Varaṇaveṇḍi grant of Bhīma II

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00077.

Hand description:

Halantas. Final M (e.g. l3 paripālitānāM) is quite complex, resembling a Latin S (a simplified ma), reduced and raised, plus the sinuous tail often used for halanta characters. Final N (e.g. l7 vatsarāN) is a simplified, but almost full-sized na with a curved (but not sinuous) tail instead of a headmark. Final T (e.g. 9l ābhūT) is an almost full-sized ta with both a diminutive headmark and a slightly sinuous tail.

Original punctuation marks are plain vertical bars. Half-daṇḍas are also occasionally used (e.g. l7).

Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāras are simple but deeply struck and clear dots at headline height after the character they belong to; occasionally, a circle is also used. The headmarks are quite peculiar for the corpus, consisting in most cases of a horizontal line, fairly long (half as long as a regular character body is tall), quite straight, with a deeply struck dot for a serif at both ends. Dependent au is sometimes (l2 kauśikī, l19 °aughaḥ) unusual, comprised of a stroke attached to the top right of the consonant body (in shape similar to the form of the ā marker that rises vertically on the top right), and a second stroke attached at the bottom left (identical to the bottom left stroke sometimes used as an e marker or the secondary stroke of an ai marker). In the glyphs for ya and gha, the left-hand part has an additional notch at the bottom, similar to but often less pronounced to the notch in other round-bottomed characters such as pa and dha. There are two forms of ga, which typically has a headmark and a short stem, but sometimes (perhaps only in a Telugu context) neither of these (e.g. l53 goraga, l55 niḍudapaḍuga).

Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.

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

Version: (c66dc65), last modified (3468c87).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ śrī-tribhuvan(ā)ṁku¿g?⟨ś⟩a

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ ✤ svasti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sago⟨2⟩trāṇāṁ hāritī-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa⟨3⟩-paripālitānāM svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāya⟨4⟩ṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāh¿ā?⟨a⟩-lāṁchanekṣa(ṇa)-kṣaṇa-va⟨5⟩śīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalā{ṁ}nāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta⟨6⟩-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ||

I. Anuṣṭubh

satyāśraya-vallabha⟨7⟩sya,

a

bhrātāṣṭādaśa vatsarāN|

b

Abhūt pūrvvaṁ kubja-viṣṇu-

c

varddhano veṁgi-vallabhaḥ||

d
II. Anuṣṭubh

ja⟨8⟩yasiṁha-vallabho ⟨’⟩bhūt

a

⟨t⟩riṁśatan trika-saṁyutāM|

b

tad-bhrātendrākhya-bhaṭṭāro

c

rājā ⟨9⟩ sapta dinān ¿ā?⟨a⟩bhūT||

d
III. Anuṣṭubh

navābdān viṣṇurājeto

a

jajñe maṁgi-yuvarājaḥ|

b

paṁcaviṁ⟨Page 2r⟩⟨10⟩śatim ato ⟨’⟩bhūj

c

jayasiṁhas trayodaśa||

d
IV. Anuṣṭubh

dvaimāturānujas tasya

a

ṣaṇ māsā⟨11⟩n kokkiliḥ prabhuḥ

b

saptatriṁśatam abdā(nā?)n

c

tad-bhrātā viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ||

d
V. Anuṣṭubh

tat¿ā?⟨a⟩ Ās¿i?⟨ī⟩d vija⟨12⟩yādity¿ā?⟨o⟩

a

rājāṣṭādaśa vatsarāN|

b

tato ⟨’⟩bhūd viṣṇurājaḥ ṣaṭ-

c

triṁśatam ¿i?⟨a⟩⟨khi⟩le⟨13⟩śvaraḥ||

d
VI. Anuṣṭubh

tat-putro vijayādityo

a

narendra-mr̥garāḍ iti|

b

catvāriṁśa⟨14⟩tam aṣṭau ca

c

vatsarāN vatsarājavaT||

d
VII. Anuṣṭubh

gaṁga-raṭṭa-balābhyāṁ yo

a

yu⟨15⟩d(dh?)⟨v⟩ā tad-yuddha-saṁkhyayā

b

śivālayān aṣṭaśataṁ

c

kr̥tavān pāpa-nutta⟨16⟩ye||

d
VIII. Anuṣṭubh

kali-viṣṇuvarddhanas tasya

a

sūnur unnata-vikramaḥ|

b

sārddha-saṁvatsaraṁ rā⟨17⟩(jā)

