Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava

Seal

Plates

⟨1⟩ -(divyojva)la jāyo(ṭā)nta MN • The invocatory stanza was probably a gīti, possibly a different member of the āryā family. I cannot reconstruct a meaningful and metrical reading. MN shows divyojva and ṭā in round parentheses, which elsewhere he uses for emendation. But in the present case I see no reason why he would have wanted to emend the preceding syllables to these strings; also, the number of akṣaras in this line would be very small compared to adjacent lines if the parenthetical text were not present on the plate. Scribal errors may well be present in addition to misreading and misprinting. The composer’s intent probably included the words jaṭā and karāñjali, and I would expect also to see yatra or some other relative pronoun. See the translation for an attempt at interpretation.

⟨7⟩ cāḷukyānāṁ MN • MN prints ḷ in several places where the estampage has l, so it is likely that here too, though no estampage is available, the actual reading is with l.

⟨8⟩ -patir ⬦ -pati MN • Since MN prints a double v after this word, but does not supply r, I assume r is present in the original. — ⟨8⟩ vvikrame¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ādy¿a?⟨o⟩ ⬦ vvikramenādya MN • I emend on the basis of the parallel stanza in the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II. — ⟨8⟩ dharām ⬦ darām MN • Since MN does not emend, I assume the original text has the correct dh.

⟨9⟩ imāM ⬦ imam MN • Again, I merely assume that the original is correct. — ⟨9⟩ trayastriṁśaT MN • Here and in lines 12 and 13 below, MN of course prints °triṁśat without explicit indication that a final consonant is present. The actual reading is perhaps °triṁśata, intended for °triṁśataṁ.

⟨12⟩ ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa ⬦ Aṣṭādaśa MN. — ⟨12⟩ viṣṇuvardhana⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ viṣṇuvardhana MN.

⟨14⟩ sa-lalita-ramaṇī-saṁpadā⟨ṁ sat-padā⟩nāṁ ⬦ salilata-ramaṇīm saṁpadānā MN • I overrule MN on the basis of the parallels in the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. Given the length of the line, the missing sequence is probably omitted in the original, not a typo in MN’s edition. — ⟨14⟩ -dhīr¿ā?⟨o⟩ ⟨’⟩ṣṭa- ⬦ dhīr=aāṣṭa- MN • MN’s edition is uninterpretable for this locus, and there is no visual documentation available. Parallel attestations of this stanza read -dhīraṣṭa- in the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II, -dhīroṣṭa- in the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman, and -dhīrāṣṭa- in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant of Śaktivarman. While both -dhīr aṣṭa- and -dhīro ’ṣṭa- are interpretable, I find the latter more elegant and choose to emend the uninterpretable -dhīrāṣṭa- to that. — ⟨14⟩ -yuktāś ⬦ -yuktas MN.

⟨16⟩ Aṅgāt ⬦ Abdāt MN • I overrule MN on the basis of the parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman.

⟨17⟩ aśa⟨ni⟩r ⬦ asa⟨ni⟩r MN.

⟨18⟩ durggamān MN • Parallels of this stanza are found in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. The former very clearly reads durggaman here, while the latter is unclear, but was read as durggamān by its editor. — ⟨18⟩ dāvaṁ ⬦ dhāvaṁ MN • Of the two parallels, Amma’s grant clearly reads dāvaṁ here (misread or misprinted by its original editor as dhāvaṁ, perhaps under the influence of the present grant’s published edition), while Śaktivarman’s plates are wholly illegible at this locus (but their original editor supplies dhāvaṁ). In my opinion dāvaṁ is the only sensible choice, but this does not exclude the possibility that MN’s reading is correct here, in which case the present text needs emendation.

⟨19⟩ ba¡ddha!gāṅkaṁ • The word is baddegāṁkaṁ in both parallels, and that is the correct form of the name. I assume that the plates are erroneous here, but this may also be a typo in MN’s edition.

