Sātalūru plates of Vijayāditya III

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00069.

Language: Sanskrit.

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

Version: (195df1d), last modified (184e36f).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ svasti| śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ā⟨ṁ⟩ harīti-putrā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩āṁ kau⟨2⟩śikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājy¿a?⟨ā⟩nāṁ mātr̥-ga¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-paripāl¿ī?⟨i⟩tānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādā⟨3⟩nudhyātānāṁ bhagava¿ṇ-ṇ?⟨n-n⟩ārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-var¿a?⟨ā⟩ha-lā¡n!⟨ñ⟩chanekṣa¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-kṣa⟨4⟩ṇa-vaś¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-sn¿a?⟨ā⟩na-pavit¿r̥?⟨rī⟩kr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cālu⟨5⟩kyānāṁ kulam ala¡n!⟨ṁ⟩kariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā{D} kubja-viṣṇuvarddhana Aṣṭā⟨6⟩⟨da⟩śa varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩¿n?⟨ṇ⟩i⟨.⟩ tasya sūnuḥ sakala-lokāśrayo jayasiṁha-vallabhaḥ trayast¿r̥?⟨ri⟩⟨ṁ⟩śad varṣā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩i⟨.⟩ ⟨7⟩ tasyānujasya Indra-bhaṭṭārakasya p¿r̥?⟨ri⟩ya-tanayaḥ viṣṇurājaḥ nava varṣā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩i⟨.⟩ tasya suta¿ṁ?⟨ḥ⟩⟨Page 2r⟩ ⟨8⟩ maṁgi-dau(ga?)rājaḥ pañcaviṁśati varṣā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩i⟨.⟩ tasya putraḥ jayasi⟨ṁ⟩ha-vallabhaḥ trayodaśa va⟨9⟩¿ṣa?⟨rṣā⟩ṇ¿ī?⟨i⟩⟨.⟩ tasyānujaḥ dvaimātura⟨ḥ⟩ kokkiliḥ ṣaṇ māsā¿T?⟨N⟩⟨.⟩ tasyāgrajaḥ viṣṇur¿a?⟨ā⟩jaḥ sv¿a?⟨ā⟩nujam uccā⟨10⟩ṭya pañcat¿r̥?⟨ri⟩ṁśad va⟨r⟩ṣāṇ¿ī?⟨i⟩⟨.⟩ tasyātmajaḥ vijayāditya-mahārāja Aṣṭāda⟨śa va⟩rṣā¿ṇ?⟨n⟩i⟨.⟩ tasya ta⟨11⟩nayaḥ viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ pañcat¿r̥?⟨ri⟩ṁśad varṣāṇi dvādaśa-sahasra-pramāṇa⟨ṁ⟩ ve¿(n)?⟨ṅ⟩gī-maṇḍala{ṁ}⟨12⟩m anvapālaya¿N?⟨T⟩

tasya jyeṣṭhaḥ vijayādityaḥ Āditya Iva satatodaya-kar¿i?⟨ī⟩ vindhyāṭa⟨13⟩v¿i?⟨ī⟩va su-vaṁśa-śatādhāraḥ merur iva su⟨va⟩r¿nn?⟨ṇṇ⟩a-va⟨r⟩¿nn?⟨ṇṇ⟩īkr̥ta-tanuḥ hara-jaṭ(ā)-makuṭa I(va gaṁ)gā⟨14⟩rava-pratibandhana-samart¿t?⟨th⟩a⟨ḥ⟩ surapati-gaja Iva satata-dāna-(karo) viṣṇur i⟨va⟩ ba⟨Page 2v⟩⟨15⟩li-ripu-ma¿t?⟨th⟩a¿ṇ?⟨n⟩aḥ śeṣa-mahānāga Iva bhū-dharaṇa-kṣama-bhujaḥ mahā-vrat¿i?⟨ī⟩va mahā-śaṁkha⟨16⟩-dhvani-virājanaḥ sa⟨ṁ⟩kula-garjjaj-jalada-ghaṭa-koṭi-vitrāsana-viśiṣṭa-mā⟨17⟩rutaḥ Api ca

I. Sragdharā

śrī(mad-dharmma)sya mū⟨r⟩tt¿ī?⟨i⟩s subha⟨ṭa⟩-madhupa-sad-bodhanā⟨ṁ⟩bhoruhābha⟨ḥ⟩

a

śauryāgny-u⟨18⟩tpat⟨t⟩i-bīja⟨ḥ⟩ p¿r̥?⟨ri⟩ya-vacana-ma¿n?⟨ṇ⟩er ākaraḥ sarvva-santo

b

kī⟨r⟩tti-str¿i?⟨ī⟩-vallabhas sat-kula-g¿ra?⟨r̥⟩ham a⟨19⟩malaṁ satya-vā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ī-kumāryyā

c

vidvad-vr̥ndasya dhāma prakaṭam avanipo gotra-nist¿a?⟨ā⟩rakāṁkaḥ

d

⟨20⟩ Aṣṭottara-śata-na⟨re⟩ndreśvara-dev¿a?⟨ā⟩layānāṁ karttā dvādaśa-varṣa-yuddhaṁ vallabhendra-daṇḍa⟨21⟩-nāyakaiḥ saha bhīma-saḷuke-n(ā)māna⟨ṁ⟩ sv(ā)nujaṁ nirjjitya gr̥⟨hī⟩ta-veṁgi-maṇḍala(ḥ) catvāri⟨ṁ⟩śa⟨Page 3r⟩⟨22⟩d varṣāṇi

tasya sutaḥ|

II. Campakamālā

Ari-nr̥pa-vāji-vāraṇa-padāti-mahābhra-virāma-mārutaḥ

a

para⟨23⟩-kari{kari}-sa⟨ṁ⟩s¿t?⟨th⟩itāsi¿bh?⟨t⟩aruci-pravināśana-bhānu-sannibhaḥ

b

gurutara-d¿i?⟨ī⟩na-bhā¿gava?⟨va-ga⟩ta⟨24⟩-m(ā)nava-m(ā)nita-kalpa-pādapaḥ

c

vara-karigalla-bhūmipa-bhujāsir ihāj¿ī?⟨i⟩-bhuvi pra¿h?⟨bh⟩ā⟨25⟩sate

d

kali-viṭṭa-nāmā varṣārddhaṁ⟨.⟩ tasya sūnuḥ vijayādityaḥ Aneka-tulā-dhr̥ta-suvar¿nn?⟨ṇṇ⟩a⟨26⟩-dāna-dhārā-santa⟨rppa⟩ṇāni ku¿rmmaḥ?⟨rvvaN⟩ guṇakkenallan iti jaya-gīyamāna-kīrtti(ḥ) sa⟨27⟩N dakṣiṇāpatha⟨ṁ⟩ sa-trikaliṅga-deśam anvapālayā(m āsa)⟨.⟩ Eva⟨ṁ⟩ pañca viṣṇuvarddha(na)-nāmānaḥ dvau ja⟨28⟩yasi⟨ṁ⟩ha-nāmānau Eko ma⟨ṁ⟩gi-y¿ū?⟨u⟩varāja⟨ḥ⟩ tray(o) vijayāditya-nāmānaḥ⟨.⟩

tatra t¿ri?⟨r̥⟩tīya-vi⟨Page 3v⟩⟨29⟩jayāditya⟨ḥ⟩ dvāri pratiṣṭhāpita-gaṁgā-yamun¿a?⟨ā⟩-candrāditya-pāl¡ī!-ketana-samadhigataḥ ⟨30⟩ pañca-mahāśabda-śravaṇa-vitrāsita-¿m?⟨c⟩aturāśaś ¿cake? varāha-lāñchana⟨ḥ⟩ vīra-makaradhvajaḥ

