na bhūtaṁ na bhavi
Plates
- -bhuvanābhiṣṭūyamāna-
+ -bhuvanābhiṣṭūyamāna-
-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-
- This combination is to my knowledge unique. Most Eastern Cālukya plates use bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna, two grants of Maṅgi Yuvarāja use jagad-abhiṣṭūyamāna, while the [Cendaṟa grant of Jayasiṁha II](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00060.xml) has [jagada-saṁstuyamāna] (sic).
+ This combination is to my knowledge unique. Most Eastern Cālukya plates use bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna. The form jagad-abhiṣṭūyamāna occurs in some grants of Maṅgi Yuvarāja and Viṣṇuvardhana II. There are also corrupt hybrids: the [Cendaṟa grant of Jayasiṁha II](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00060.xml) has [jagada-saṁstuyamāna] (sic), and the [Pamiḍimukkala plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00088.xml) have sakala-bhūvana-jāgad-abhiṣṭūyamāna-.
-samuditendoḥ
@@ -186,25 +187,34 @@ n="3v"/>
priya-bhrātuānujasya
priyāṇnujasya
- KR clearly read ṇu because of the ā marker of the earlier character that was overstruck, but not visibly deleted.
+ KR clearly read ṇu because of the ā marker of the earlier character that was partly hammered out and overstruck.
+
+
+ -Indra-
+ -Indra-
+ There is no room at the bottom of the place for a subscript r. The tail of the subscript d seems to be extended somewhat to the right, which may have been meant to indicate that r.
-sa
ṁghaṭṭo
- This is not clear in the estampage, but according to KR, the anusvāra is above gha.
+ I accept KR's opinion that the anusvāra is above gha on the next page. The small circular mark there may, however, be just an artefact created in raising the rim.
priya-
- The subscript r seems to have been deleted and re-engraved at a shallower depth to make room below for the i of °kyādi.
+ The subscript r seems to have been deleted and re-engraved at a shallower depth to make room below for the i of -ādi.
Ānviīkṣiky-
Anvīkṣiky-
- Anviīkṣiky-
+ Aṇviīkṣiky-
- -pra
yogeṣu
+ -pra
yogeṣu
-pra
yoga-śeṣaḥ
+
+ -dhārā-namita-ripu-
+ -dhārā-ripu-
+
°ta-chcaraṇa-
°tāruṇa-pāda-
@@ -215,44 +225,57 @@ n="3v"/>
-brahmacāriṇe
-sabrahmacāriṇe
+
+ venneśarmmaṇaḥ
+ vennaśarmmaṇaḥ
+ The ARIE report also reads the name as Venneśarman. The e is certainly present on the second character. I am not at all sure that a subscript consonant is present. The plate is badly corroded there, so there may have been something, but I see nothing that could be identified with confidence as a vestige.
+
- pūrva-diśāyāṁ
-Uttarataḥ
- KR’s two editions print this passage with several different and irrelevant variations, which I see no reason to cite in detail. The received reading is as given here; see the commentary for my interpretation on the basis of which I hyphenate and punctuate.
+ vālmīka
+ Throughout the two lists of boundaries, I refrain from supplying endings for the names of features. KR does supply (or, in some cases, read) masuline nominative endings here, but my impression is that none are present in the original, and some of the words ought to be neuter rather than masculine. I attribute the lack of endings to non-standard usage of nouns in the stem form, not a scribal error, nor precisely a grammatical error of the composer. It is also possible that the nouns were intended to be in compound, for which see the commentary.
- jaḷlaśr̥ṁghga
- jaṭaśr̥ṁgha
- KR explicitly mentions this improved reading in his introduction to his revised edition. I agree with the improvement.
+ jaḷla-śrir̥ṁghga
+ jaḷa-śrir̥ṁghgaḥ
+ jaṭa-śrir̥ṁghga
+ KR explicitly mentions this improved reading in his introduction to his revised edition. While ḷa is perfectly clear, the preceding character is entirely lost to corrosion, which KR's second edition does not admit. Given the perfectly clear instance in line 19 and a differently damaged instance in line 19-20, the restoration is nonetheless sound. KR further notes that Sanskrit jala-śr̥ṁga is a mirror translation of Telugu nīṭi-kommu, which he explains as a blind arm of a water course
, elaborating that it is an extension of a tank or a natural body of water, which fills up only in the rainy season, and is a feature often seen at village boundaries in this part of the Andhra country. Although the interpretation assumes two non-standard spellings, writing ḷa for la is quite common in the corpus, and gha for ga occurs occasionally, including veṁghi in line 16 of the present inscription. I therefore think KR's reading and interpretation are both correct.
