Cendaṟa grant of Jayasiṁha II

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00060.

Hand description:

Halantas

Original punctuation marks.

Other palaeographic observations

Language: Sanskrit.

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

Version: (c66dc65), last modified (5347f23).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ śrī-sarvvasiddhi

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ svasti⟨.⟩ śrīmatā⟨ṁ⟩ sakala-jaga¿da?⟨t⟩-saṁst¿u?⟨ū⟩yamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇā⟨ṁ⟩ hāriti-pu⟨2⟩trāṇā⟨ṁ⟩ sapta-loka-mātr̥bhi{ḥ}r mmātr̥bhiḥ paripālitānāṁ bhagavaT-sv¿a?⟨ā⟩mi-mahā⟨3⟩sena-pāda-¿v?⟨bh⟩aktānā⟨ṁ⟩ śrīma⟨n⟩-nārāya¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-prasāda-sam¿a?⟨ā⟩sādita-vara-varāha-lāñ¿c?⟨ch⟩a⟨4⟩nekṣa¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥t¿a?⟨ā⟩rāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥¿t?⟨th⟩a-snā⟨5⟩na-pavit¿r̥?⟨rī⟩kr̥ta-vapuṣā⟨ṁ⟩ calu¡kh!yānā⟨ṁ⟩ kulam alaṁk¿ā?⟨a⟩riṣṇo⟨ḥ⟩| śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana⟨6⟩-mahārājasya p¿r̥?⟨ri⟩ya-tanaya⟨ḥ⟩ pratāpopanata-samasta-sāmanta-ma⟨Page 2r⟩⟨7⟩ṇḍalo vijayasiddhir iti velānto⟨pa⟩-g¿i?⟨ī⟩yam¿a?⟨ā⟩na-cāru-kīrtti⟨ḥ⟩ śrī-sarvvalokāśra⟨8⟩ya-mah¿a?⟨ā⟩rāja⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ tasya putraḥ sv¿a?⟨ā⟩si-dhār¿a?⟨ā⟩-¿ṇ?⟨n⟩amita-⟨ripu-nr̥pati-⟩makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭita-ma⟨9⟩ṇi-may¿u?⟨ū⟩¿k?⟨kh⟩a-puñja-mañjarita-pāda-p¿ā?⟨a⟩¿t?⟨d⟩ma-yugala⟨ḥ⟩ ravir iva pratāpavā⟨N⟩ ⟨10⟩ candra Iva sarvva-jana-mano-nayana-nandana⟨ḥ⟩ guha Iv¿a?⟨ā⟩pratihata-śakti⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨11⟩ śakti-traya-sampanna⟨ḥ⟩ parama-brahmaṇyo m¿a?⟨ā⟩tā-pitr̥-pādānudhy¿a?⟨ā⟩ta⟨ḥ⟩ śrī-jayasi⟨12⟩ṁgha-vallabha-mah¿a?⟨ā⟩rāja Ittham ¿a?⟨ā⟩jñāpayati

yathā viditam astu ⟨Page 2v⟩ ⟨13⟩ vaṅgipaṟu-v¡a!stavy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya ¡kh!⟨k⟩āṇva-gotrāya Āpas¿th?⟨t⟩aṁ¿bh?⟨b⟩a-sūtrāya sa-brahma⟨14⟩cāriṇ¡a!⟨e⟩ dugamaḍiśarmmaṇaḥ pautraḥ maḍiśarmmaṇaḥ putraḥ dugamaḍiśa⟨15⟩rmma{śa}¡aḥ!⟨e⟩ pennātavāḍi-viṣaye cendaṟa nāma grāme p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvveṇa diśi dakṣi⟨16⟩ṇata⟨ḥ⟩ kṟoyuru nāma grāma-s¿i?⟨ī⟩m¡a!⟨ā⟩ paścimata⟨ḥ⟩ taṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩kaḥ Ut⟨t⟩arataḥ ta⟨17⟩ṭāka cevarapalli-boya-kṣetra-sīm¡a!⟨ā⟩ p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvvata⟨ḥ⟩ kalvatoṟu-sīm¡a!⟨ā⟩⟨.⟩ E⟨18⟩teṣāṁ madhye dv¿a?⟨ā⟩daśa-kodrava-khaṇḍik¿a?⟨ā⟩v¿a?⟨ā⟩pa-kṣetra⟨ṁ⟩ pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya⟨Page 3r⟩⟨19⟩-saṁva¡ch!⟨ts⟩are tr̥tīye viṣṇu-pāda-nimit⟨t⟩e {so}Udaka-p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvva⟨ṁ⟩ mātā-pitror ātma⟨20⟩naś ca puṇy¿a?⟨ā⟩v¿a?⟨ā⟩ptaye {ta} dat⟨t⟩a⟨M⟩⟨.⟩ Uktañ ca bhagavatā vy¿a?⟨ā⟩sena

I. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhi⟨r⟩ vasu⟨21⟩dhā dat⟨t⟩¿a?⟨ā⟩

a

bahubhiś cānupāli¿na?⟨tā⟩

b

yasya yasya y¿ā?⟨a⟩dā bh¿u?⟨ū⟩mis

c

tasya ⟨22⟩ tasya tadā phala⟨ṁ⟩

d
II. Anuṣṭubh

sva-dat⟨t⟩¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩ para-dat⟨t⟩¿a?⟨ā⟩m vā

a

yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ vasundharā⟨ṁ⟩

b

¿s?⟨ṣ⟩aṣti-varṣa⟨23⟩-sahasrā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩i

c

viṣṭhāyāM jāyate kr̥miḥ

d

Ājñapti vissarami[ca. 2×]

⟨Page 3v⟩

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

⟨1⟩ -jaga¿da?⟨t⟩-saṁst¿u?⟨ū⟩yamāna- NR • If NR’s reading is correct, then the emendation is acceptable. However, I would expect jagad-abhiṣṭūyamāna (as found in some grants of Maṅgi Yuvarāja), since saṁstūyamāna is always preceded by bhuvana in related grants.

⟨7⟩ velānto⟨pa⟩-g¿i?⟨ī⟩yam¿a?⟨ā⟩na- • NR’s edition has a blank footnote attached to the word velānto (and another footnote emending the second word as shown here). If the reading is correct, I assume NR intended to emend as I have done here. I do not know of a parallel to this phrase.

⟨8⟩ -⟨ripu-nr̥pati-⟩ • NR does not supply these words, but the text is only interpretable without them if we assume paronomasia, which does not otherwise occur in versions of this genealogy. This form of the phrase occurs for example in the Guḍivāḍa plates (set 1) of Jayasiṁha I (with piñjarita-caraṇāravinda in place of mañjarita-pāda-padma). (Incidentally, the present reading may perhaps be a scribal error for -piñjarita- or mañjarī-piñjarita, as mañjarita is not really appropriate in the context.)

⟨13⟩ sa-brahma⟨14⟩cāriṇ¡a!⟨e⟩sa-brahma⟨14⟩cāriṇa⟨ḥ⟩ NR • I prefer to construe this word as a dative, aligned with the preceding ones and qualifying the donee. It would also be perfectly acceptable (and in fact in line with the common practice of related grants) to construe it as a genitive, as NR does, in which case it qualifies the grandfather. However, in this case, all the preceding qualifiers also need to be emended to a genitive. At any rate, the meaning of the text is clear, and the composer’s attitude to syntax is evidently lax, as exemplified by the following string of nominatives intended to qualify the donee (written in the genitive, which I believe was meant for a dative).

⟨14⟩ dugamaḍiśa⟨15⟩rmma{śa}¡aḥ!⟨e⟩dugamaḍiśa⟨15⟩rmma{śa}ṇaḥ NR • I prefer to construe this word as a dative; see also the previous note.

⟨19⟩ {so}Udaka- ⬦ so{U}daka- NR • The choice of emendation matters little, but the form with sodaka is very rare in Eastern Cālukya grants, whereas Udaka (also after nimitte) is very common. It is also possible that so was in fact deleted in the original and corrected to U.

⟨20⟩ {ta} dat⟨t⟩a⟨M⟩ NR • If the reading is correctly shown, then the emendations proposed by NR are appropriate. — ⟨20⟩ vasu⟨21⟩dhā dat⟨t⟩¿a?⟨ā⟩ bahubhiś cā° ⬦ vasu⟨21⟩dat⟨t⟩¿a?⟨ā⟩ bhaś cā° NR • NR does not emend, so I assume that the text is only garbled in the printed edition, but is more or less as expected on the plate. Also, line 21 as printed by NR is 7 characters shorter than the preceding or the following line, so the expected text, which is 3 characters longer than that printed by him, could very well fit in that line.