III. Āryā

⟨31⟩ satyena dharmma-putraḥ kar¿nn?⟨ṇṇ⟩a⟨s⟩ tyāgena vikrame¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a hariḥ

ab

nr̥pakāma⟨ḥ⟩ svāmy-anujo viprebhyo ⟨’⟩dī⟨32⟩di(śa)d grāma⟨M⟩

cd
IV. Anuṣṭubh

Adād bhuvana-kandarppaḥ

a

grāma⟨ṁ⟩ dvija-śatāya taṁ(|)

b

prerita⟨ḥ⟩ svānujenātha

c

nr̥pa⟨33⟩kāmena sūraye

d
V. Anuṣṭubh

śāntagrāmam amuṁ r(ā)j¿a?⟨ā⟩

a

sopagrāma⟨ṁ⟩ vinā karaM

b

nāti-kuṇṭhena sākaṁ ⟨34⟩ hi

c

dattavān ¡matta!-bhūsuraḥ

d

punar api tasyai⟨va⟩ rājña⟨ḥ⟩ viśeṣaṇa⟨ṁ⟩||

VI. –⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑⏑–

satya-vacano ya(ma)-suro ⟨35⟩ na sa surādhipa-bhayād bhavati satya-vacanaḥ

a

śauryya-guṇavān mr̥(gapati)r nna sa viveka-ma⟨Page 4r⟩⟨36⟩tito bhavati śauryya-guṇavāN

b

dāna-vibhavo ravi-suto na sa pati-sva-balato bhava⟨37⟩ti dāna-vibhavaḥ

c

satya-vara-śauryya-para-dāna-vibhavas tu nr̥pakāma-nr̥patiḥ prakr̥titaḥ||

d

⟨38⟩ vijayāditya-bhūpati-svānujena nr̥pakāmena prerita⟨ḥ⟩ sūryya-grahaṇa-nimitt{y}a⟨ṁ⟩ sa vija⟨39⟩yāditya⟨ḥ⟩ rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭ¡i!⟨i⟩⟨ṁ⟩bina⟨ḥ⟩ sarvvān ittham ājñāpayati

viditam astu v¿ā?⟨o⟩ ⟨’⟩smā⟨40⟩bhiḥ gudravāra-viṣaye śantagrām¿e?⟨o⟩ nāti-kuṇṭha-sahitaṁ dvija-śatā(ya) dattavāN⟨.⟩ veda-vedā⟨ṁ⟩⟨41⟩getihāsa-purāṇādi-catu⟨ṣṣa⟩ṣṭi-kalā-niśāka¿l?⟨r⟩ebhya⟨ḥ⟩ parama-brahmavidbhyaḥ par¿i?⟨ī⟩tāgni⟨42⟩hotrādy-anuṣṭhāna-parebhyaḥ śama-dama-yama-niyamāśr¿ī?⟨i⟩ta-śaucācāra-śīla-guṇa-ga¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ā⟨Page 4v⟩⟨43⟩laṁkr̥ta-śarīra-padbhyaḥ dhātr-¿ā?⟨a⟩ryyamādi-dvādaśāditya-samāna-bhrājita-kī⟨r⟩tt¿ī?⟨i⟩bhyaḥ

tathā hi prati⟨44⟩grāhakāḥ⟨.⟩ svasti⟨.⟩ śrīmaT-vaṁgipaṟ-vāstavyāya yajñaśarmmaṇe trayo bhāgāḥ guṇḍaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ ⟨45⟩ vidaḍiśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ droṇaśarmmaṇe A⟨r⟩ddh¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ karamiceḍu-vāstavyāya parāśara-go⟨46⟩trāya droṇaśarmmaṇe Adhyarddhako bhāgaḥ kañciśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau droṇaśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau ba⟨47⟩ddiśarmmaṇe pañca(mo?) bhāgāḥ kaṟṟoṟa-vāstavyāya bhāradvāja-gotrāya śivanaśarmmaṇe trayo bhā⟨48⟩gāḥ revaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāg¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ śivikuṟṟaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāg¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨ḥ⟩ śāṇḍilya-gotrāya petaśarmmaṇe ⟨49⟩ Eko bhāgaḥ Ayyappaśarmmaṇ¿o?⟨e⟩ Addhyarddhako bhāgaḥ devarata-gotrāya vakaśarmmaṇe Eko bhā(gaḥ) ⟨Page 5r⟩ ⟨50⟩ savvaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāg¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ kuṇḍiśarmmaṇe Eko bhāg¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨ḥ⟩ va⟨ṁ⟩gipaṟ-vāstavyāya kata-gotrāya bu⟨51⟩daḍiśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau vennaśarmmaṇe arddh¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ harīta-gotrāya revaśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau droṇa⟨52⟩śarmmaṇe Addhyarddhako bhāgaḥ ¡koṇḍinda!⟨kauṇḍinya⟩-gotrāya śrīdharaśarmmaṇe trayo bhāgāḥ damaśarmmaṇe Eko (bhā)⟨53⟩g¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨ḥ⟩ keśavaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ trivikramaśarmmaṇe Arddh¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩śa⟨ḥ⟩ Upūṭūru-v(ā)stavyāya kau⟨54⟩śika-gotrāya koṇḍiśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau kāśyapa-gotrāya ṟudvaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ go⟨55⟩ḷaśarmmaṇe Arddhāṁśaḥ ṟudvaśarmmaṇe Addhyarddhako bhāgaḥ goḷaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ Eṟaśarmmaṇe E⟨56⟩ko bhāgaḥ kraṁja-vāstavyāya kāśyapa-gotrāya mahākāḷa-śarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau (droṇa)maśa(rmma)⟨Page 5v⟩⟨57⟩ṇe Arddhāṁśaḥ nārāyaṇaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ kauśik¡i!⟨a⟩-gotrāya piṭṭamaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ ¡koṇḍinda!⟨kauṇḍinya⟩⟨58⟩-gotrāya droṇaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ kāramiceḍu-vāstavyāya kaṇva-gotr(ā)ya sarvvaśarmaṇe dvau ⟨59⟩ bhāgau cāmiśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ harita-gotr(ā)ya kañciśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ mah¡i!dharaśarmaṇe ⟨60⟩ Eko bhāgaḥ div¡a!karaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ śaṁkaraśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ krovaśrī-vāstavyā⟨61⟩ya radhītara-gotrāya nārāyaṇaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ bhāradvāja-gotrāya Āgyapaśarmaṇe ⟨62⟩ Eko bhāgaḥ vennaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ guṇḍaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ kutsa-gotrāya turkaśarmaṇe ⟨63⟩ dvau bhāgau boppaṇaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ kauśika-gotrāya raviṇaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ kāra⟨Page 6r⟩⟨64⟩ñceḍu-v(ā)stavyāya lohita-gotr(ā)ya goyindaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ ¡koṇḍinda!⟨kauṇḍinya⟩-gotrāya Irugamaśa⟨65⟩rmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ bhīmaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ madhuvaṇaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ Uppuṭūru-vā⟨66⟩stavyāya bhāradvāja-gotrāya keśavaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ guṇḍaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ nāgaśa⟨67⟩rmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ Ātreya-gotrāya ¡narāya!śarmaṇe trayo bhāgāḥ rāyūru-vāstavyā⟨68⟩ya Agniveśya-gotrāy¿ā?⟨a⟩ mayindamaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ kaśyapa-gotrāya bopaśarmaṇe ⟨69⟩ Eko bhāgaḥ kuṇḍuru-vāstavy(ā)ya gautama-gotrāya droṇaśarmaṇe dvau bhāgau bhāradvāja-gotrāya ka⟨70⟩ndaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ Uppuṭṭūru-vāstavy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya parāśara-gotrāya vīraśarmaṇe Addhyarddhak¿e?⟨o⟩ bhāgaḥ ⟨71⟩ cāmiśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ trivikramaśarmaṇe Eko ⟨Page 6v⟩ ⟨72⟩ bhāgaḥ bavvaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ dugaśarmaṇe Arddh(ā)ṁśaḥ ¡b!īmaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ (vaṁ)gipaṟ-vā⟨73⟩(sta)vyāya gautama-gotr(ā)ya baṭaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ ¡koṇḍinda!⟨kauṇḍinya⟩-gotrāya somaśarmaṇe Addhyarddha(ko) ⟨74⟩ bhāgaḥ droṇaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ mādhavaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ droṇaśarmaṇe Eko bhā(gaḥ) kuṇṭuru⟨75⟩-vāstavyāya kauśika-gotrāya droṇaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ kārañceḍu-vāstavyāya {(bhā)radvā} ⟨76⟩ bhāradvāja-gotrāya Eṟaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ droṇaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ śiva(śarmaṇe) A⟨77⟩rddhāṁśaḥ vallana(yya)śarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ revaśarmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ śrīpura-vāstavy(ā)ya har¡ī!ta-gotrā⟨78⟩ya sabaḍiśarma(ṇe Addhyarddhakau) dvau bhāgau||

