From c66dc65a169b82199e8766e1591522766f51732c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?D=C3=A1niel=20Balogh?= <31253927+danbalogh@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 17:45:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Collated estampages --- .../DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00022.xml | 162 ++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-) diff --git a/xml-provisional/DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00022.xml b/xml-provisional/DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00022.xml index 31b6248e..e2f506e6 100644 --- a/xml-provisional/DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00022.xml +++ b/xml-provisional/DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00022.xml @@ -55,7 +55,6 @@ -

Halantas. M in l22 uktaM: wholly indistinct, possibly a simple tick mark with a long vertical stem; l26 pautrikaM also indistinct, looks like a visarga, probably a tick with a long vertical stem.

Original punctuation. The only punctuation mark is at the very end; from the facsimile it could be a double dot, but Narasimhaswami describes it as "two strokes, one above the other" and I assume he is correct.

@@ -110,80 +110,76 @@ n="1r"/> sarvvākāram aśeṣāasya -jagatas sarvvadā śivaṁ -go-brāhmaṇāa-nr̥pānṇāñ ca +n="1"/>sarvvākāram aśeṣāasya +jagatas sarvvadā śivaṁ +go-brāhmaṇāa-nr̥pāṇaāñ ca śivaṁ bhāavatu sarvvataḥ +n="2"/>śivaṁ bhāavatu sarvvataḥ -

-svastai. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstuūyamāna-māsvastai. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstuūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśīikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mmātr̥-gaṇa-paripālīitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samaāsaādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tāṁrāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥ttha-snāna-pavitriīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ +n="6" break="no"/>tāṁrāti-maṇḍalānām aśvamedhāvabhr̥ttha-snāna-pavitriīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ samadhigatāśeṣoa-mahāśabdānām paḍa-ḍhakkā-pāhḷi-ketana-śvetātapatra-mivījyamānagatāśeṣoa-mahāśabdānām paḍa-ḍhakkā-pāhḷi-ketana-śvetātapatra-mivījyamāna-cāmara-kalāpa-gopura-dvārobhaya-pārśva-pratiṣṭhāpita-gaṁgā-yamunānāṁ cālukyānām anvaye -bhacāmara-kalāpa-gopura-dvārobhaya-pārśva-pratiṣṭhāpita-gaṁgā-yamunānāṁ cālukyānām anvaye pr̥thivī-vallabha-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvaraḥ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ parama-māheśvaraḥ mātaā-pitr̥-pādānuddhyātas sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājaḥ tasya suta vijayāditya-mahārājasya putraputreṇa kali-viṭṭaranamananāmenanāmnā śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājñāmahārājena nagara-sahitena liṁga-pratiṣṭhāṁ kr̥tvā vijayavāṭa-pure tasyatasmai nagareśvara-bhaṭṭārakaāya Aṣṭottara-śata-khaṇḍikā-kodravāvāpa-kṣetraṁ kāśyapa-gotra-droṇakuṟṟa-bhaṭṭa-haste suvāama-māheśvaraḥ mātaā-pitr̥-pādānudhyaātas sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājaḥ tasya suta vijayāditya-mahārājasya putra kali-viṭṭara-namana śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājñāmahārājena nagara-sahitena liṁga-pratiṣṭhāṁ kr̥tvā vijayavāṭa-pure tasyatasmai nagareśvara-bhaṭṭārakaāya Aṣṭottara-śata-khaṇḍikā-kodravāvāpa-kṣetraṁ kāśyapa-gotra-droṇakuṟṟa-bhaṭṭa-haste suvāarṇṇaṁ dattadattvā gr̥hītvā dattaṁ. Ujjayāinyāṁ gaṁgaṟa-guha-vāsino balasoma-bhagavantasyavataḥ śiyṣaśiyṣasya Amr̥tasoma-Ācāryyasya śiyṣaśiyṣāya paśupati-bhavotbhagavat-paādaāya

+n="15" break="no"/>rṇṇaṁ dattadattvā gr̥hītvā dattaṁ. Ujjayainyāṁ gaṁgaṟa-guhaā-vāsino balasoma-bhagavantasyavataḥ śiyṣaśiyṣasya Amr̥tasoma-Ācāryyasya śiyṣaśiyṣāya paśupati-bhagavoat-paādaāya

kaṇḍeṟuvāḍi-viṣaya-vāsinaḥ rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas sarvvaān ittham ājñāpayati. viditam astu vo ’smābhiḥ Uttarāyaṇa-nimitte sodaka-pūrvvaṁ sarvva-kara-parihāraṁ kr̥tvā dattaṁ

-

tasyāvadhayaḥ. pūrvvataḥ mahā-pathaḥ. dakṣinataḥ mahaā-pathaḥ. paścimataḥ mahā-pathaḥ. Uttāarataḥ ciṇṭhaguṇṭhīpunna nāma grāmaḥ.