c

rājīva-sadr̥śānana⟨ḥ⟩||

d
IX. Anuṣṭubh

tat-putro vijayādityo

a

vijayāditya-sannibha⟨18⟩ḥ

b

catvāriṁśatam abdānāṁ

c

caturbbhir bbhuvam anvaśāT||

d
X. Mālinī

tad-anuja-yuva⟨Page 2v⟩⟨19⟩rājād vikramāditya-nāmnaḥ

a

prabhur abhavad arāti-vrāta-tūlānilaughaḥ

b

⟨20⟩ nirupama-nr̥pa-bhīmaḥ triṁśataṁ vatsarāṇān

c

nija-guṇa-gaṇa-kīrtti-vyāpta-dik-ca⟨21⟩kravālaḥ||

d
XI. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

tat-putras tad-anantareṇa vijayādityo vijityāhave

a

svenaikena ⟨22⟩ gajena vāraṇa-ghaṭārū¿ḍ?⟨ḍh⟩ān kaliṁgādhipā⟨N⟩

b

āruhyo¡j!⟨jj⟩vala-hema⟨23⟩kalpita-tulā⟦ḥ⟧-koṭi⟨ṁ⟩ vadānyo jaya-

c

-staṁbhaṁ kīrttimaya{ṁ}n nidhāya ⟨24⟩ viraje ṣaṇ-māsam āsīn nr̥paḥ

d
XII. Anuṣṭubh

tat-(s)ūnur ammarājo ⟨’⟩pi

a

sapta saṁvatsa⟨25⟩rān nr̥paḥ

b

yena hema-tulārūḍhā

c

janānām abhinandanī||

d
XIII. Anuṣṭubh

tat-putro vijayādi⟨26⟩tyaḥ

a

pakṣam ekam abhūt prabhuḥ

b

tatas tāḻapa-rājo ⟨’⟩pi

c

māsam āśāsya-vikra⟨27⟩maḥ

d
XIV. Anuṣṭubh

vijayāditya-rājasya

a

bhaimi-dvaimāturānujaḥ

b

vikramāditya-bhūpā⟨Page 3r⟩⟨28⟩las

c

saṁvatsaram apālayaT|

d
XV. Praharṣiṇī

sāmantāś śabara-camūr gr̥hīta-paṭṭe

a

raṭṭānā(m a)⟨29⟩(dh)ipatinā praṇīta-daṇḍaḥ|

b

Anye ⟨’⟩pi prabhava Ivātidhūrtta-lok¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ

c

vyālumpan bhu⟨30⟩vam avadhūya yuddhamalle⟨⟨,⟩⟩

d

tān utkhāya mahā-bala-parākramaḥ

XVI. Anuṣṭubh

dvaimāturo ⟨31⟩ ⟨’⟩mma-rājasya

a

vijayāditya-nandanaḥ

b

bhrātā bhīma-mahīpālaḥ

c

paṭṭa(ṁ) ⟨32⟩ badhnāti paitr̥kaṁ||

d
XVII. Upendravajrā

bhujāntare śrīr bhujagendra-sāre

a

bhuje ⟨’⟩sya tiṣṭha⟨33⟩ty uru-vīralakṣmīḥ

b

Itīva yat-kīrtti-vadhūr ddigantān

c

adhyāsya saṁraṁ⟨34⟩jayati dviṣo ⟨’⟩pi|

d
XVIII. Gīti

yena ca nihatau saṁyati dhaḻadi¡ṁmmu!nniṟiva-rājamārttaṇḍau

ab

⟨35⟩ yasya bala-bhū-p¿ā?⟨a⟩rāgaḥ para-nr̥patīnāṁ ¿pālā?⟨palāya⟩nopāyaḥ|

cd

yaś ca śiva Iva ⟨36⟩ śakti-trayāśrayaḥ nārāyaṇa Iva lakṣmīpatiḥ| brahmeva sāma-yoni⟨ḥ⟩ (sa)⟨Page 3v⟩ ⟨37⟩ sarvvalokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bha⟨38⟩ṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ śakaṭamanthani-viṣaya-vāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pra⟨39⟩mukhān kuṭ¡i!⟨u⟩ṁbinas samāhūyettham ājñāpayati||