VII. Anuṣṭubh

bhaṭṭ(ā)nāṁ viṁśatiś c(ā)pi

a

Eka-vedā⟨ś⟩ ca viṁśati⟨ḥ⟩

b

t¿r̥?⟨ri⟩ṁśaT-trivedina⟨79⟩s tadvaT

c

catu(rvedav)(idā I?)ti

d
VIII. Anuṣṭubh

tatrānuṣṭhīyam(ā)n(ā)s te

a

Āśīr dda¡t!vā sva-bhūbhr̥te

b

sadā sa(ghuṣṭa)⟨Page 7r⟩⟨80⟩-vedāś ca

c

sukhaṁ jīvantu bhūsurāḥ

d

Asyāvadhayaḥ⟨.⟩ pūrvata⟨ḥ⟩ penubūṇḍi-sīmai⟨va⟩⟨.⟩ dakṣi¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ataḥ Aṟuta⟨81⟩guru-s¿ī?⟨ī⟩mai⟨va⟩⟨.⟩ nair¿a?⟨r̥⟩tita⟨ḥ⟩ m{m}uñjalūru-sīmai⟨va⟩⟨.⟩ paścimataḥ Urivi-sīmai⟨va⟩⟨.⟩ Ut⟨t⟩arataḥ tuṁburuballi-s¿ī?⟨ī⟩⟨82⟩mai⟨va⟩⟨.⟩ ¡(Ī)!⟨Ī⟩ś¿a?⟨ā⟩nataḥ muluḍupendoṟu-sīmai⟨va⟩⟨.⟩ catur-avadhi-kṣetra⟨ṁ⟩ dattavāN||

IX. Anuṣṭubh

Ājñaptir asya dharmasya

a

pā⟨83⟩ṇḍaraṁgo mahā-guṇaḥ

b

s(ā)si-dhārā-samucchinna-

c

-vidvi¿d?⟨ḍ⟩-vr̥ndopavandita⟨ḥ⟩

d
X. Anuṣṭubh

kr̥tavān bhaṭṭa-kālasya

a

⟨84⟩ ¡putro pautre! mah¿i?⟨ī⟩-tale

b

¡gagaṇādi-garbhbha-sad-buddhi!-

c

-śāsanaṁ karma-n¿a?⟨ā⟩¿s?⟨ś⟩anaM

d
XI. Anuṣṭubh

lekhako ⟨85⟩ lekhakāditya⟨ḥ⟩

a

śāsanasyāsya paṇḍitaḥ

b

viśvakarm¿a?⟨e⟩va yo bhāti

c

ghaṇṭā-ś¿a?⟨ā⟩lā-sva-kārakaM

d
XII. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhi⟨86⟩r vvasudhā datt(ā)

a

bahubhiś c(ā)nupālitā

b

yasya yasya yadā bh¿a?⟨ū⟩mi⟨s⟩

c

tasya tasya ta¿ta?⟨dā⟩ phala¿ḥ?⟨M⟩

d
XIII. Anuṣṭubh

sva-datt¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩ ⟨87⟩ para-dattā⟨ṁ⟩ vā

a

yo haret¿u?⟨a⟩ vasundhar¿aḥ?⟨āṁ⟩

b

ṣaṣṭi-varṣa-sahasr¿a?⟨ā⟩¿n?⟨ṇ⟩i

c

vi¿ṣa?⟨ṣṭhā⟩yā⟨ṁ⟩ jāyate k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩mi⟨ḥ⟩

d

⟨Page 7v⟩ ⟨88⟩ ¿dattaharayitābhūmi?

Apparatus

Seal

⟨1⟩ tribhuvanāṁkuśa • KR reports the reading of the seal without śrī, but the honorific may still be present.

Plates

⟨3⟩ lā¡n!⟨nñ⟩chanekṣa¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a- • KR does not normalise the dental n, which may be a typo in his edition.

⟨5⟩ ala¡n!⟨ṁ⟩kariṣṇoḥ • KR does not normalise the dental n, which may be a typo in his edition. — ⟨5⟩ bhrātā{D} • KR does not emend the superfluous D, which may well be a typo in his edition. — ⟨5⟩ -viṣṇuvarddhana • According to KR’s note, Lakshmana Rao interpreted some dots above na as a subsequently inserted visarga. KR asserts that the dots are only corrosion, though I do not know how he can be so sure if he edited the plates from impressions while LR had the originals. — ⟨5⟩ Aṣṭā⟨6⟩⟨da⟩śa • KR does not supply da, which thus may be omitted in his edition by mistake.