⟨20⟩ -bhūpat¿e?⟨ir⟩ • MN does not emend this word and may have read or printed it incorrectly. The original editor of the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II also prints bhūpate, probably on the basis of the present grant, though the reading there is clearly bhūpati (with or without r). — ⟨20⟩ tad- ⬦ tat- MN.

⟨22⟩ -vara- • Both known parallels read vaṭu here, which is superior. MN may have misread the plate.

⟨23⟩ mā⟨24⟩tāvat • Both known parallels read māteva here. As mātāvat is morphologically incorrect, I tend to believe MN misread the plate here.

⟨24⟩ abdān ⬦ abdhān MN. — ⟨24⟩ -putraḥ ⬦ -putro MN.

⟨25⟩ balād • I am tempted to emend to -balo, but the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman have the same reading. — ⟨25⟩ jitvā¿s?⟨ś⟩āṁ • The s may be a typo in MN, but since the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman read the same, I assume it is an original mistake. — ⟨25⟩ ¿prā?⟨pa⟩ṭiṣṭh¿e?⟨o⟩ ⬦ prādiṣṭhe MN • Lacking a visual representation of the current plate, I can only guess at the received reading, but suspect that it may have ṭi rather than di. I emend on the basis of stanza I of the Pulivaṟṟu (spurious?) grant of Amma I, which is possibly the earliest attestation of this stanza, and certainly provides the best reading for this locus. Compare also stanza VII of the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman.

⟨26⟩ bāḍham ⬦ baddham MN • The parallel is quite clear here.

⟨27⟩ dharāM ⬦ varāM MN.

⟨29⟩ ¿ko?⟨tā⟩lādhipatir • I understand MN’s edition to mean that he emends an inscribed ko to tā. The emendation is vindicated by the parallel stanza in the Pāṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. The spelling of the name is tāḻā° in the latter and reportedly (but unverifiably) tālā° in the latter.

⟨30⟩ cāḷukya- MN • MN prints ḷ in several places where the estampage has l, so it is likely that here too, though no estampage is available, the actual reading is with l.

⟨31⟩ prabhu¿ṁ?⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ prabhuṁ MN • I emend on the basis of parallels in several other grants.

⟨32⟩ -gaṇākārān ⬦ -gaṇākārām MN.

⟨35⟩ {pi} ⬦ pi MN • I emend with some hesitation. MN may have perceived this as a prose passage, but its prosody is too close to a gaṇacchandas structure to be accidental. The visarga in samāḥ also suggests a hemistich boundary. Removing this pi, coupled with some improvements of MN’s reading (confirmed by the facsimile), results in a perfect specimen of the rare metre lalitā. Perhaps pi was added because the drafter of the grant too, while adopting a pre-existing text, believed this to be prose and thus permissive of small changes. — ⟨35⟩ pañcaviṁśati(ṁ) ⬦ pañcaviṁśati MN. — ⟨35⟩ ta(r)ppi(ta) ⬦ tarpite MN.

⟨36⟩ ūrjjita- ⬦ ajita- MN.

⟨37⟩ -bhujo ⬦ -bhujair MN. — ⟨37⟩ ⟨’⟩bhūt tas⟨m⟩i⟨n⟩ ⬦ bhūd api MN. — ⟨37⟩ kṣi⟨tiṁ⟩ (śāsa?)ti ⬦ kṣitiṁ śāsati MN. — ⟨37⟩ satya-dh¿(ā)?⟨a⟩nyaḥ • For this locus, MN shows “dhanyaḥ(vān)”. He may have intended to emend to satyavān yaḥ, or to indicate the latter as a possible alternative reading. The vowel of dh does seem to be ā, but by my perception a relative pronoun would be out of the syntax here, so I prefer to read dhanyaḥ.