- Etac-catur-avadhi
+ Etatc-catur-avadhi
Etetaiś catur-avadhi
Etetaiś catur-udadhi-
-
- -kkhaṇḍikā-kodrava-
- -kkhaṇḍi-kodrava-
- The character kā is partly eaten by the binding hole but is still visible to the left of it.
-
- -kṣetraṁ.
- KR prints the anusvāra as original. He suggests adding api ca or an equivalent at this point to clarify that a second field was also given. I agree with that interpretation but do not think the scribe omitted anything here.
+ -kkhaṇḍikā-kodrava-
+ -kkhaṇḍi-kodrava-
+ The character kā is partly eaten by the binding hole but is still recognisable to the left of it.
- -diśāyāṁ mūlāṁbu-
+ -diśāyāṁ mūlāṁbu-
-diśāyām kulyābu-
-diśāṁyāmbu-
- I show KR's readings and emendations as printed in his editions. I believe that in his second edition his intended emendation may have been -diśāyāṁ Ambu-. I think mūlāṁbu is reasonably clear and requires no emendation.
+ KR's second edition probably has a typo here; his intent may have been to emend to -diśāyāṁ Ambu-. I think the character mū is reasonably clear. I am not at all certain that an ā was present on la. The anusvāra is above and to the right of bu.
- mūlāṁbu-ta
-Uttarataḥ
- KR’s two editions print this passage with several different and irrelevant variations, which I see no reason to cite in detail. The received reading is as given here; see the commentary for my interpretation on the basis of which I hyphenate and punctuate.
+ -ta
dhṭākaṁ
+ -ta
rṭākaḥ
+ The first character in line 19 is much too broad to be r, but it is a fairly plausible dh, which may in turn be the engraver's misrecognition of a pre-drawn ṭ.
- colivinti-
+ colivinthi-
vāliviṇṭi
coliviṇṭi
- The subscript component is not a typical t, but it is definitely not ṭ. The principal consonant is certainly n.
+ KR notes that his reading coliviṇṭi is the Telugu genitive singular of the name Coliviṇṇu, and locates a modern village by this name near Eluru. Nonetheless, the correct reading of the last character is beyond doubt nthi. I do not know if this is a plausible genitive, perhaps of Colivinnu. A possible parallel formation is muttinthi-boya in the [Reyūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00012.xml).
+
+
+ jaḷla-
+ jaṭa-
+
+
+ jaḷla-
śrir̥ṁghgha
+ jaṭa-śrir̥ṁghga
+ As in line 17 above, the reading ja is problematic. The locus is not as badly damaged, but the extant strokes are difficult to interpret. Correction may have been involved both on this character and on the following ḷa. Given the clear instance earlier in this line, I agree with KR that jaḷa must have been intended.
Etac-catur-
@@ -268,10 +291,11 @@ n="3v"/>
-nimittaṁ Udaka-
- parihāreṇa pravarddhamāna-
+ parihāreṇa pravarddhamāna-
-parihopa va
-parihare pa va
+ My restoration is not entirely certain given that it also requires the restitution of an omitted syllable and an omitted subscript r. There is, however, no other solution I can come up with that is even remotely plausible in the context. Given the end of the next line, it is quite certain that three characters are lost at the edge of the plate here.