⟨7⟩ Indra- • KR in fact prints ḍandra, clearly a typo in the Devanagari edition.

⟨8⟩ -dau(ga?)rājaḥ ⬦ -dauśarājaḥ KR • According to KR’s note, śa is not clear and looks like ga. I do not know why then he thinks it is śa, and not ga. In his discussion he uses the word as dogarāja and equates it to yuvarāja.

⟨10⟩ Aṣṭāda⟨śa va⟩rṣā¿ṇ?⟨n⟩i • KR prints the supplied characters in round parentheses with an asterisk. This may represent illegible and supplied text, since above he uses square brackets and an asterisk for omitted and supplied.

⟨11⟩ ve¿(n)?⟨ṅ⟩gī- • KR’s Devanagari edition has वे[न्]गी, emending to veṅgī in a footnote. I assume, but am not sure, that the upper consonant is unclear but resembles n.

⟨13⟩ -tanuḥ • After this word, KR prints an asterisk in round parentheses. He may perhaps have wished to indicate that the visarga is supplied.

⟨14⟩ i⟨va⟩ • KR uses round parentheses with an asterisk here.

⟨16⟩ sa⟨ṁ⟩kula- ⬦ sa⟨kala-gaṁga-⟩kula- KR • KR prints the supplied characters in square brackets with an asterisk. If I am correct in assuming that no characters are present here in the original, then I have strong reservations about supplying all this and prefer the much simpler emendation I propose here. However, I am not sure of my understanding of the text (see the translation). Given that KR’s summary speaks about Vijayāditya II “destroying the Gāṅga race root and branch like a fierce wind,” probably referring to this locus, I believe KR too did not understand this passage clearly. Ideally, I would expect another comparison with iva here; given māruta, the object of such a comparison might be Indra; but this also presupposes a major scribal omission. Unless perhaps we have a single long comparison here, and mahā-vratin above means Rudra.

⟨17⟩ subha⟨ṭa⟩- • KR shows ṭa in round parentheses with an asterisk, probably indicating a scribal omission. I provisionally accept his restoration because I do not have a clearly better solution, but I cannot make good sense of the word in context and other restorations may well be possible, including supplying a syllable before bha.

⟨18⟩ sarvva-santo • Though printed as clear by KR, this reading seems unintelligible and doubtful to me. Note also the unexpected sandhi at the end of the second pāda. Perhaps read/emend sarvva-śaktaḥ or sarvva-śaktiḥ? See also the note to the translation. — ⟨18⟩ -str¿i?⟨ī⟩- • I provisionally accept KR’s reading, but if the first consonant is to any degree unclear, then śrī is also distinctly possible.

⟨20⟩ -na⟨re⟩ndreśvara- • Round parentheses and asterisk in KR. — ⟨20⟩ -yuddhaṁ • This should perhaps be read as, or emended to, yuddhe.

⟨21⟩ -n(ā)māna⟨ṁ⟩ sv(ā)nujaṁ • The characters shown as unclear are in round parentheses in KR’s edition. He does not supply anusvāra, printing this stretch of text without spaces, but I assume he must have interpreted it as I do.

⟨23⟩ -kari{kari}- ⬦ -kari-kar¿i?⟨a⟩- KR • The second kari is hypermetrical and so, if it is present at all in the original, is probably dittography. But KR emends it to kara in his edition. He cites this stanza in full in his discussion, there printing karikari without emendation. See also the next note. — ⟨23⟩ -sa⟨ṁ⟩s¿t?⟨th⟩itāsi¿bh?⟨t⟩aruci- ⬦ -s¿a?⟨u⟩s¿t?⟨th⟩itāsibharuci- KR • I cannot make sense of KR’s emendation, which is identical in his edition and in the citation of this stanza in his discussion, except that in the edition the emendation is susthī, which is unmetrical and thus evidently a typo. See also the previous note. My own emendation is tenuous and may well be wrong; see the translation for my interpretation. — ⟨23⟩ -bhā¿gava?⟨va-ga⟩ta ⬦ bhāgavata KR • I have some doubt that bhāgavata is present in the text. KR prints it both in his edition and in the stanza cited in his discussion; he moreover emends it in the edition to Bhāgavata (the only difference from the text being that the text is in Devanagari, and the emendation in the footnote is in transliteration, with a capital initial). I emend on the assumption that the reported reading is correct. Venturing further from the edition’s text, I could imagine nagna-naṭa here; compare dīnānātha-nagna-naṭa-gāyaka-dharmma-dhvaja-vr̥ttīnāM in line 31 of the Eḍeru plates of Amma I and dīnānātha-naṭāndha-nagna-kavi- in line 39 of the Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa.

⟨24⟩ -m(ā)nava-m(ā)nita- • The characters shown as unclear are in square brackets in KR’s edition. — ⟨24⟩ -bhujāsir ihā° • If the reading is correct, then this is probably the parsing intended by the composer. KR prints a space after bhujā and nowhere else in this segment. Even with the words resolved, I am unable to interpret the line as a whole. — ⟨24⟩ pra¿h?⟨bh⟩ā⟨25⟩sate ⬦ prahā⟨25⟩sate KR • I emend tentatively, being unable to interpret the reading shown by KR. — ⟨24⟩ kali-viṭṭa- • The form of this epithet in the Ceruvu Mādhavaram plates of Kali Viṣṇuvardhana V is kali-viṭṭara, and this is the form KR uses in his discussion of the present inscription. The absence of ra here may be a typo in his edition.

⟨26⟩ -santa⟨rppa⟩ṇāni ⬦ -santa⟨rppita-brāhma⟩ṇāni KR • KR prints the restored text in round parentheses with an asterisk. If this is an omission, and not illegible and restored text, then I prefer my simpler restoration to KR’s heavier (and grammatically problematic) one. — ⟨26⟩ ku¿rmmaḥ?⟨rvvaN⟩ • KR does not emend his reading kurrmaḥ, which may thus be a typo. I emend tentatively to what I believe may be either the actual reading or at least the composer’s intent. — ⟨26⟩ anvapālayā(m āsa) • The form read by KR is grammatically incorrect; anvapālayat or anupālayām āsa would be expected.

⟨29⟩ -pāl¡ī!-ketana- • KR’s edition in fact prints हली(ल)केतन. Since in his discussion of this passage he mentions pāli-ketana, I assume that this is a compound typo, with the received reading pālī-ketana and emendation to pāli-ketana. This is confirmed by Narasimhaswami 1967-1968, p. 44, n. 1 who in his edition of the Ceruvu Mādhavaram plates of Kali Viṣṇuvardhana cites this section of text from the Bhāratī edition of the present inscription. — ⟨29⟩ -samadhigataḥ • As cited from the earlier edition in Bhāratī (see the previous note), the visarga was considered by that editor. I agree with KR that in the present context a nominative is expected here, even though samadhigata-pañca-mahāśabda is a frequent collocation.

⟨30⟩ -¿m?⟨c⟩aturāśaś ¿cake? • I adopt KR’s emendation. I cannot interpret cake, which KR leaves without comment. Perhaps emend to catur-āśā-cakraḥ? — ⟨30⟩ -lāñchana • KR prints -lānchana, probably a typo.