śrīmati payaḫ-payo⟨40⟩dhi-pratini¿bh?⟨dh⟩i-haihaya-vaṁśe satya-ś¿o?⟨au⟩cābhimāna-saṁpan⟨n⟩o ni⟨41⟩ja-bhuja-vikrama-śāl¿i?⟨ī⟩ poleyana-rājābhidhāno jātas⟨.⟩ tasya⟨42⟩sūnur anupama-guṇaḫ pitaram anukurvvan nannaka-rājas⟨.⟩ tasya nr̥pa⟨43⟩ter atiratha-dhavala-priya-duhitur āytakaṁbāyāś ca priya-tanayo ya⟨44⟩s tasmai hastinapura-vāstavyāya gaṁgā-pāriyātra-māhiṣmatī-pura-para⟨45⟩meśvara-haihaya-vaṁśodbhava-nara-śiro-darppaṇa-dhvaja-mālpaṟe-ghoṣaṇa⟨Page 4r⟩⟨46⟩-praśasti-virājamānāya candyana-rājāya mārttaṇḍa-pitāmaha-vikramādi⟨47⟩tya-yuddhamallādi-rājakaṁ vijitya tatra tan-nirbhr̥tya-bhāva-nimittena sarvva-ka⟨48⟩ra-parihāram udaka-pūrvvakam mānyaṁ kr̥tvā varaṇaveṇḍi nāma grāmo ⟨’⟩smā⟨49⟩bhir ddatta Iti viditam astu vaḥ||

Asyāvadhayaḥ|| pūrvataḥ pe⟨50⟩nuṁbaṟṟu| dakṣiṇataḥ penuṁballi| paścimataḥ velmaṭū⟨51⟩rū| Uttarataḥ dāramapalli|

kṣetra-sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩ pūrvvataḥ pedda-k(ṟ/ḻ)a⟨52⟩lla cinta| Āgneyataḥ p(ṟ/ḻ)emulapaḍugakaṟiti nallaṁ jinta| dakṣiṇataḥ ⟨53⟩ goraga pannasa| nairr̥tyataḥ muyyal-kuṭṭuna nūjjūṁ jinta| paścimataḥ ṟo⟨54⟩livāyu| vāyavyataḥ muyyal-kuṭṭ(u)na pedda cinta| Uttarataḥ dārama⟨Page 4v⟩⟨55⟩palli-sīmaiva sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩| ¡Ī!⟨Ai⟩¿g?⟨ś⟩ānataḥ niḍudapaḍuga| Asyopari na kenacid bā⟨56⟩dhā karttavyā⟨.⟩ yaḥ karoti sa pañca-mahā-pātaka-saṁyukto nara⟨57⟩kaṁ gamiṣyati| tathā coktaṁ bhaga⟨va⟩tā vyāsena

XIX. Anuṣṭubh

sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ ⟨58⟩ vā

a

yo hareta vasundharā¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩|

b

ṣaṣṭiṁ varṣa-sahasrāṇāṁ

c

vi⟨59⟩ṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩āyāṁ jāyate k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩miḥ||

d

yaś ca pālayati sa svargga-pha⟨60⟩lam anubha⟨va⟩ti⟨.⟩ tathā coktaM|

XX. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā

a

bahubhiś cānupā ⟨61⟩ litā|

b

yasya yasya yadā bhūmis

c

tasya tasya tadā phalam

d

iti|

XXI. Śālinī

⟨62⟩ sarvvān etān bhāvinaḥ pārtthivendrān

a

bhūyo bhūyo yācate rā⟨Page 5r⟩⟨63⟩mabhadraḥ|

b

sāmānyo ⟨’⟩yan dharmma-setur nnr̥pāṇāṁ|

c

kāle kāle pāla⟨64⟩nīyo bhavadbhiḥ||

d
XXII. Vasantatilakā

mad-vaṁśa-jāḥ para-mahīpati-vaṁśa-jā vā

a

pāpād a⟨65⟩peta-manaso bhuvi bhāvi-bhūpāḥ

b

ye pālayanti mama dha⟨66⟩rmmam ima⟨ṁ⟩ samasta{ṁ}n

c

teṣām mayā viracito ⟨’⟩⟨ṁ⟩jalir eṣa mū⟨67⟩rddhni||

d
⟨Page 5v⟩

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

⟨4⟩ -vara- • There is some damage or deletion around ra. It is possible that rā (for varāha) was first engraved here.