⟨38⟩ sūno⟨r⟩ ⬦ sūno MN • It seems from MN’s discussion that he interpreted suno as a nominative. See my commentary on this stanza. — ⟨38⟩ -m⟦i⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩h¿i?⟨ī⟩¡bhu(ja)sya! ⬦ -mahībhujasya MN • The reading is quite certain, but out of context the fourth character would more likely be read as ca or ṣa, and the entire sequence bhujasya may be a correction engraved over something else. — ⟨38⟩ ¿rāptaḥ?⟨naptuḥ⟩ ⬦ Āptaḥ MN • The reading, though unintelligible, is unambiguous in the estampage. It would perhaps be more straightforward to emend to rājñaḥ, since the engraver could easily have mistaken a slightly smudged pre-drawn jña for pta. But since interpreting the stanza would be problematic that way, I tentatively emend as indicated. The retroflex and dental nasal are often mixed up, and rā may well be a scribal misrecognition of a smudged ṇa. See the commentary for my interpretation. — ⟨38⟩ kalāvit- ⬦ kalāvit MN • The text works with a nominative (in which case this word describes the son), but because of proximity and the word-play in kalā/kali, I prefer to understand this word as describing Kali Viṣṇuvardhana in spite of the slightly more awkward syntax involved. — ⟨38⟩ -nāmna(ḥ) ⬦ -nāmnā MN.

⟨39⟩ sūnuḥ ⬦ sūnoḥ MN. — ⟨39⟩ kali(ṁ)geśvara- ⬦ kaḷiṅgeśvara- MN. — ⟨39⟩ -sutā(yāṁ?) ⬦ -sutāya(ḥ) MN • Only the left edge of y is visible in the estampage, and this is far from unambiguous. I accept that MN could make out y more clearly, in the original. Depending on the ending of the word ūrjapā (see note below), the stanza would also be intelligible and mean the same with sutāyāṁ. — ⟨39⟩ vara(-m ūr?)jap(āyāM|?) ⬦ varam urjapāyāṁ| MN • Much of the sequence mūrjapāyāM is probably a correction written over something else. I read mū in accordance with secondary literature citing this name as Ūrjapā, assuming that the u marker is entirely below the body of m, and the hook that changes it to ū is at baseline to the right of the body. This character seems to have been changed from ra, and there would have been no room to insert a regular-shaped ū between this character and the next. Nonetheless, MN’s reading mu is also definitely possible, as is plain ma. The next one appears to have been ja even before correction. No repha is discernible in the estampage, but on MN’s statement I accept that one is present; the faint vertical line above and to the right of the j’s initial circle may be a vestige of that. The following pa also seems to be pre-correction, but the barely distinct ā marker, if it is one, is probably a subsequent addition. The final y is, however, heavily corrected. The ending may be yāḥ instead of yāM (see also the note on sutāyāṁ above), but does not seem to be simply yāṁ. The string varam is probably not a neuter accusative but a masculine nominative with an epenthetic m to avoid hiatus with the following ū; see also the apparatus to -kṣama-m in line 39 and deha-m in line 40. — ⟨39⟩ (d)r̥(ḍ)ha- • This is clearly the word intended, but the first consonant may in fact be dh or ḍh, and the second looks like ḍ. — ⟨39⟩ kṣātra- ⬦ kṣatra- MN. — ⟨39⟩ -kṣama-m ā(ś)ri⟨40⟩tov(aT?) ⬦ -kṣamām āsri⟨40⟩tovaT MN • MN’s kṣamā is definitely kṣama, and his sri is probably a typo for śri, which is a plausible but not fully certain reading of the the last character in line 39, partly obscured by the rim of the plate. The sequence is hard to make sense of, but I think kṣama-m is probably non-standard sandhi for kṣama (epenthetic m inserted to avoid hiatus); scribal error for kṣama Āśrito is also a possibility. The string āśritovat was perhaps intended to be āśritoddhr̥t, one who uplifts. The v may have a very faint i attached to it, but I see no plausible reading involving -viT.