⟨23⟩ viṣṭhāyāṁ ⬦ viṣṭāyāM NR • I doubt that a final M was used here, and NR does not emend , so I assume that the text, correctly, has ṭh. I may be wrong about both assumptions.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–12) Greetings. The dear son of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (II), who was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Calukhyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāriti, who are protected by the Mothers who are the mothers of the seven worlds, who are devoted to the feet of the divine Lord Mahāsena, to whom enemy territories instantaneously submit at the [mere] sight of the superior Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the majestic Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice—was His Majesty King (mahārāja) Sarvalokāśraya (Maṅgi Yuvarāja), whose valour bowed down the entire circle of subordinate rulers (sāmanta) and whose exquisite reputation as Vijayasiddhi {who prevails in victory} was sung as far as the shores (of the ocean). His son, His Majesty the supremely pious King (mahārāja) Jayasiṁha Vallabha (II)—who was deliberately appointed [as heir] by his mother and father and whose pair of lotus feet were bedecked by a mass of beams from gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns ⟨of enemy kings⟩ bowed down by the blade of his sword, who is ferocious as the sun, [yet] pleasing like the moon to the eyes and minds of all people, whose power is as irresistible as {the spear} of Guha (Skanda), and who is endowed with the three powers (śakti-traya)—commands as follows.

(12–20) To wit: let it be known that in the third year of [our] progressive triumphant reign, on the occasion of Viṣṇupāda,1 in order to acquire merit for [our] mother and father as well as for ourselves, a field (sufficient) for sowing twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava in Pennātavāḍi district (viṣaya), at the village named Cendaṟa, in the eastern direction [of that village]—to the south is the border of the village named Kṟoyuru; to the west is a tank (taṭāka); to the north is a tank (taṭāka) [and] the border of the field of Cevarapalli-boya; to the east is the border of [the village] Kalvatoṟu;2 in the midst of these—has been given [by us, Jayasiṁha II] to Dugamaḍiśarman, a resident of Vaṅgipaṟu belonging to the Kāṇva gotra and to the school of the Āpastamba sūtra, son of Maḍiśarman and grandson of Dugamaḍiśarman, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water. The reverend Vyāsa too has said:

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
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.

(23) The executor is Vissarami[…]

Commentary

Bibliography

Reported in Munirathnam 2017, p. 11, appendices A/2002-03, № 1 without discussion of details.3 Edited, probably from the original plates,4 by N. Ramesan (1988, № B), without facsimiles and without translation. According to the ARIE report, they have also been published in Mahasenasiri, Dr. I. K. Sharma Felicitation Volume, p445ff (not traced). The present edition by Dániel Balogh follows Ramesan’s edition, silently correcting only obvious typos5 and offering suggestions for improvement in the apparatus.

Primary

[NR] Ramesan, N. 1988. “Three Eastern Chālukyan copper plate grants from Nandigāma.” In: Epigraphia Āndhrica vol. V. Edited by N. Mukunda Rao. Epigraphical series 19. Hyderabad: Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, pp. 18–29. Item B.

Notes

  1. 1. According to Ramesan, this occasion “is obviously the Viṣṇusaṁkrānti”. I have no knowledge of a festival by this name and have not researched it.
  2. 2. I am far from certain in my interpretation of the arrangement of the boundaries. The east is mentioned twice, for the first time with a declensional ending that does not make sense in the context. I assume that this first mention of the east was intended to signify that the granted land is to the east of Cendaṟa, but if so, then the regular list of boundaries in the four directions begins with the south rather than with the customary east. Other possibilities of interpreting the list may be to assume that Cendaṟa is to the east of the donated land, in which case Kalvatoṟu, listed at the end, is also to the east; or that Cendaṟa is to the southeast, and Kalvatoṟu is directly to the east, in which case no southern boundary is listed.
  3. 3. According to Ramesan, the plates were found together with two other grants (possibly to the same Brahmin family) reported in Ravishankar 2011, namely the Uccāti grant of Jayasiṁha I and the Koṇḍakariplola grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III. If this is correct, it is strange that this set was only reported much later.
  4. 4. For the other two grants edited in the same article, Ramesan explicitly notes that he edited them from the original. For this text, there is no such note.
  5. 5. The text of the edition is printed in Devanagari, with mistakes such as इत्यम् instead of इत्थम्.