥thivīvallabha. It is, however, not uncommon for subordinates to be named after sovereign kings. This Pr̥thivīvallabha is clearly stated to belong to the Ayyaṇa family, and not the Cālukya royal house.

The name of the Ayyaṇa family has not been read previously in this grant, but it is known from the Musinikuṇḍa grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III according to which a Cālukya queen originating from this family supported a Jain monastery. (See also my commentary to that grant: there may even have been two such queens, one of Viṣṇuvardhana I and another of Viṣṇuvardhana III.) A man (with royal titulature) belonging to this family (spelt Ayyaṇa) was the executor of the Cendalūr Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, royal territorial officers belonging to this family are mentioned in the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II, and a woman of the Ayāṇa or Āyāṇa family, possibly unrelated, appears in the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa.

The locality Kaṁsārivāda mentioned in line 25 is reminiscent of a Kaṁsāryya mentioned in the second Kondavidu set of Pr̥thvīśrīmūla (EIAD 0188). Together with the possible parallel between the same grant’s Taṁgodunaruva and the first Peddāpurappāḍu set’s Taṅgomanūṟuvu, this might be an indication that the Jain monastery mentioned in the three Peddāpurappāḍu sets in fact lay in the vicinity of Tāṇḍikoṇḍa. Peddapurappadu, where the plates are supposed to have been discovered, is in Krishna district, but there is a Pedakurapadu northwest of Guntur, as well as a Kasipadu nearby which may perhaps be Kasimi, so I wonder if the findspot has been correctly recorded. Even if it has, the findspot is of course no guarantee that the charter concerns land in the same region.

It is not clear to me what function the boundary description on 3v serves. It may be the case that in the main body of the grant, the boundaries of the totality of the granted land were specified, and the more specific boundaries of the smaller field are stated here. It is also possible that this is a supplementary grant, or the description of the plot for the precincts of the institution. The location of this passage on an outer face, after the closing prayer and a closer symbol, suggests a subsequent addition. Both the lines and the characters of each line are more widely spaced here than in the main body of the text, and the space above, below and to the left of the hole is not utilised. The hand, however, is not distinguishable from the hand responsible for the rest of the charter.

Bibliography

Reported in Katti 2006, pp. 20–21, appendices A/1990-91, № 2 with some further details at Katti 2006, p. 4. Edited from inked impressions by C. A. Padmanabha Sastry (1994, № B), without facsimiles and without translation. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photos taken by myself in February 2023 at the Andhra Sahitya Parishad Museum, Kakinada, collated with Padmanabha Sastry’s edition. That edition contains such an inordinate number of typographic (or other) mistakes, that I cite it in the apparatus only when it differs from my established readings in a way that I consider to be significant.

Primary

[PS] Padmanabha Sastry, C. A. 1994. “Two Eastern Chāḷukyan charters from Peddāpurappāḍu.” Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India (Bharatiya Purabhilekha Patrika) 20, pp. 46–50. Item B.

Secondary

Katti, Madhav N. 2006. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for 1990-91. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Pages 20–21, appendixes A/1990-91, item 2.

Katti, Madhav N. 2006. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for 1990-91. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Page 4.

Notes

  1. 1. Or perhaps, “the encampment at Vijayavāṭa.” See the apparatus to line 1.
  2. 2. Both the reading and the interpretation of the text is problematic at the end of this passage. See the apparatus and the commentary for my reasoning.
  3. 3. PS in his discussion of the grants translates candra-dine as Wednesday.
  4. 4. I assume that the boundaries pertain to the field and the orchard as a combined entity, but this is not clear from the text.
  5. 5. I do not understand the details of this passage, which use some Telugu words and forms; nor the function of this passage. See also the commentary.