⟨40⟩ dharmma⟨ḥ⟩ s(v)aya(ṁ?) (deha)-m i(h/v)(o)ru-(k)¿i?⟨ī⟩(rtt)i(r) ⬦ dharmasyāya(m) deham ihor kīrttir MN • The m in MN’s reading was presumably meant to be ṁ; it is shown in round parentheses, which may mean that it is supplied rather than unclear. His ihor must have been intended for ihoru. As indicated in my markup, much of the last line is unclear, and this applies in particular to any character components below the baseline. Nonetheless, I am certain that MN’s sya must be read as sva. Reading ihoru and ivoru both seem possible, and both are fairly appropriate in the context. The problematic character does resemble the one in deham, but but is narrower and does not have a distinct tail like the h of the latter. The final r may be indicated by the squiggliness of the lower outline of the i marker on the next character, or it may be absent and need to be supplied; see also the next note. I am far from certain of my reading and restoration as a whole, much less of my understanding of the text. Nonetheless, if an epenthetic m is assumed (as perhaps twice in line 39, see the notes above), then dharmmaḥ svayaṁ deha-m ivoru-kīrttir (for deha Ivoru-) is intelligible and fits the context. — ⟨40⟩ vvirājat(e) ⬦ virājate MN • The subscript v is clearly visible. This in turn confirms that the preceding word was meant to in r, even though a repha is not clearly present here. — ⟨40⟩ (bhū)-jana ⬦ bhūjana MN • The heavy noise below ja implies a subscript consonant, but even though bhū-jana is a little awkward, any alternative reading (e.g. ’bhūj jana) would be inappropriate in the context. — ⟨40⟩ va(tsa)l(o yaḥ|) ⬦ vatsalāya| MN • In the character I read as lo, a vowel marker on the right-hand (the tail of l) is indeed clear, but a second vowel stroke seems to be attached to the bottom left of the body. The visarga before the punctuation mark is faint but fairly certain. — ⟨40⟩ bālye ⟨’⟩dhi_gam(y)[ā]⟨Page 4r⟩⟨41⟩khila- ⬦ bālyādhi vīra-dharmm-a⟨Page 4r⟩⟨41⟩khila MN • The vowel marker of lye is clear, attached on the left to the subscript y. MN’s vīra-dharmm-a seems to be a reading of the characters I read as dhi_gamyā, but something is clearly wrong with his edition, since he als reads dhi before this. I cannot guess why a space, the width of one regular character, was skipped by the scribe here, but if a character (such as MN’s ra) is present in that space, it is very faint and must have been beaten out by the engraver. After that, ga is almost closed at the bottom, but it is definitely not dha. The subscript component of the last character is partly obscured by damage (or by the rubbing’s inability to fit into the inner corner of the rim), but it is quite certainly y, not m.

⟨41⟩ vidy(o) ⬦ vidyā MN • The second stroke for o is indistinct and may not be present. I would prefer a bahuvrīhi in the masculine nominative here, though it is also possible to wring meaning out of the text if we read vidyā- in compound here. — ⟨41⟩ -ācār¿u?⟨ya⟩- ⬦ -ācāra- MN • The composer’s intent may also have been ācāra, but the plate definitely has ru. Either of these words may also be interpreted so that they are not compounded to the preceding, but in that case vidyā-vid would be largely tautological. — ⟨41⟩ nyā(y)(a?) ⬦ nyāye MN • I see no indication of an e marker, but MN may be correct.

⟨43⟩ vara- ⬦ vāre MN.

⟨44⟩ yatheṣṭaṁ ⬦ yadheṣṭaṁ MN. — ⟨44⟩ -(kṣi)[tipati][-tanayaḥ] ⬦ -kṣiti[…] MN • In the estampage, the plate breaks off right after (and partly through) kṣi, so if MN could read ti, then the edge of the plate suffered further damage by the time the estampage was made. It is also possible that he too supplied ti for restoration.

⟨45⟩ agaṇitā ⬦ agaṇita MN.