⟨7⟩ ja⟨8⟩yasiṁha • This word does not fit the theoretical requirements for the initial part of a ra-vipulā, but emendation to jayasiṁho would make it metrical. Note that vallabha is used as a noun in its own right, not in compound to a name, in the first stanza.

⟨11⟩ tat¿ā?⟨a⟩ Ās¿i?⟨ī⟩d • The reading is unmetrical even after my emendation, but this must have been what the composer intended.

⟨12⟩ triṁśatam ¿i?⟨a⟩⟨khi⟩le⟨13⟩śvaraḥ • For the cursively written mi, compare bhaimi in line 27. The quarter stanza as received is short one syllable. The stanza, with the same anomaly, has an exact parallel in the Penuṁbulugu grant of Amma I. The emendation I propose is still unmetrical in spite of having the correct number of syllables, unless the composer considered a sa-vipulā to be legitimate, as implied by stanza 3. The alternative emendation triṁśataṁ maṇḍaleśvaraḥ would be metrically correct, but is much more invasive. Conversely, triṁśataṁ tamileśvaraḥ would be hardly invasive at all, but unlikely in meaning. None of these terms ending in °eśvara are attested in Veṅgī Cālukya genealogies.

⟨16⟩ -saṁvatsaraṁ • Both anusvāras may have been corrected from visargas.

⟨19⟩ -tūlānilaughaḥ • The composer’s intent may have been -tūlānalaughaḥ. The received reading is paralleled in the Penuṁbulugu grant of Amma I, while in the Drujjūru grant of Amma I, according to its editor (Kielhorn), an originally inscribed i was struck out in the plate to correct to a.

⟨35⟩ -lok¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ • I emend tentatively for grammatical agreement with vyālumpan and prabhava, which I construe as prabhavaḥ, the plural nominative of prabhu. The composer may have thought of loka in the sense of "folk" as grammatically plural, or felt that multiple subjects in the singular warranted plurals in apposition. See also my translation. — ⟨35⟩ ¿pālā?⟨palāya⟩nopāyaḥ • My emendation is tentative, but it salvages both the metre and the meaning, so I think it is likely to be correct.

⟨37⟩ -mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara- • SR adds a note, anchored between the words mahārājādhirāja and parameśvara, which says “rājaparameśvara”. He may have intended an emendation to mahārājādhirāja-rājaparameśvara-, but this is unwarranted.

⟨38⟩ śakaṭamanthani- ⬦ śakaṭamanthanī- SR. — ⟨38⟩ -pra⟨39⟩mukhān ⬦ -pra⟨39⟩mukh¿a?⟨ān⟩ SR.

⟨39⟩ śrīmati … • The prosody of this sentence is suggestive of āryā or a related moraic metre, but I see no way to fit it to an actual metre without drastic intervention. — ⟨39⟩ payaḫ-payo⟨40⟩dhi- ⬦ paya¿r?⟨ḥ⟩-pay¿e?⟨o⟩⟨40⟩⟨ni⟩¿d?⟨dh⟩i- SR • Emdendation to payaḥ-payonidhi is unwarranted. Some of SR’s apparent emendations may result from typographic mistakes.

⟨42⟩ -guṇaḫ ⬦ -guṇ¿ār?⟨ān⟩ SR. — ⟨42⟩ anukurvan nannaka- • I follow the segmentation of the ARIE report, where this name is said to be Nannaka. Theoretically, the text could also be segmented into anukurvann annaka-. SR’s commentary ignores this name and says the son of Poleyana was called Anupamaguṇa.

⟨43⟩ āytakaṁbāyāś SR • The ARIE report gives this name as Aytakaṁbā, though this may be a typo.

⟨45⟩ -dhvaja-mālpaṟe-ghoṣaṇa ⬦ ¿dhvajāmālparepoṣaṇa? SR • While I am unable to interpret mālpaṟe, the reading is unambiguous. — ⟨45⟩ candyana ⬦ cand{y}ana SR • I find the emendation unwarranted; the name is probably a variant of candeṇa (found in the Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa).

⟨46⟩ mārttaṇḍa ⬦ mārt¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇḍa SR • SR’s emendation is unnecessary.

⟨47⟩ tan-nirbhr̥tya- ⬦ ⟨tan-⟩nirbhr̥tya- SR • SR’s emendation must be some kind of typographic mishap, but I do not know if he intended to suppress tan or had some other purpose with this note. The word nirbhr̥tya is used in the sense of naibhr̥tya. The same spelling, probably in the same sense, is found in line 20 of the Śrīpūṇḍi grant of Tāḻa II.

