|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
17 Amôghavarsha[1]-Nṛipatu[ṅ]ga-nâm-â[ṁ]kita-[La]kshmîva[lla]bhêndra[2] chandr-
âditya-kâlaṁ-[baraṁ][3] [ma]hâ-Vishṇ[u]va râjyaṁ-bol=uttar-ôttaraṁ[4]
18 râjy-âbhi[vṛi]ddhi sa[l]utt-ire Śaka-nṛipa-kâ[l-â]tîta-saṁvatsara-śata[ṁ]gaḷ=êl-n[ûr-
eṇbhatt-eṇṭa][5]neya Vyaya-[saṁva]tsara[ṁ] pra-
19 [va]rttise [śrî]ma[d-A]môghava[rsha]-Nṛi[pa]tu[ṁ]ga-[nâm-âṁkitanâ vijaya-
râ]jya-pravarddhamâna-saṁvatsa[ra]-
20 [ṅ]gaḷ=ayva[tt-eraḍum=uttar-ô][6]ttaraṁ [râjy-âbhi v ṛ i d d h i[7] s a l ] u [ t t - i ] r e
A[ti]śa[yadha]vaḷa-narê[n]d[ra]-dê[va][8]-prasâda[dind=A]-
21 môgha[varsha]-dêva-p[â]dapa[ṁ]kaja-[bhra]mara[ṁ] viśishṭa-ja[n-âśra y a n = a ] p p a
śrîmad-Dêvaṇṇayyaṁ Beḷvo[la]-
22 mûnûruman=âḷuttuṁ Anni[9]gereyoḷ=ire â[ta]na ma[y]du[naṁ] Kulappayya[ṁ][10]
Muḷgunda-pa-
23 nneraḍuman=âḷutt-ire ta[d-a]ntarggata[11]-Jyêshṭa[12]-mâsada kṛish[ṇ]a-pakshad=
amâseyu[ṁ][13] sûryya-graha-
24 ṇamum=âgi[14] Ku[lappa]yya[ṁ]-binnapa[ṁ]-g[e]yye Dêvaṇṇayya[ṁ] Amôgha-
varshadêvaroḷ râja(?jâ)-śrâ-
25 vitaṁ-mâḍi tad-anuma[ta]dind=irvvoruṁ mâtâ[pi]tṛi . . . . . . [15]m-â[r]thaṁ
[p]uṇyam=âg[iy=â] grahaṇado[ḷ]
26 Nîrggundada nûr-irppadiṁbaruṁ mahâjanada kâ[la]ṁ kalchi tuppa-dereya[ṁ]
sa-bhôga-sâda(dha)-
27 kam-âgi biṭṭo[r] [||*] Î dharmmama[ṁ k]âdoṁ Vâraṇâsiyuḷ sûryya-grahaṇadoḷ
sâsira kavile-
28 yaṁ vêda-vidarkkaḷ=appa brâhmaṇarkkaḷge koṭṭa puṇya-phalaman=a(?e)yduvon idan=
alid-uṇṭ-[â]vaṁ
29 sâsira kavileyuṁ[16] sâsi[r]vvar=[bbr]âhmaṇarumaṁ Vâraṇâ[s]iyuman=alida pañcha-
mahâpâka-
______________________________________________________
[1] Read śrîmad-Amôghavarsha. Sirûr, line 13, omits the Amôghavarsha here, and has śrî-Nṛipatuṅga.
[2] Sirûr, line 14, has the same reading, vallabhêndra. But the construction requires the genitive, vallabhêndrana or vallabhêndranâ.
[3] Sirûr, line 14, has chandr-âdityara kâlaṁ-varegaṁ. In the present record, there are only two aksharas
after kâlaṁ, both much damaged. The first of them seems to be ba, rather than va. The second of them may be
raṁ, in which case baraṁ was written, quite correctly ; or it may be gaṁ in which case bagaṁ was written by
mistake for baregaṁ.
[4] Sirûr, line 14, divides the words, and has râjyaṁ-bol uttar-ôttaraṁ.
[5] The aksharas given here in square brackets are supplied entirely from Sirûr, line 15. But there is no doubt
about the correctness of them, as the name of the saṁvatsara is quite recognisable, and so also are the other
details in line 23.
[6] The preceding note applies here also.
[7] Sirûr, line 17, gives râjy-âbhivṛiddhi ; and the same seems to have been the reading here also. But we
require in this place the instrumental râjy-âbhivṛiddhiyiṁ. The nominative seems to have been carelessly repeated
from line 18 above, where it is quite correct.
[8] Sirûr, line 17, omits the dêva.
[9] Sirûr, line 19, marks saṁdhi, and has âḷuttum=Anni. As regards the nni, which is quite distinct here as
well as in the Sirûr inscription, but is probably a mistake for ṇṇi. see page 100 above, note 3.
[10] Both here, and in line 24, there seems to be the vowel u attached to the k. But the name may perhaps be
Kalappayya, or even Kâlappayya.
[11] Read tad-varsh-ântarggata.
[12] Read Jyêshṭha ; or more correctly, Jyaishṭha.
[13] Sirûr, line 19, has amaseyum, with the short a in the second syllable. Either form is admissible. The
week-day, which is specified in the Sirûr inscription, is omitted here.
[14]Sirûr, line 19, has the infinitive form âge, instead of the past participle which we have here.
[15] Three aksharas are quite illegible in the ink-impression here. We should expect something like śrêyôdharm-ârthaṁ, puṇy-âpyâyan-ârthaṁ, puṇy-âbhivṛiddhy-arthaṁ, etc.; but none of these expressions adapts itself
to such traces as are discernible.
[16] Read kavileyumaṁ, since we have brâhmaṇarumaṁ instead of brâhmaṇaruṁ.
|