⟨46⟩ -mathanaṁ ⬦ -madhanaṁ MN. — ⟨46⟩ śau(r)yyaṁ sadāryya-stutaṁ ⬦ śauryaudārya stuta MN.

⟨47⟩ bhūpati⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ bhūpatis MN • Or perhaps construe bhūpati-, with the compound going on into the last quarter, but that would be redundant with nr̥pateḥ. Possibly supply dānārṇavo before this word. — ⟨47⟩ -calukya- ⬦ -cāḷukya- MN. — ⟨47⟩ [sa sarvva-lokāśraya] ⬦ […] MN • The lacuna should be about two characters shorter than in the line above, i.e. 14 characters in total, of which 7 belong to the end of the preceding stanza. The āśraya-epithet is expected here, and sa sarvva-lokāśraya is exactly 7 characters long. In his Māṁgallu grant, Dānārṇava’s epithet is samasta-bhuvanāśraya, but he calls himself Vijayāditya there, presumably because he is reigning in Amma II’s stead. In the present grant, when Dānārṇava has been properly crowned, he bears the regnal name Viṣṇuvardhana. Since all Viṣṇuvardhanas are sarva-lokāśraya and all Vijayādityas are samasta-bhuvanāśraya, it is very probable that Dānārṇava too used the former epithet when he took the regnal name Viṣṇuvardhana.

⟨48⟩ param(e)śva(ra)[ḥ parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyo mā] ⬦ parameśvara[…] MN • Again, we expect the lacuna to be about two characters shorter than in the previous line, probably around 12 to 14 characters. My restoration of 14 characters is thus feasible, and the epithet parama-brahmaṇya is confirmed by the Māṁgallu grant.

⟨49⟩ -s(e)nāpati-[]yuvarāja[ca. 10+] ⬦ -senāpati[…] MN • The whole lacuna should be about the same length as the last line on 4r (the back side of this line), i.e. roughly 14 characters. Parallel loci (emended and restored) are -senāpati-yuvarājādy-aṣṭādaśa-tīrtthādhyakṣam ittham ājñāpayati in the Māṁgallu grant of Dānārṇava, and -senāpati-yuvarāja-dauvārikādhyakṣam ittham ājñāpayati in the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. I restore yuvarāja with some confidence, since it is common to all three parallels, and the circular stroke at the edge of the crack makes y likely. However, all three parallels have this phrase after the words rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas samāhūya, while in the present grant that phrase comes subsequently, so ājñāpayati is unlikely here. The lost text may perhaps have been yuvarāja-dauvārikādhyakṣān samāhūya.

⟨50⟩ (pottepinā)ṇḍu- ⬦ pottapināṇḍu- MN • The name is unclear here but seems to be pottepi, which is very clear in line 59. — ⟨50⟩ -⟨⟨(ni)⟩⟩vāsino ⬦ -nivāsino MN • From the estampage, I would read just vāsino without hesitation. But since the formula is nivāsino in almost all related grants, and MN prints this reading, I assume that the faint strokes to the right of ya and the clearer semicircular stroke above that are remnants of a small-size ni that was added subsequently in the space between two characters. — ⟨50⟩ -pra(mu)[khān kuṭuṁbinaḥ][ca. 10+] ⬦ pra[…] MN • A lacuna of about 15 characters is expected. Since the phrases are not in the usual order (see the note to line 49), no straightforward restoration is possible. The missing text beyond kuṭuṁbinaḥ may be sarvvān ittham ājñāpayati yathā, perhaps without sarvvān or without yathā.

⟨51⟩ -ca(ḻ)uk(y)a- ⬦ -cāḷukya- MN • The second consonant of this name is quite certainly neither ḷ nor l, though ḻ is also less than certain. — ⟨51⟩ prathito mal(l)(a?)- ⬦ pradhitāmala MN.