⟨48⟩ kr̥tvā ⬦ kr̥tyā SR • Since SR does not emend, I assume this is a typo. — ⟨48⟩ varaṇaveṇḍi ⬦ varaṇaveṇḍī SR.

⟨49⟩ pe⟨50⟩nuṁbaṟṟu ⬦ pe⟨50⟩nuṁbarru SR.

⟨50⟩ velmaṭū⟨51⟩rū| ⬦ velmadū⟨51⟩ru| SR.

⟨51⟩ dāramapalli ⬦ dāmarapalli SR.

⟨52⟩ p(ṟ/ḻ)emulapaḍugakaṟiti ⬦ premulapadugakaditi SR. — ⟨52⟩ nallaṁ ⬦ nalla SR.

⟨53⟩ nairr̥tyataḥ ⬦ n¿au?⟨ai⟩rr̥tyataḥ SR. — ⟨53⟩ muyyal-kuṭṭuna ⬦ muyyūl-kuṭṭuna SR. — ⟨53⟩ nūjjūṁ ⬦ n¿ū?⟨u⟩jjuṁ SR.

⟨54⟩ muyyal-kuṭṭ(u)na ⬦ muyyūl-kuṭṭuna SR.

⟨55⟩ -sīmaiva sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩ ⬦ -sīmo vasima SR. — ⟨55⟩ niḍudapaḍuga ⬦ ¿niduva?⟨nirudu⟩paduga SR.

⟨58⟩ vasundharāM ⬦ vasundharā¿ḥ?⟨ṁ⟩ SR.

⟨60⟩ tathā coktaM ⬦ ta¿bh?⟨dh⟩ā cokt¿aka?⟨ā⟩ SR. — ⟨60⟩ vasudhā ⬦ vasyadhā SR.

⟨62⟩ pārtthivendrān ⬦ p¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨r⟩thivendrān SR.

⟨63⟩ ⟨’⟩yan dharmma- ⬦ ya¿n v?⟨d dh⟩arm{m}a- SR.

⟨66⟩ ⟨’⟩ṁjalir ⬦ ⟨ṁ⟩ja{ṁ}lir SR • I suppose the anusvāra is above ja, but that is not really a mistake.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–6) Greetings. The lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāritī, 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 enemy territories 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—of the one [who was] eager to adorn [that lineage],

I
[namely] of Satyāśraya Vallabha (Pulakeśin II), the brother [was] Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, who long ago became the Vallabha [ruler] of Veṅgī for eighteen years.
II
[Then] Jayasiṁha Vallabha became [king] for thirty together with a trio (i.e. 33) [years]. His brother the sovereign (bhaṭṭāra) named Indra became king for seven days.
III
For nine years, Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana II). From this one was born Maṅgi Yuvarāja, [who reigned] for twenty five [years]. From him arose Jayasiṁha (II), [reigning for] thirteen.
IV
His younger brother by a different mother, the lord Kokkili, for six months. For thirty-seven years his brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III).
V
Then Vijayāditya (I) was king for eighteen years. Then Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana III) became ¿the lord of all?1 for thirty-six [years].
VI
His son Vijayāditya (II) known as Narendramr̥garāṭ, [reigned for] forty and eight years like the Vatsa king.2
VII
Who, having fought against the armies of the Gaṅgas and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas (raṭṭa), had a hundred and eight Śiva temples built, according to the number of those battles, for the expulsion of the (accrued) sin.3
VIII
His son of prominent valour, Kali Viṣṇuvardhana, with a face like a lotus, [was] king for a year and a half.
IX
His son Vijayāditya (III), resembling a sun of triumph (vijayāditya), ruled the earth for forty years and four.
X
[Born] from his younger brother the prince (yuvarāja) named Vikramāditya, the peerless (nirupama) King (nr̥pa) Bhīma—a torrential gale to whom enemy hosts were but fluff—became for thirty years the ruler, the fame of the host of whose innate virtues pervaded the circle of the compass.
XI
After him his son Vijayāditya (IV) was king for six months, defeating in battle with [just] one elephant of his own the overlords of Kaliṅga mounted on hosts of elephants, generously ascending the beam of a balance scale furnished with bright gold,4 and commissioning a victory pillar representing his reputation in Viraja.
XII
His son Ammarāja (I) was in turn king for seven years, he who ascended the balance scale of gold that gladdens the populace.5
XIII
His son Vijayāditya (V) became the ruler for a fortnight. Then King Tāḻapa of enviable valour [reigned] in turn for a month.
XIV
The son of Bhīma (I) and the younger brother of King Vijayāditya (IV) by a different mother, [namely] King Vikramāditya, protected [the land] for a year.
XV
When Yuddhamalla seized the [royal] turban, the provincial lords (sāmanta), a host of tribesmen (śabara), an army dispatched by the overlord of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas (raṭṭa), and other nefarious groups pretending to be lords (prabhavaḥ*iva) ransacked the land, shaking off [royal authority?].6