⟨33⟩ r(ā)j¿a?⟨ā⟩ ⬦ (ā)ja KR • Since KR does not emend the ending, the final a may be a typo in his edition and the plate may have the expected ā.

⟨34⟩ ¡matta!- • KR emends this word to nata. While matta is in all probability wrong, I find this emendation vapid and the underlying scribal error unlikely. I have no better suggestion. — ⟨34⟩ ya(ma)-suro • This string may also be parsed as ’yam asuro. KR prints य (म)सुरो, perhaps implying that he parsed it in this way. I am not certain of my interpretation (see the translation).

⟨38⟩ -bhūpati- ⬦ -bhūpati⟨ḥ⟩ KR • As Vijayāditya appears again shortly afterward, I prefer not to emend to a nominative here. The construction is still awkward, but less so than with the subject coming twice. — ⟨38⟩ -nimitt{y}a⟨ṁ⟩ • Or perhaps the composer had nimitte in mind.

⟨40⟩ dattavāN • The grammatically correct verb would be dattam.

⟨41⟩ par¿i?⟨ī⟩tāgni° • Or perhaps emend to parito ’gni? Neither appears very good in the context.

⟨43⟩ dhātr-¿ā?⟨a⟩ryyamādi- ⬦ dhātrāryyamādi- KR • KR does not emend, so he may have construed dhātrā here, or the ā may be a typo in his edition.

⟨44⟩ -vaṁgipaṟ-vāstavyāya • So in KR’s edition, printed with the Telugu conjunct ఱ్వా.

⟨45⟩ A⟨r⟩ddh¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ • KR’s emendation is arthāṁśaḥ, which I assume to be a typo.

⟨47⟩ pañca(mo?) bhāgāḥ • The character read here as mo is probably clear in the original, but damaged in both my scans of the published edition. KR emends to pañcamo bhāgaḥ, and the fact that his emendation includes the word pañcamo may indicate that the questionable character is not mo but, perhaps, no. One fifth of a share seems to be very meagre, so perhaps the intent was rather pañca bhāgāḥ, but this in turn would be very large.

⟨49⟩ Ayyappaśarmmaṇ¿o?⟨e⟩ • KR does not emend the ending, which may thus be a typo in his edition. — ⟨49⟩ Addhyarddhako • The spelling of this word is with dhya in line 46 above. Both may be original, or one of the spellings may be a typo in KR.

⟨50⟩ savvaśarmmaṇe • The intended name may be śarvvaśarmman or perhaps sarvvaśarmman. Compare line 58. — ⟨50⟩ -vaṁgipaṟ-vāstavyāya • As in line 44 above, the spelling is with the Telugu conjunct ఱ్వా in KR’s edition.

⟨53⟩ Upūṭūru- • KR emends the name to Uppuṭūru. The form is Urppuṭūru in the Masulipatam plates of Vijayāditya III.

⟨58⟩ sarvvaśarmmaṇe • Perhaps intended for śarvvaśarmman? Compare line 50.

⟨66⟩ bhāgaḥ • KR’s edition has an asterisk over the visarga. This may be a printing error, or it may signify that the visarga is editorial; that it is a scribal addition; or that there is a scribal mark in the original here. — ⟨66⟩ ¡narāya!śarmaṇe • KR emends to narāyaṇa°, leaving the a uncorrected. If this is a typo and the plate has nārāya, then the emendation is certainly warranted; otherwise, the intent is not so clear.

⟨69⟩ bhāgaḥ • Instead of (or perhaps in addition) to the visarga, KR’s edition has two large squares (positioned like an enlarged visarga). This may be a printing error, or it may represent that the visarga is a scribal addition. — ⟨69⟩ kuṇḍuru- • KR’s edition reads kunḍuru-. Since he does not emend, I assume this is a typo.

⟨70⟩ Addhyarddhak¿e?⟨o⟩ • KR does not make this emendation, so the e may be a typo in his edition.

⟨72⟩ (vaṁ)gipaṟ- • As above, the spelling is with the Telugu conjunct ఱ్వా in KR’s edition.

⟨74⟩ kuṇṭuru- • The spelling in KR’s edition is kunṭuru-, presumably a typo.

⟨75⟩ -vāstavyāya • KR’s edition has spaces before and after the ā marker, which may be a typo for brackets or parentheses signifying an unclear reading.

⟨78⟩ (Addhyarddhakau) • KR’s edition has Addhyarddhako, but since the text is unclear, I give the engraver the benefit of the doubt. However, there is a chance that the text is not unclear. KR prints it in square brackets, perhaps in this instance meaning text deleted by the scribe? Since the last character of the preceding word is in the same set of brackets, this is not very likely.

⟨79⟩ catu(rvedav)(idā I?)ti ⬦ ¿catu(rvedavadāśa)ti?⟨caturvedāś ca triṁśati⟩ KR • Lacking a facsimile, my suggested reading is tentative and it assumes non-standard morphology (vedavid declined as if the stem were vedavida). Checking the original may suggest a better solution, but KR’s emendation is also non-standard and it is a very heavy alteration of his reading. — ⟨79⟩ sa(ghuṣṭa)- • KR’s footnote suggests the emendation saṁdhuṣṭa, which is presumably a typo for saṁghuṣṭa based on a Devanagari manuscript for which the footnotes have been rendered into transliteration. The emendation saṁghuṣṭa is plausible, though sughuṣṭa is also a possibility, and even saghuṣṭa may be acceptable.

⟨80⟩ -vedāś • KR’s edition does not indicate the beginning of page 7r. I assume that line 80 is the first line on this page, yielding 8 lines each on 6v and 7r.

⟨81⟩ m{m}uñjalūru- • KR’s edition prints this name with nja, presumably a typo.

⟨82⟩ ¡(Ī)!⟨ī⟩ś¿a?⟨ā⟩nataḥ • KR’s edition prints raśanataḥ emended to īśānataḥ. I assume that the original had an initial Ī resembling ra with a dot on each side. These dots may have been omitted by the scribe, but the intent was definitely Īśānataḥ.

⟨83⟩ s(ā)si- • It may be better to emend this to svāsi-.

⟨84⟩ ¡putro pautre! • KR’s commentary says Pāṇḍaraṁga was the great-grandson of Bhaṭṭa-kāla, and putra-pautro would be somewhat plausible here. KR does not emend the text, so the plates may in fact read putra-pautro. But I hesitate to accept this as the original intent, since I see no reason why this great-grandfather should be important enough to name here. A later descendant of Niravadya was named Bhaṭṭa-mahākāla (Cevuru plates of Amma I), so the name does occur in the family. Another Mahākāla was the milk-brother and general of Bhīma I (Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II), who was probably not of this family. — ⟨84⟩ ¡gagaṇādi-garbhbha-sad-buddhi! • The reading is unmetrical and, to me, uninterpretable. KR emends the first word to gaganādi, but this does little to improve the line. The intended text (or even the actual reading) may perhaps be guṇādi-, but this is still awkward (see the translation). For a wilder conjecture, I offer guṇagāgarbbha-sad-buddhi.