+n="17"/>kaṇḍeṟuvāṭi-viṣaya-vāsinaḥ rāṣṭrakuūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas sarvvaān ittham ājñāpayati. viditam astu vo ’smābhiḥ Uttarāyaṇa-nimitte sodaka-pūrvvaṁ sarvva-kara-parihāraṁ

+

tasyāvadhayaḥ. pūrvvataḥ mahā-pathaḥ. dakṣinataḥ mahaā-pathaḥ. paścimataḥ mahaā-pathaḥ. Uttāarataḥ cintaguṇṭhīa punna nāma grāmaḥ.

Asyopari na kenacid bādhā karaṇīyā. yaḥ karoti sa pañca-mahāpāAsyopari na kenacid bādhā karaṇīyā. yaḥ karoti sa pañca-mahāpātaka-saṁyukto bhavati. vyāsenāpy uktaM

+n="22" break="no"/>taka-saṁyukto bhavati. vyāsenāpy uktā

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasya yadā bhūmis -tasya tasya tadā phpalam +tasya tasya tadā phpalaṁ sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā -yo hareta vasuṁndharāṁ -ṣaṣṭiṁ vvarṣa-sahasraāṇi -viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyayo hareta vasundharāṁ +ṣaṣṭiṁ varṣa-sahasraāṇi +viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ -na viṣaṁ viṣam ity āhuḥ -deva-svaṁ viṣam ucyate +na viṣaṁ viṣam ity āhuḥ +deva-svaṁ viṣam ucyate viṣam ekākinaṁ hanti -deva-svaṁ putra-pautrikaM +deva-svaṁ putra-pautrikaṁ Ājñaptir asya dharmmasya -viṣṇuvarddhana-mātulāaḥ +viṣṇuvarddhana-maātulāo vikramaākraānta-bhū-cakreo vikramāditya-bhūpatiḥ - -nagareśvara-bhaṭṭāra --tāmra-saśānaśāsana-saśānaśāsanamaM -raāmaācaāryyeṇālikhitaṁ -nakgareśvara-bhaṭṭārakāya. - +

nagareśvara-bhaṭṭāra-taāmāra-saśānaśāsanaṁ saśānaśāsanaṁ maramaācaāryyaeṇālikhitaṁ +nakgareśvara-bhaṭṭārakaāya. +