daśa meṣe
@@ -306,7 +330,7 @@ n="3v"/>
Plates
Greetings. From the ocean that is the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world,The standard phrase “who are sons of Hāritī” was probably omitted by the scribe here., who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who acquired the superior Boar emblem by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions avabhr̥tha of the Aśvamedha sacrifice—had arisen a moon who was His Majesty King mahārāja Jayasiṁha Vallabha I, who earned his great good reputation by his political acumen naya, discipline vinaya and valour. His dear younger brother was Indra Bhaṭṭāraka whose valour equalled Indra’s. His son was His Majesty King mahārāja Viṣṇuvardhana II, who perfumed the complete circle of the quarters with pleasant fragrance from the efflorescence of his glory achieved by martial victory attained in the clash of many a battle. His dear son, His Majesty King mahārāja Sarvalokāśraya Maṅgi Yuvarāja, who surpasses the virtues of his father, who is endowed with the three powers, who is His Majesty Vijayasiddhi prevailing in victory in demonstrations of sciences such as critical investigation ānvīkṣikī and whose pair of feet are tinted by the hues of the rays from the many gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of prominent enemy kings bowed down by the blade of his sword, commands thus.
-
On the occasion of the annaprāśa ceremony of (prince) Viṣṇuvardhana I have given, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water, to Śrīdharaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra and the Taittirīya school, a resident of Ayyavoḷu, grandson of Viṣṇuśarman and son of Vennaśarman, a field comprising an area sufficient for sowing twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed in the Veṁgi district, at the village named Elūru, in the eastern direction of that village, delimited by these four boundaries: To the east of a termite mound.Or perhaps the composer’s intent was “to the east of Elūru,” see the commentary. Also see the commentary about my interpretation of the boundary lists. To the south of a termite mound. To the west of a termite mound. To the north of a backwater.I accept Krishna Rao’s (109) very plausible explanation of jala-śr̥ṁga, literally “water-horn,” as an oxbow lake or the backwater of a river. He further observes that the term is a mirror translation of Telugu nīṭi-kommu, which he explains as a “blind arm of a water course.” Furthermore, another field comprising an area sufficient for sowing twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed in the northern direction of the village Elūru, delimited by these four boundaries: to the east of the Mūlāṁbu pond. To the south of a backwater. To the west of the border of Colivinnu.KR mentions that his reading coliviṇṭi is the genitive singular of the name Coliviṇṇu. His reading (or his printing) is incorrect (see the apparatus to line 19), but I assume that the grammar works likewise with the correct reading. To the north of a backwater. Furthermore, a homestead plot together with a flower garden. All these were donated with an exemption from all taxes, in the tenth year of the progressive triumphant reign in the solar month of Aries.This reading is problematic and may very well be wrong; see the apparatus to line 22.
+
On the occasion of the annaprāśa ceremony of prince Viṣṇuvardhana, I have given, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water, to Śrīdharaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra and the Taittirīya school, a resident of Ayyavoḷu, grandson of Viṣṇuśarman and son of Venneśarman, a field comprising an area sufficient for sowing twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed in the Veṁgi district, at the village named Elūru, in the eastern direction of that village, delimited by these four boundaries: To the east of a termite mound.Or perhaps the composer’s intent was “to the east of Elūru,” see the commentary. Also see the commentary about my interpretation of the boundary lists. To the south of a termite mound. To the west of a termite mound. To the north of a backwater.I accept Krishna Rao’s (109) very plausible explanation of jala-śr̥ṁga, literally “water-horn,” as an oxbow lake or the backwater of a river. He further observes that the term is a mirror translation of Telugu nīṭi-kommu, which he explains as a “blind arm of a water course.” Furthermore, another field comprising an area sufficient for sowing twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed in the northern direction of the village Elūru, delimited by these four boundaries: to the east of the Mūlāṁbu pond. To the south of a backwater. To the west of the border of Colivinnu.KR mentions that his reading coliviṇṭi is the genitive singular of the name Coliviṇṇu. His reading (or his printing) is incorrect (see the apparatus to line 19), but I assume that the grammar works likewise with the correct reading. To the north of a backwater. Furthermore, a homestead plot together with a flower garden. All these were donated with an exemption from all taxes, in the tenth year of the progressive triumphant reign in the solar month of Aries.This reading is problematic and may very well be wrong; see the apparatus to line 22.
There has never been and will never be a gift superior to the gift of land, nor has there ever been or will ever be a sin superior to the seizing of the same.
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by anotherThe text ends abruptly here.