⟨85⟩ viśvakarm¿a?⟨e⟩va yo ⬦ viśvakarma-vayo KR • Since KR’s commentary, absurdly, says the scribe is “described as being very old, as old as the Viśvakarma (sic) himself,” the absence of emendation is not a typo in his edition. The composer’s intent was clearly as emended here; I wonder if the e is in fact present in the original. — ⟨85⟩ -ś¿a?⟨ā⟩lā- • I cite the reading as printed in KR, but since KR does not emend, the original may in fact be correct. — ⟨85⟩ -sva-kārakaM • I suspect another typo or misreading in KR’s edition here, but I do not have a better conjecture. See also the note to the translation. — ⟨85⟩ ¿dattaharayitābhūmi? • Could this be the beginning of an aborted anuṣṭubh stanza, dattvā harati yo bhūmiṁ? No such stanza is, however, listed in Sircar 1965, appendix II.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–12) Greetings! Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Harīti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, to whom the realms of adversaries instantaneously submit at the [mere] sight of the superior Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice. His brother Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana [reigned] for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I), the shelter of the complete world (sakala-lokāśraya), for thirty-three years. His younger brother Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s dear son Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana II), for nine years. His son Maṅgi Daugarāja,1 for twenty-five years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha (II), for thirteen years. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning his younger brother, his elder brother Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana III), for thirty-five years. His son King (mahārāja) Vijayāditya (I), for eighteen years. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), protected the country (maṇḍala) of Veṅgī, twelve thousand in extent,2 for thirty-five years.

(12–17) His eldest [son] Vijayāditya (II) always effected prosperity like the sun (āditya) {whose rays are always on the rise}; he was the supporter of hundreds of good (noble) lineages like the wilderness of the Vindhyas {which is the ground for hundreds of nice bamboos}; he had a body painted with gold like Meru {whose body is coloured golden}; he was able to suppress the grumbling of the Gaṅgas like Hara’s (Śiva’s) crown of matted locks {which is able to hem in the roaring of the Gaṅgā river}; he always made donations like the elephant of (Indra) the Lord of the Gods {whose trunk always has rut fluid on it}; he crushed powerful enemies like Viṣṇu {who crushed his enemy Bali}; he had arms capable of supporting the earth, like the great serpent Śeṣa {whose coils are capable of upholding the earth}; he was resplendent with great conch shells (and the five great?) sounds like a great (pāśupata?) ascetic {who is resplendent with a great sound of the conch shell}; who was ¿a wind deity distinguished by routing a myriad of teeming, rumbling, rut-dripping elephant battalions {as opposed to the actual wind deities, which dispel a myriad elephant battalions consisting of moiling, booming clouds}?3. Moreover:

I
Manifestly, the king with the byname “Rescuer of his Family” (gotra-nistāraka) is an embodiment of majestic Righteousness (dharma); he resembles ¿a lotus brought to bloom by truth (sat) and [surrounded by] bees that are good soldiers?,4; he is the spark from which the fire of heroism arises; a mine of the gem that is kindly speech; ¿bountiful to all?; 5 beloved of the Lady Fame; the noble house in which the girlchild True Speech [is born]; the abode of a flock of scholars.

(20–22) He erected a hundred and eight Narendreśvara [temples]. He seized the country of Veṅgī after defeating his own younger brother named Bhīma Saḷuke along with the generals of the Vallabha (Rāṣṭrakūṭa) Lord in a twelve-year war. [He reigned] for forty years.

(22) His son—

II
A wind that [brings about] the cessation of the great clouds that are the cavalry, elephants and infantry of hostile kings; like a sun that is the destruction of the ¿moonless night? comprised of enemy elephants; a wish-fulfilling tree honoured by people who have ended up in a seriously wretched situation; the sword in the arm of the excellent King Karigalla shines here on the battleground.6

(25–27) —named Kali-Viṭṭa, [reigned] for a year and a half. His son Vijayāditya (III) has been protecting the Southern Region (dakṣiṇāpatha) together with the country of Trikaliṅga, making a series of many offerings (santarpaṇa) of gold weighed (against his body) in the balance and with his reputation of victory being sung as Guṇakkenallan. Thus, [there have been] five [kings] named Viṣṇuvardhana, two named Jayasiṁha, one Maṅgi Yuvarāja, three named Vijayāditya.

(29–30) The third Vijayāditya among these attained the Gaṅgā and Yamunā stationed at his door, the Moon and the Sun, and the pennant garland (pāli-ketana); intimidated the four quarters by the [mere] hearing of [his] five great sounds (pañca-mahāśabda); has the boar as his insignia;7 and is a crocodile-bannered [god of love] among heroes.

III
Nr̥pakāma, the lord’s (Vijayāditya III’s) younger brother—who is (Yudhiṣṭhira) the Son of Dharma in truthfulness, Karṇa in selflessness, Hari (Viṣṇu) in valour—has consigned a village to Brahmins.
IV
Then the Earthly Kandarpa (Vijayāditya III), at the urging of his own brother Nr̥pakāma, granted that village to a learned hundred of Brahmins.
V
The king, ¿devoted to?8 Brahmins, gave away this [village of] Śāntagrāma together with its hamlets (upagrāma) and free of taxes, and even including the ¿Nāti pond?.9

(34) Once again, a description of that same prince (rājan) (Nr̥pakāma):

VI
Truthful in speech the God Yama (Dharma) is not: it is for fear of the overlord of gods that he becomes truthful in speech. Possessed of the virtue of valour the lion is not: it is for considered purpose that he becomes possessed of the virtue of valour. Bountiful in generosity the Son of the Sun (Karṇa) is not: it is for the inherent power of his lord that he becomes bountiful in generosity. King Nr̥pakāma, however, is by nature bountiful in truthfulness, outstanding valour and generosity to others.10

(38–39) Urged by King Vijayāditya’s own younger brother Nr̥pakāma, on the occasion of an eclipse of the sun that Vijayāditya (III) commands all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—as follows:

(40–43) Let it be known to you that we have given Śāntagrāma in Gudravāra district (viṣaya), together with the ¿Nāti pond?,11 to a hundred Brahmins, who are moons of the sixty-four arts beginning with the Veda, the Vedāṅgas, the Itihāsas and the Purāṇas;12 supremely knowledgeable about Brahman, thoroughly engaged in the performance of the agnihotra and so on, whose bodies and [even] feet are adorned by a host of virtues of conduct (ācāra) and morality (śīla) founded on tranquility (śama), self-control (dama), restraint (yama) and observance (niyama), and whose reputation blazes equally to the twelve Ādityas beginning with Dhātr̥ and Aryaman.

(43–78) And thus [follow] the recipients. Blessings!