@@ -201,16 +197,13 @@ n="3v"/> aśeṣasya - -nr̥pānṇāñ + -nr̥pāṇaāñ -nr̥pānaṇāñ - - bhāavatu - bhāavatu - hārīti- hāritī- + The distinction between i and ī is minimal; HKN may be right, or both vowels may be short. kauśīikī- @@ -229,15 +222,10 @@ n="3v"/> °aāṁrāti- Possibly corrected from an erroneous nāṁ to tāṁ. - - °āvabhr̥ttha- - °āvabhr̥ttha- - A small and not very distinct va seems to have been written above the spaca between dhā and bhr̥. A kākapada may also be present. - - -śabdānām paḍa- + -śabdānām paḍa- -śabda-jhaṁpada- - The mark following śabda looks like a visarga but must, in my opinion, be a damaged ā marker. Narasimhaswami's jhaṁ can be excluded. The word I read as paḍa may perhaps be paṭa, but paḍa is the reading in several related passages, for which see the commentary. I assume the word to be synonymous to paṭaha. + For paḍa, see also the commentary. I assume the word to be synonymous to paṭaha. -pāhḷi- @@ -245,18 +233,17 @@ n="3v"/> The inscribed h is in all probability a scribal error for the similar-looking ḷ, which could in turn be regularised to l. See also the commentary for related passages. - -mivījyamāna - I adopt Narasimhaswami's emendation with some misgivings, but without any better suggestion. The character read as j may possibly be ṣ. + -mivījyamāna + The correction of m to v may have been made in the original; at least, the next character is very close to the right limb of the m, which implies that this limb is to be ignored. - -dvārobhaya- - -dvārobhayaro- - The consonants are all clear, but there is probably only one vowel marker between dv and r (i.e. dvaro or dvārā was probably inscribed). + bhacāmara- + cāmara- -yamunānāṁ cālukyānām anvaye -yamunā - I tentatively supply what I think must have been omitted by the scribe, though the words intended by the composer may have been different. See also the commentary for some thoughts on this passage. + I tentatively supply what is certainly missing from the passage, but the intended words may have been different, and a longer phrase may have been omitted. See also the commentary for some thoughts on this passage. -lokāśraya- @@ -267,30 +254,58 @@ n="3v"/> tasya suta vijayāditya-mahārājasya Understand tasya sutasya vijayāditya-mahārājasya or tasya suto vijayāditya-mahārājas tasya. - - namananāmenanāmnā - I assume that the non-standard form nāmena was intended, and may in fact have been inscribed with a small ā attached to the top of n and a small e attached to the body of m. + + putra kali-viṭṭaranamana + I assume that putreṇa and the non-standard form nāmena was intended, and a small e marker may in fact be attached to the body of m. Alternatively, the intent may have been putraḥ kali-viṭṭara-nāmā tena. + + + Ujjayainyāṁ + Ujjayāinyā + + + kaṇḍeṟuvāṭi- + kaṇḍeṟuvāḍi- - -parihāraṁ kr̥tvā dattaṁ - Narasimhaswami restores parihāraḥ kr̥taḥ here and suggests a series of emendations to make coherent sentences in which the king is the explicit subject of ājñāpayati and the implicit agent of this sentence. + -parihāraṁ + Narasimhaswami restores parihāraḥ kr̥taḥ here and suggests a series of emendations to make coherent sentences in which the king is the explicit subject of ājñāpayati and the implicit agent of this sentence. The intended meaning is clearly along those lines, but the structure of the entire passage is too garbled. Uttāarataḥ There may have been a second vowel marker on the left of ttā (which would thus have been tto), and the marker on the left may have been deleted by a series of small cross-strokes. It is even possible that datto was first inscribed instead of Utta. - ciṇṭhaguṇṭhīpunna + cintaguṇṭhīa punna cintaguṇṭipunta + It is clear in the original estampage that the ī marker has been crosshatched. I am confident of my reading except for the consonant for which I accept HKN's p, but which is indistinct (m? v? dh? ṣ?) and may have been corrected. grāmaḥ - From the facsimile, the text in fact looks more like grame, but I give the engraver (and Narasimhaswami) the benefit of doubt. + The ā seems to be attached to the following m, but since it extends down to the baseline, which e rarely does, I choose to read it as ā on gr. + + + uktā + uktaM + Understand, with HKN, uktam; or uktāḥ ślokāḥ may have been intended. vikramaākraānta- vikrama-hrakrānta- - Narasimhaswami's reading of h insted of k is probably a typo in his edition; the character is clear. + Narasimhaswami's reading of h insted of k is probably a typo in his edition; the character is fairly clear. + + + nagareśvara- + The passage beginning here may have been intended for another anuṣṭubh stanza and was taken as such by HKN. See also the commentary. + + + -taāmāra + tāmra- + I have no better suggestion than to assume that tāmra- was intended here, but something quite different cannot be excluded, as mā is clear and may even be followed by a final M (although no final consonants occur elsewhere in the text). + + + -saśānaśāsanaṁ saśānaśāsanaṁ maramaācaāryyaeṇālikhitaṁ + -saśānaśāsana- saśānamaśāsanM raāmaācaāryyaeṇālikhitaṁ + I prefer to emend slightly differently than HKN in the first part of this segment; simple dittography is also possible, in which case one of the iterations is to be ignored. However, if the text was indeed meant to be verse, then HKN's emendation is preferable. For the latter part of the segment, note that a Maramācārya was the writer of the Zulakallu plates of Vijayāditya I; he may have been the grandfather of the present Maramācārya. @@ -305,15 +320,14 @@ n="3v"/>

Let all manner of thing always be well for all the world, and let it be well in all regards for cows, Brahmins and kings.

Greetings. In the dynasty of the Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāriti, 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, whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions avabhr̥tha of the Aśvamedha sacrifice, who have attained the five great soundsThe expression pañca-mahāśabda probably refers to being honoured by the sound of five musical instruments, but may also mean five titles beginning with “great”. See 296-2989 for a discussion. and whose insignia of power are the kettledrum paḍa, the hand drum ḍhakkā, the pennant garland pāli-ketana, the rippling cluster of chowries, and images of Gaṅgā and Yamunā stationed on the two sides of the doorway of their ceremonial gate gopura—was born His Majesty King mahārāja Viṣṇuvardhana IV, the supremely pious Emperor mahārājādhirāja and Supreme Lord parameśvara, beloved of the Earth pr̥thivī-vallabha and shelter of all the world sarva-lokāśraya, the supreme devotee of Maheśvara, who was deliberately appointed as heir by his mother and father. His son King mahārāja Vijayāditya II’s son His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana V who is named Kali-Viṭṭara has, jointly with the town assembly nagara, installed a liṅga and has granted land sufficient for sowing a hundred and eight khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed to that deity Nagareśvara Bhaṭṭāraka in the town of Vijayavāṭa, having purchased the land by handing over gold to Droṇakuṟṟa Bhaṭṭa of the Kāśyapa gotra. The donation was made to His Reverence bhavotpadaIntended for bhagavat-pāda or bhavat-pāda. Paśupati, disciple of the preceptor ācārya Amr̥tasoma who was the disciple of His Reverence bhagavanta Balasoma, who lived in the Gaṁgaṟa cave in Ujjayini.