-
Concerning the problematic boundary lists in lines 16-17 and 18-20, it seems most likely to me that in this case, unusually, the boundaries are listed not in the form “direction: X”, i.e. “in the said direction, the boundary is X”, but in the form “X-direction”, i.e. “the donated land is in the said direction of X”. I hyphenate and punctuate with this interpretation in mind. KR supplies visargas and punctuation assuming that the formula is “X direction”, i.e. “X is in the said direction of the donated land.” This interpretation cannot be excluded, but does not seem to occur in related grants. The formula I propose here seems to be employed in the [Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00016.xml), where it likewise follows a statement of the field’s location with respect to the village. There, however, the directions come in the order west–north–south–east, thereby strongly implying that each item is to be understood along the lines of “the land is in the said direction of X”, whereby the traditional east–south–west–north order obtains. That grant, incidentally, is the only other Eastern Cālukya charter that I know of to use termite mounds as boundary markers. A similar formula is used in the [Nutulapaṟu Grant](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00014.xml) in a complex and problematic desctiption, and in the [Kopparam plates of Pulakeśin II](CalE04-Kopparam-Pulakesin.xml) and the [Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00056.xml), where the landmarks are in the ablative (thus excluding any other interpretation), but the physical order is still east–south–west–north, so the logical order (in which the landmarks are listed with respect to the donated land) is west–north–south–east. This is of course also the case in the present grant, if the interpretation I propose is correct. One more item of importance here is that one or more of the valmīkas in the boundary list may be a scribal mistake for Elūra, which looks very similar. I feel fairly certain, given my interpretation, that this is true of the first valmīka, since I expect the village Elūra to be to the west of the field. Indeed, this instance of the word is quite unclear and may have been mistakenly corrected by the scribe from Elūra. The later instances, valmīki and vālmī, are clear, but that does not necessarily mean they are not erroneous (although I do not think the land could be bounded both on the west and on the east by the village).
+
Concerning the problematic boundary lists in lines 16-17 and 18-20, it seems most likely to me that in this case, unusually, the boundaries are listed not in the form “direction: X”, i.e. “in the said direction, the boundary is X”, but in the form “X-direction”, i.e. “the donated land is in the said direction of X”. I hyphenate and punctuate with this interpretation in mind. KR supplies visargas and punctuation assuming that the formula is “X direction”, i.e. “X is in the said direction of the donated land.” This interpretation cannot be excluded, but does not seem to occur in related grants. The formula I propose here seems to be employed in the [Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00016.xml), where it likewise follows a statement of the field’s location with respect to the village. There, however, the directions come in the order west–north–south–east, thereby strongly implying that each item is to be understood along the lines of “the land is in the said direction of X”, whereby the traditional east–south–west–north order obtains. That grant, incidentally, is the only other Eastern Cālukya charter that I know of to use termite mounds as boundary markers. A similar formula is used in the [Nutulapaṟu Grant](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00014.xml) in a complex and problematic desctiption, and in the [Kopparam plates of Pulakeśin II](CalE04-Kopparam-Pulakesin.xml) and the [Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II](DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00056.xml), where the landmarks are in the ablative (thus excluding any other interpretation), but the physical order is still east–south–west–north, so the logical order (in which the landmarks are listed with respect to the donated land) is west–north–south–east. This is of course also the case in the present grant, if the interpretation I propose is correct. One more item of importance here is that one or more of the valmīkas in the boundary list may be a scribal mistake for Elūra, which looks very similar. I feel fairly certain, given my interpretation, that this is true of the first valmīka, since I expect the village Elūra to be to the west of the field.
-
Reported in 7A/1937-386 with description at 80-8141. Edited from the original by B. V. Krishna Rao (), with a summary of the contents, followed immediately by a slight revision () accompanied by facsimiles. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Krishna Rao's edition with his facsimiles. Minor typographic mistakes and oversights in either of the previous editions are not shown in the apparatus here.
+
Reported in 7A/1937-386 with description at 80-8141. Edited from the original by B. V. Krishna Rao (), with a summary of the contents, followed immediately by a slight revision () accompanied by facsimiles.The inscription has also been published in Bhārati, Vol. XVI, pp. 613 ff., not traced. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs of the original taken by myself in February 2023 at the Rallabandi Subba Rao Archaeological Museum, Rajahmundry, collated with Krishna Rao's editions and his facsimiles. Minor typographic mistakes and oversights in either of the previous editions are not shown in the apparatus here.