⟨52⟩ (ji?)ti ⬦ jita- MN • The first character is indistinct; ji is possible assuming an i marker distorted because of the descender of mu above. Although MN explicitly refers to jita-prāpta-vasundharā, conquered land, this reading can be ruled out given the clear ti. See also my commentary about this stanza. — ⟨52⟩ -vas(u)◯(ndha)rāyā(ṁ/ḥ) ⬦ -vasuṁdharāyāṁ MN.

⟨53⟩ dhanu(r)-nni(r)jjita◯- ⬦ vasūn nirjjitā MN. — ⟨53⟩ (-pra)(daḥ?) ⬦ -padaḥ MN • Possibly a typo in MN. — ⟨53⟩ kṣ(a)tra- • This is quite certainly the intended word, but the inscribed text may be kṣitra-. — ⟨53⟩ -gu(ṇai?)[ḥ prapannaḥ] ⬦ -gu[…] MN • Only the bottom left corner of the last character is extant, but it was quite certainly n or ṇ with e or ai. My subsequent restoration is conjectural.

⟨54⟩ (pe?)rakāṁbā MN • MN shows the first character as clear. I accept his reading assuming he could make it out more clearly in the original, but it is completely indistinct in the estampage. — ⟨54⟩ bhāryyāryyāmara- ⬦ bhāryyāmara- MN • Probably a typo in MN. — ⟨54⟩ (surūpā?) MN • MN shows this word as clear, but it is completely indistinct in the estampage. — ⟨54⟩ dharmmārttham (m?)a ⬦ dharmmād dharmya MN • Probably a typo in MN. — ⟨54⟩ ta-bahu-mu(khe?)śvara⟨sya⟩ putr(aḥ||?) ⬦ ta-bahu-śuro ¿ś?⟨s⟩mara-puttraḥ|| MN • MN’s śu is impossible. His śmara (which, emended to smara, he equates to Kusumāyudha) cannot be excluded, but does not seem to make sense in the context. My supplied sya is entirely conjectural, but the metre requires an extra syllable here and the preceding syllable needs to be long. The ending may be putrāḥ or putrā; I see no way of fitting any of the three forms into the context unless putrā has been used for putrī.

⟨55⟩ udārāḥ ⬦ udāraḥ MN. — ⟨55⟩ -dūrāḥ ⬦ -ddhdharaḥ MN. — ⟨55⟩ sutā ba[––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] ⬦ śutādi[…] MN.

⟨56⟩ (dhi?)(kau) ⬦ dhiko MN • The first character of the line is wholly indistinct in the estampage. I have some doubts about MN’s reading. If it is correct, perhaps the beginning of the verse quarter could be restored as tatrādhikau, but if teṣu at the end of the stanza is clear, then this seems redundant. — ⟨56⟩ mal(yana)-(gu?)ṇ(ḍ)iyākhyau ⬦ mallana-goṇḍiyākhyo MN • See also line 59 for a different spelling of these names. — ⟨56⟩ (p)r¿i?⟨a⟩thitau ⬦ pr̥dhito MN. — ⟨56⟩ (ca?) t(e)(ṣu?) MN • I have some doubts about MN’s reading, especially about ca, but cannot improve it on the basis of the estampage. Could this word be caturṣu? — ⟨56⟩ yau [–––⏑––⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑––⏑–] ⬦ yo […] MN • The lacuna ought to be about 10-12 characters long, but since the metre is certain, either 16 characters were fitted into this space, or some were omitted by the scribe.