  • To Yajñaśarman, resident of majestic Vaṁgipaṟu, three shares.
  • To Guṇḍaśarman, one share.
  • To Vidaḍiśarman, one share.
  • To Droṇaśarman, a half share.
  • To Droṇaśarman of the Parāśara gotra, resident of Karamiceḍu, a share and a half.
  • To Kañciśarman, two shares.
  • To Droṇaśarman, two shares.
  • To Baddiśarman, five shares.13
  • To Śivanaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, resident of Kaṟṟoṟa, three shares.
  • To Revaśarman, one share.
  • To Śivikuṟṟaśarman, one share.
  • To Petaśarman of the Śāṇḍilya gotra, one share.
  • To Ayyappaśarman, a share and a half.
  • To Vakaśarman of the Devarata gotra, one share.
  • To Savvaśarman, one share.
  • To Kuṇḍiśarman, one share.
  • To Budaḍiśarman of the Kata gotra, resident of Vaṁgipaṟu, two shares.
  • To Vennaśarman, a half share.
  • To Revaśarman of the Harīta gotra, two shares.
  • To Droṇaśarman, a share and a half.
  • To Śrīdharaśarman of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, three shares.
  • To Damaśarman, one share.
  • To Keśavaśarman, one share.
  • To Trivikramaśarman, a half share.
  • To Koṇḍiśarman of the Kauśika gotra, resident of Upuṭūru, two shares.
  • To Ṟudvaśarman of the Kāśyapa gotra, one share.
  • To Goḷaśarman, a half share.
  • To Ṟudvaśarman, a share and a half.
  • To Goḷaśarman, one share.
  • To Eṟaśarman, one share.
  • To Mahākāḷaśarman of the Kāśyapa gotra, resident of Kraṁja, two shares.
  • To Droṇamaśarman, a half share.
  • To Nārāyaṇaśarman, one share.
  • To Piṭṭamaśarman of the Kauśika gotra, one share.
  • To Droṇaśarman of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, one share.
  • To Sarvaśarman of the Kaṇva gotra, resident of Kāramiceḍu, two shares.
  • To Cāmiśarman, one share.
  • To Kañciśarman of the Harita gotra, one share.
  • To Mahidharaśarman, one share.
  • To Divakaraśarman, one share.
  • To Śaṁkaraśarman, one share.
  • To Nārāyaṇaśarman of the Radhītara gotra, resident of Krovaśrī, one share.
  • To Āgyapaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, one share.
  • To Vennaśarman, one share.
  • To Guṇḍaśarman, one share.
  • To Turkaśarman of the Kutsa gotra, two shares.
  • To Boppaṇaśarman, one share.
  • To Raviṇaśarman of the Kauśika gotra, one share.
  • To Goyindaśarman of the Lohita gotra, resident of Kārañceḍu, one share.
  • To Irugamaśarman of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, one share.
  • To Bhīmaśarman, one share.
  • To Madhuvaṇaśarman, one share.
  • To Keśavaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, resident of Uppuṭūru, one share.
  • To Guṇḍaśarman, one share.
  • To Nāgaśarman, one share.
  • To Narāyaśarman of the Ātreya gotra, three shares.
  • To Mayindamaśarman of the Agniveśya gotra, resident of Rāyūru, one share.
  • To Bopaśarman of the Kaśyapa gotra, one share.
  • To Droṇaśarman of the Gautama gotra, resident of Kuṇḍuru, two shares.
  • To Kandaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, one share.
  • To Vīraśarman of the Parāśara gotra, resident of Uppuṭṭūru, a share and a half.
  • To Cāmiśarman, one share.
  • To Trivikramaśarman, one share.
  • To Bavvaśarman, one share.
  • To Dugaśarman, a half share.
  • To Bīmaśarman, one share.
  • To Baṭaśarman of the Gautama gotra, resident of Vaṁgipaṟu, one share.
  • To Somaśarman of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, a share and a half.
  • To Droṇaśarman, one share.
  • To Mādhavaśarman, one share.
  • To Droṇaśarman, one share.
  • To Droṇaśarman of the Kauśika gotra, resident of Kuṇṭuru, one share.
  • To Eṟaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, resident of Kārañceḍu, one share.
  • To Droṇaśarman, one share.
  • To Śivaśarman, a half share.
  • To Vallanayyaśarman, one share.
  • To Revaśarman, one share.
  • To Sabaḍiśarman of the Harīta gotra, resident of Śrīpura, two shares and a half.

VII
Thus [there are] twenty of masters (bhaṭṭa); likewise twenty of knowers of one Veda; thirty knowers of three Vedas; and as many knowers of four Vedas.14
VIII
Being relocated there (to that village), let these gods-on-earth, after giving their blessing to their own king, live happily ever after, reciting the Veda.15

(80–82) Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, exactly the border of Penubūṇḍi. To the south, exactly the border of Aṟutagūru. To the southwest, exactly the border of Muñjalūru. To the west, exactly the border of Urivi. To the north, exactly the border of Tuṁburuballi. To the northeast, exactly the border of Muluḍupendoṟu. [The king] has donated the land [thus delineated by] four boundaries.

IX
The executor (ājñapti) of this ruling (dharma) is Pāṇḍaraṁga of great virtue, to whom a host of enemies uprooted by his sword pays obeisance.
X
[He,] the ¿great-grandson? of Bhaṭṭa Kāla has made (composed?) this decree ¿of good sense arising from virtue and so on?, the destructor of [the consequences of] deeds (karman) upon the earth, which is a destructor of the consequences of deeds.16
XI
The writer (lekhaka) of this decree is the learned Lekhakāditya, who is as brilliant as Viśvakarman ….17
XII
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.
XIII
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.

(88) ¿He who seizes land after giving it?18

Commentary

KR’s editorial notation is inconsistent. He appears to use both square brackets and round parentheses for unclear, and brackets or parentheses with an asterisk for text supplied by the editor. But collation with a facsimile would be essential to improve the fidelity of the edition.

II
Stanza 2 is rather awkwardly composed. It is in a metre that is uncommon in Sanskrit, and it uses conspicuous Telugu-style prāsa in the second syllable of each quarter. The longer assonances near the beginning of each line, in particular those of the even quarters, may also be a feature of Telugu versification.
VI
Stanza 6 is in a metre that I could not trace to any established Sanskrit or Telugu metre. The prosodic pattern, identical for each quarter, is six repetitions of –⏑⏑⏑ (first paean), followed by a long syllable. Divided into trisyllabic gaṇas, the pattern is bha-ja-sa-ma-bha-ja-sa-ma-ga. There may be a caesura after the tenth syllable, accentuated by prāsa. In each of the first three lines, five syllables at the end of the line are identical to the beginning.

(71) From the shortness of line 71 I assume that this was written in insufficient space at the bottom of the plate.

KR’s discussion says that Nr̥pakāma, the donor or initiator of the grant, is a brother of Vijayāditya III born of a Haihaya princess. I see no indication of his mother in the text here. However, in the Koṟṟapaṟṟu grant of Vijayāditya II, also a grant to many Brahmins, the executor is Nr̥parudra, a brother of the king born of a Haihaya princess.