(30) Eradicating them, the greatly powerful and valiant

XVI
son of Vijayāditya (IV) [and] brother of Ammarāja (I) by a different mother, [namely] King Bhīma, [now] dons the ancestral turban (of royalty).
XVII
“Between his arms is Royal Fortune (śrī), [and] within his arm, which has the might of a serpent lord, resides the grand Majesty of Heroes (vīra-lakṣmī)”—so [speaking], as it were, the damsel that is his reputation, making herself at home up to the ends of the horizons, beguiles even [his] enemies.
XVIII
He who struck down Dhaḻadim-munniṟiva and Rājamārtaṇḍa in battle;7 the dust arising from whose troops is a means of rescue for enemy kings.8

(35–39) He who is moreover the resting place of the three (royal) powers (śakti-traya) like Śiva {is the abode of three Śaktis},9 who is the lord of Majesty like Nārāyaṇa (Viṣṇu) {is the husband of Lakṣmī}, who is a springhead of conciliation (sāman) like Brahmā {is the source of sāman hymns}—that shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja) and Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka), His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana (Bhīma II) convokes the householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Śakaṭamanthanī district (viṣaya) and commands them as follows:

(39–49) In the majestic Haihaya lineage, which is comparable to the Milk Ocean, was born one called Poleyana-rāja, endowed with honour, purity and respectability, with abundant valour in his own arm. His son of incomparable virtue, taking after his father, was Nannaka-rāja. The dear son of that king (nr̥pati) and of Āytakāmbā, the dear daughter of Atiratha Dhavala, is Candyana-rāja. To him, a resident of Hastinapura arising from the Haihaya lineage which is the supreme sovereign of the Gaṅgā (region), the Pāriyātra (mountains) and the city of Māhiṣmatī, ¿who is resplendent with the man’s head, the mirror, the banner, the proclamation (or sound) of māḻpare and eulogy?10 we (Bhīma II), having defeated the [totality of] petty kings such as Mārtaṇḍa, Pitāmaha, Vikramāditya and Yuddhamalla, on the occasion of [his, Candyana’s] staunchness in that [campaign], have given the village named Varaṇaveṇḍī, converted into a rent-free holding (mānya) by a remission of all taxes, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water. Let this be known to you.

(49–51) Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, Penuṁbaṟṟu. To the south, Penuṁballi. To the west, Velmaṭūrū. To the north, Dāramapalli.

(51–57) The boundaries of the field [are as follows].11 To the east, a great ¿dried-up? tamarind tree. To the southeast, pṟemulapaḍugakaṟiti nallaṁ jinta. To the south, goraga pannasa. To the southwest, a nūjjūṁ tamarind tree at the triple boundary juncture. To the west, Ṟolivāyu. To the northwest, a great tamarind tree at the triple boundary juncture. To the north, the boundary is none other than the boundary of Dāramapalli. To the northeast, niduva paduga. Let no-one pose an obstacle (to his enjoyment of his rights) over it. He who does so shall go to hell, conjoined with the five great sins. So too has the reverend Vyāsa said:

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

(59–60) Who, on the other hand, protects it, shall partake of the fruit of heaven. So too it is said:

XX
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.
XXI
Over and over again, Rāmabhadra begs all these future rulers: “Each in your own time, you shall respect this bulwark of legality that is universally applicable to kings!”
XXII
Hereby I offer my respectful obeisance (añjali) to [all] future kings on earth, [whether] born in my lineage or a different royal lineage, who with minds averted from sin observe this provision (dharma) of mine in its integrity.

Commentary

The findspot is said to be Korukoṇḍa in the ARIE report, while according to SR’s edition, it was the village Muramanda (also spelt Muramunda).