⟨57⟩ (dvā?)v (a?)n(ī?)(cā) ⬦ dve vanīṁ cā MN • The estampage or its reproduction for printing is defective at the top left; only a possible subscript v is visible of the first character. After that, bodies are largely clear, but anything above head height is invisible in the facsimile. The final vowel is quite certainly ā, though au would be easier in the context. I assume that MN’s reading from the original cannot be very far off the mark, but my own suggestion is tentative. MN probably saw the word avanī here, but that does not result in a meaningful reading. — ⟨57⟩ bh(a)dr(ā?)ṇ(āṁ?) ⬦ bhadrāṇī MN • My reading is tentative and I cannot securely interpret it in context. — ⟨57⟩ tā(p)an(ī)(m u?)jvala- ⬦ tāpanīyojvala- MN • MN’s reading of yo does not seem possible from the estampage, since this unclear character is much narrower than a y ought to be. A regular-width character corrected to a tiny y cannot be ruled out, but does not seem likely. The body looks like v, c or m, and my tentative reading is the best I can think of in the context, but very possibly also wrong. — ⟨57⟩ (staṁbha-bandhaṁ?) • MN prints this word as clear. The reading is very plausible but difficult to interpret. — ⟨57⟩ (sita) ⬦ śita MN.

⟨58⟩ °ā(dī)ny (ā?)pt(au?) tau (d)vau ⬦ °ādī¿nyaptaḥ to dve?⟨prāptaḥ prodyat⟩ MN.

⟨59⟩ pottepināṇḍu- ⬦ pottapināṇḍu- MN.

⟨60⟩ -k(l?)eśa- ⬦ -kośa- MN. — ⟨60⟩ Asyāvadhayaḥ ⬦ Asyādhyāyaḥ MN. — ⟨60⟩ (paṁ?)⟨61⟩pavādi ⬦ paṁ⟨61⟩pāva¿di?⟨tī⟩ MN • MN’s editor in a footnote agrees that “The reading of the name of the river Paṁpāvatī seems to be probable”. That name may have been intended, but the first paṁ is indistinct in the facsimile; the following p almost certainly has a short a, and the following v almost certainly has a long ā. See also the note to the translation of lines 60-62.

⟨61⟩ Uttaravarusa ⬦ Uttaras-varusa MN. — ⟨61⟩ minuṁbāka(nā)(ṇḍū|?) • MN prints this word as clear, and the punctuation mark as supplied. To me, ṇḍū doesn’t seem very likely from the facsimile, but I have no better reading.

⟨62⟩ (ḍebhbha)di ⬦ ḍebbadi MN. — ⟨62⟩ -vīra- ⬦ -dhīra- MN.

⟨63⟩ -tāra- ⬦ -tārārka- MN.

⟨68⟩ -manaso ⬦ -manase MN. — ⟨68⟩ bhuv(i) ⬦ bhūmi MN. — ⟨68⟩ -bhū(pā) ye ⬦ -bhūpo yaṁ MN. — ⟨68⟩ ima(ṁ) ⬦ imāṁ MN. — ⟨68⟩ viracito ⟨’⟩⟨ṁ⟩jali(r) e(ṣa) ⬦ viracitāñjali Eva MN.

⟨69⟩ (Anye?)ṣāṁ ccha⟨r⟩ddi¿(ṣo)?⟨taṁ⟩ bh(o)ktā ⬦ sarveṣāṁ ca ddiṣo bhoktava MN • The first two characters are indistinct in the estampage. I restore on the basis of Sircar 1965, p. 178, appendix 2, № 14, but the parallel is very loose, so MN may be right about sarveṣāṁ. — ⟨69⟩ śvā sva-v¿a?⟨ā⟩nta⟨ṁ⟩ na ¿ka?⟨khā⟩dati ⬦ śvāsrvanti na kadāti MN. — ⟨69⟩ śuna(ḥ kaṣṭa?)(ta)⟨70⟩(raḥ) p(āpa)⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ śunakodvita⟨70⟩ra pāpa MN.

⟨71⟩ (nā?)ga(ma?)(bhaṭṭa)- • I accept MN’s reading, but wonder if the name is perhaps rather Mādhavabhaṭṭa, the composer of several grants of Amma II that were likewise written by Jontācārya. The second character is, however, definitely ga and not dha in the plate. — ⟨71⟩ (-kā)◯(vyaṁ||) • There may be up to 4 illegible characters after this word, but MN does not report any reading here, so more likely there is only noise.