KR observes that although the text mentions a donation to a hundred Brahmins, only 79 donees are mentioned by name. I count 78 (KR apparently counts three Bhīmaśarmans in his list, of whom Bhīmaśarman (perhaps of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, perhaps resident of Kārañceḍu) and Bīmaśarman (perhaps of the Parāśara gotra), perhaps resident of Uppuṭṭūru) are actually present on the list, but the latter appears to be counted twice by KR. He assumes that the rest of the recipients were omitted by the scribe’s or composer’s mistake, but the total number of shares allotted is exactly 100. Although the text clearly talks of a hundred Brahmins, it is nonetheless likely that a hundred shares were in fact meant.

KR may be correct to assume that gotra names and places of residence are to be supplied from above where they are not specified. This, however, leaves the first four donees without a gotra name. Moreover, both the list of gotras and that of names contain items that reappear one or more times in the document, so neither gotra nor residence is an exclusive top-level sorting factor. (Spelling differences aside, Bhāradvāja gotra is mentioned 5 times; Kauṇḍinya and Kauśika 4 times; Kāśyapa 3 times; Gautama, Harita and Parāśara twice. As a place of residence, Kārañceḍu, Uppuṭṭūru and Vaṁgipaṟu are mentioned 3 times and Kuṇḍuru twice). There are, on the other hand, no cases where the same gotra is explicitly mentioned twice for one presumable residence, nor any cases where the same residence is mentioned twice for one presumable gotra. If such cases occurred, that would be a strong indication against supplying the missing information from above, but lacking such cases, supplying remains possible. Perhaps the list is sorted primarily by the qualifications of the donees, which would explain why certain residences and gotra names recur. The lack of a gotra for the first four donees is, however, a problem and may be due to scribal error.

Bibliography

First reported and edited by K. V. Lakshmana Rao (posthumous publication curated by M. Somasekhara Sarma) in Bhārati, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 90 ff., not traced. Edited by B. V. Krishna Rao (1930-1931) from inked impressions, without facsimiles and without translation. Photographs of the seal have been published in Krishnamacharlu 1942, p. 80, plate II. The present edition by Dániel Balogh follows Krishna Rao unless otherwise noted.

Primary

[KR] Krishna Rao, Bhavaraju Venkata. 1930-1931. “Sataluru copper plate grant of Gunaga Vijayaditya III.” JAHRS 5, pp. 101–116.

Notes

  1. 1. The reading daugarāja is slightly problematic (see the apparatus to line 8), but the word dugarāja or dogarāja is a legitimate form in Andhra.
  2. 2. Twelve thousand may be the number of villages encompassed in the country. KR (pp. 107-108) dismisses this prevailing interpretation, but his reason for doing so is not clear and his alternatives are not convincing.
  3. 3. I am not certain of the double entendre intended with the phrase involving conch shells, and my translation after that point is a desperate attempt to make sense of a text that appears quite incoherent. KR makes a major emendation here (see the apparatus to line 16), but this does not seem to improve the text to any great degree. If the interpretation I propose here is anywhere close to correct, then ghaṭa is to be understood as a non-standard in-compound form of the feminine noun ghaṭā, or as a scribal error for ghaṭā.
  4. 4. The reading and emendation of this phrase is problematic; see the apparatus to line 17.
  5. 5. This is another phrase that does not appear intelligible as read by KR. I provisionally assume that sarva-santa means sarva-santya, but santya itself is rare and Vedic usage. See also the apparatus to line 18.
  6. 6. The entire stanza is awkward and may have been read incorrectly at several points by KR. See the apparatus to lines 23-24. Since sita-ruci means the moon, I assume that a-sitaruci has been used in the second quarter in the sense of a moonless night. My interpretation of the third quarter relies on emendation.
  7. 7. See the apparatus to line 30 about the uninterpretable word cake here.
  8. 8. See the apparatus to line 34 about the word matta.
  9. 9. The compound nāti-kuṇṭha is opaque. KR speculates that it may be a combination of a Sanskrit and Telugu word, but does not say what Sanskrit word he has in mind; he suggests the meaning “with all the tanks adjoining the village”. I wonder if perhaps the composer’s intent was nāṭi, meaning “ponds of the countryside.” But since the word is in the singular, it is perhaps most likely to be a name.
  10. 10. The somewhat awkward arrangement of the English is intended to reflect the original’s repetitiveness. The Sanskrit is almost as hard to parse as the translation, but I am certain it is to be understood along these lines. The term yama-sura is unusual, but given the context, it must in my opinion mean the god Dharma. In the third quarter, the Son of the Sun is in all probability Karṇa, famed for his selflessness. I do not, however, know how he could be selfless through his lord’s power. The poet’s implication may be that Karṇa could afford to be magnanimous because Duryodhana gave him lordship over Aṅga, but Karṇa’s famous act of generosity is giving away his innate armour and ear pendants, which has nothing to do with this lordship. Could the text perhaps read pituḥ instead of pati-, or should it be emended to that? In that case the implication would be that it is only because of his miraculous birth as the son of the sun god that he could make that great gift.
  11. 11. See the note on this term in stanza 5 above.
  12. 12. Moons in the sense that they shine brightly. The composer may have chosen this rather unusual phrasing in order to pun on the word kalā (“art” and “digit of the moon”), implying that these Brahmins are moons with sixty-four digits where the real moon has only sixteen.
  13. 13. Or perhaps one fifth share; see the apparatus to line 47.
  14. 14. I translate the reading I suggest in the edition; see the apparatus to line 79.
  15. 15. I am not sure what the composer had in mind with the passive participle anuṣṭhīyamānāḥ. Instead of the donees’ relocation, it may have been intended mean that they were to line up one after another to give their blessing or (with incorrect use of the passive) that they were to carry on with their sacrificial duties. I am also not sure whether the “own” in “their own king” indicates Nr̥pakāma, who is presumably the ruler of the territory where the village is located, or whether sva is employed in a weak sense and the king meant is Vijayāditya.
  16. 16. There are several problems with the text of this stanza as read by RK; see the apparatus to line 84. Assuming that the gist is as translated here, it still remains uncertain whether the person described in this stanza is Pāṇḍaraṁga or someone else, and whether he was also the composer of the text or “made” means “executed.” KR explicitly says in his commentary that the name of the composer is not mentioned, but I am not sure he is right. With the wilder conjecture offered in the apparatus, the stanza might mean “He, the great-grandson of Bhaṭṭa Kāla has executed upon the earth the ruling of the innate good sense of Guṇaga.”
  17. 17. See the apparatus to line 85 for my overriding of KR’s reading in the third pāda, and about the uninterpretable fourth quarter. According to KR’s commentary, the scribe had built a ghantaśāla (sic), which he interprets as “a factory to manufacture bells or styles (ghaṇṭa)”, but this seems unlikely in the context and is syntactically impossible (also, ghaṇṭā or ghaṇṭa does not, to my knowledge mean a stylus). I wonder if the historic site of Ghaṇṭaśālā may be referred to here; or if ghaṇṭā-śālā means a foundry where, among other things, copper plates are manufactured. The word kārakaM, if correctly read, does not fit into the syntax in any way I can imagine.
  18. 18. The text ends abruptly, with only these few words on the verso of plate 7. See the apparatus to line 88 for a possible interpretation of the unintelligible text.