-

Viṣṇuvardhana V commands all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Kaṇḍeṟuvāḍi district viṣaya as follows: let it be known to you that we have given this land with exemption from all taxes on the occasion of the winter solstice, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water.

-

Its boundaries are as follows. To the east, the high road. To the south, the high road. To the west, the high road. To the north, the village named Ciṇṭhaguṇṭhīpunna.

+

Viṣṇuvardhana V commands all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Kaṇḍeṟuvāṭi district viṣaya as follows: let it be known to you that we have given this land with exemption from all taxes on the occasion of the winter solstice, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water.

+

Its boundaries are as follows. To the east, the high road. To the south, the high road. To the west, the high road. To the north, the village named Cintaguṇṭhapunna.

Let no-one pose an obstacle to his enjoyment of his rights over it. He who does so, shall be conjoined with the five great sins. Vyāsa too has said,

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.

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

It is not actual poison that is properly called poison: it is the property of a god that is said to be poison. Poison kills just the one man, while seizing the property of a god destroys his progeny.

The executor ājñapti of this provision dharma is the maternal uncle of Viṣṇuvardhana: King bhūpati Vikramāditya, who has conquered the circle of the earth with his valour.

-

This royal decree śāsana, which is the copperplate charter tāmra-śāsana of Nagareśvara Bhaṭṭāra, was written ālikhita/likhita by Rāmācārya for the sake of Nagareśvara Bhaṭṭāraka. -

+

This copperplate charter tāmra-śāsana of Nagareśvara Bhaṭṭāra is a royal decree śāsana, written ālikhita by Maramācārya for the sake of Nagareśvara Bhaṭṭāraka.

@@ -348,13 +362,13 @@ le seigneur Vikramāditya, dont le vaillance a conquis le cercle de la terre.

For the strange and in all likelihood corrupt passage in lines 7-8, compare grants of the Western Cālukya Vijayāditya, which include some variations of the phrase gaṁgā-yamunā-pāḷi-dhvaja-paḍa-ḍhakkā-mahāśabda-cihnaka-māṇikya-mataṁgajādīn [as things that Vijayāditya conferred on (or acquired for the sake of?) his father], e.g. , lines 23-24 and lines 24-25. Compare also gaṁgā-yamunā-pāḷi-dhvaja-daḍakkādi-paṁca-mahāśabda-cihne in lines 13-14 of an inscription of Pulikeśi I ((). Narasimhaswami cites the parallel dvāri pratiṣṭhāpita-gaṅgā-yamunā-candrāditya-pāli-ketana-samadhigataḥ pañca-mahāśabda from the Sātalūru plates of Vijayāditya III.Narasimhaswami or the Bhāratī editor emends -samadhigataḥ to -samadhigata-, but this is not warranted in that context. The composer of the present inscription probably intended the compound ending with -yamunā in a way similar to my restoration in the edition, though it is also possible that this compound was meant to qualify Viṣṇuvardhana (rather than the dynasty), and was intended to end in something like -lakṣaṇaḥ.

-

In the concluding verse, quarter c may have been intended as a na-vipulā; in addition to the emendations already encoded in the text, emending °ācāryyeṇālikhitaṁ to °ācāryyeṇa likhitaṁ would produce a legitimate na-vipulā. Alternatively, ālikhitaṁ may be deliberate and a bha-vipulā may have been intended, but the initial part of the line does not match that expected in a bha-vipulā with any conceivable emendation. Given the state of the text, the intended wording may also have been something quite different. Further, with no possible way to fit the last quarter to an anuṣṭubh template, the entire text of this "stanza" may in fact have been intended as prose. I -

+

The concluding verse may have been intended for another anuṣṭubh stanza and was taken as such by Naradimhaswami. If so, then quarter c is probably meant to be a na-vipulā or bha-vipulā (but metrically defective in both cases), and I see no possible way to fit the last quarter to an anuṣṭubh template.

+
-

Reported in 14A/1953-19541 with discussion in 2. Discussed before edition by N. Lakshminarayan Rao in Journal of Oriental Research (Madras), vol. 23, p89ff.Not traced; the year is probably 1953; article title and page range not known. Edited (with estampages, no translation) by H. K. Narasimhaswami (). The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Narasimhaswami's text with his facsimiles. +

Reported in 14A/1953-19541 with discussion in 2. Discussed before edition by N. Lakshminarayan Rao in Journal of Oriental Research (Madras), vol. 23, p89ff.Not traced; the year is probably 1953; article title and page range not known. Edited (with estampages, no translation) by H. K. Narasimhaswami (). The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Narasimhaswami's text with his facsimiles and with estampages preserved at the ASI (Mysore).The estampages are accompanied by a Devanagari transcript.