Subba Rao claims that the grant was issued by Bhīma III, but publishes neither facsimiles nor even an edition of the text that would substantiate this, starting his edition on 3 verso, where all we learn is that the issuer is a Viṣṇuvardhana. For the preceding text, all the information he releases is that “The Chalukya Genealogy … given in this Copper plate Grant up to the accession of the Donor King Bhima, known as Bhima, the third, tallies from second plate, first side to third plate, first side with that of this same King, Published by me”. The publication he refers to is the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king (Subba Rao 1945–1946), which he believes mentions Bhīma III at the end of its extant text. The mention of Bhīma III there has always seemed unlikely and a result of wishful thinking on Subba Rao’s part, and can now be rejected with fair confidence in light of the Kōḻūru grant of Bhīma II. Now that the parts of the present grant that Subba Rao withheld have been studied, it is beyond a shadow of doubt that the present grant was issued by Bhīma II.

This grant, especially its versified king list and the description of the reigning king, bears many similarities to the Penuṁbulugu grant of Amma I, and may have been issued early in Bhīma II’s reign.

Bibliography

Reported in Narasimhaswami and Gai 1966, p. 35, appendices A/1961-62, № 2 with description at Narasimhaswami and Gai 1966, p. 6, § 2. Partially edited12 from the original (before the ARIE report) by R. Subba Rao (1956–1958), with a summary of the contents, without facsimiles. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photos taken by myself at the Eluru Archaeological Museum in 2023, collated with Subba Rao’s edition where available. Inconsequential, presumably typographic mistakes in the latter have been ignored for the apparatus.

Primary

[SR] Subba Rao, R. 1956–1958. “Varana Vendi copper-plate grant of the Eastern Chalukyan king Bhima III.” JAHRS 24, pp. 149–152.

Secondary

Narasimhaswami, H. K. and G. S. Gai. 1966. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for 1961-62. n.p.: Ootacamund. Page 35, appendixes A/1961-62, item 2.

Narasimhaswami, H. K. and G. S. Gai. 1966. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for 1961-62. n.p.: Ootacamund. Page 6, section 2.

Notes

  1. 1. The text is incorrect here and the intended meaning not quite certain; see the apparatus to line 12.
  2. 2. The Vatsa king intended here is probably Udayana.
  3. 3. We learn from the Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III and the Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III that this is specifically about the sin ensuing from his battles.
  4. 4. That is, donating his own weight in gold.
  5. 5. The second hemistich is rather awkward and I am not sure that my interpretation matches the intent of the composer. I construe hema-tulā to be the subject (logical object) of the passive participle ārūḍhā and to be qualified by -abhinandanī.
  6. 6. The stanza is awkwardly composed and difficult to parse. I feel certain that gr̥hīta-paṭṭe yuddhamalle is a locative absolute. The main verb is clearly vyālumpan, whose object must be bhuvam, but avadhūya has no explicit object, so “control,” “authority,” “fetters” or the like must be understood. A further difficulty is presented by prabhava iva, which may involve the singular noun prabhava, but I think the plural of prabhu fits the context better. I then take the phrase with iva adjectivally rather than adverbially, because I do not think “ransacked like lords” was the composer’s intent.
  7. 7. The identity of these enemies is uncertain. It seems from the present text that Dhaḻadim-munniṟiva is a single person, which may or may not be the case in the only other testimony of these words in stanza 3 of the Kolaveṇṇu plates of Bhīma II. Rājamārtaṇḍa is mentioned in several grants as one of the pretenders defeated by Bhīma II, and the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II records in the same context a Dhaḻaga, who may be identical to Dhaḻadi(m), and is listed together with Rājamayya, who is probably Rājamārtaṇḍa.
  8. 8. The idea here is that Bhīma’s enemies dare not confront him, but the dust clouds beaten up by his armies give them an expedient screen behind which they can scoot to safety.
  9. 9. The reference may be to Śiva’s icchā-śakti, jñāna-śakti and kriyā-śakti.
  10. 10. This is probably a list of insignia and/or privileges to which Candyana is entitled. The word māḻpare may perhaps denote a musical instrument or be an epithet.
  11. 11. I can only translate the Telugu boundary description partially and tentatively.
  12. 12. The edition only gives the text from the beginning of 3v onward, even though the preceding text would be essential in establishing Subba Rao’s claim that these plates were issued by Bhīma III. See also the commentary.