Notes.

L.1 Above the inscription the expression Ùrè-Piíäisvarà[ya] is engraved in bolder and slightly later characters. This corrupt expression may not have formed part of the original record, written in an ornate language. Often the inscriptions of Mahåndravarman I do not commence with the auspicious word like, siddham or svasti See e.g., CTP, pp. 47, 63, 66, 76, 79, 86-88, 91 etc. Cf. JAHRS. XI, p. 47. K[o]lissarasaõ : originally engraved -sarasyàõ seems to have been subsequently corrected into sarasaõ to be in tune wíth prathitàt in line 3 (SN).
L.3 prathitàt=Pðthivè-yuvaràjaõ to read here prathithànpðthèvi etc. a reading not supported by the original and to correct it into prathit-Àndhraprithivèyuvaràjaõ is to ignore the fact that the language of the record is totally free from such errors. See EHAC, p. 188, n. 18, p. 198. The Ablative prathitat indicates that the words Kîlissarasaõ etc. are also of the same case; -yuvaràjaõ -it is only Nominative Case and not Possessive Case as taken by some (ibid., p. 188 and n. 17). It is to be construed with saãjàtaõ (line 12) and not with Kandararà-jasya (line 11) as belleved by some writers (CA, p. 203). True, just as ràjan becomes ràjaõ at the end of the compound in the Nominative, so also ràj becomes ràjaõ in the Genitive singular. But such Genitive forms, though employed in verses to meet the exigency of metre, are not generally met with in prose passages, especially in epigraphical literature. For, to avoid confusion the writers would naturally prefer the form -ràjasya. It may be observed thal even the composer of the text of the Chezerla record uses Kandaràjasya (line 11) in preference to Kandararàjaõ, though the latter is also grammatically correct Genitive form (SN).
L.5 Cf. mada-vighóríita-mànasa-màninè-kucha-mukhîdghàta-kuìkuma-gandhàyà Våga-vatyàõ paith a description of Udayachandra, a feudatory of the Pallava, in the Udayendiram plales of Nandivarman (SII, 11, p. 367, text lines 40-42). Cf. also majjan-Màlava-vilàsinè-kucha-taò-àsphàlana-jarjarit-îrmimàlayà + + Våtravatyà parigatà Vidiù-àbhidhànà nagarè and yauvana-mada-matta-Màlavè-kucha-kalaùa-lulita-salilayà + + + Siprayà parikøiptà+++Ujjayinè nàma nagarè (Kàda. pp. 11, 112-14) (SN).
L.12 Avanitalàntavatyàm= : the later Chîëa queens often bore the names Ulagamuluduäaiyàë and Avanimuëudu-äaiyàl, the Tamil renderings of this present name (SN).
L.14 Note the pleasing anupràsas or alliterations here and in the following lines (SN).
L.19 ... Kusumakåtur - here the context suggests an expression like a-Kusuma (SN).
L.24 Sima-samaya 'all the time' (SN).
L.29 -viùàrada sat-sabhà-mallaõ - this has been correctly read in SII, VI, No. 594, and in EHAC, p. 188. But the reading -viùàradas=satsabhàmallaõ
(JAHRS, XI, p. 50), not supported by the original, has led to some misgivings (SN).
L.33 The reading does not seem to be Raíamahàmallaõ. Cf. EHAC, p. 188, n. 18 and p. 199 (SN).
L.36-37 Probably something like sthiràíi kðtvà might have been the intended expression lost here (SN).
L.50-52 Below this, the original most probably contained no writing (SN).
Second Face - in SII. Vol. VI, ihe following text has been treated as a separate inscription. However, the description of god Ùiva with adjectives in Nominative singular with which the first face ends and with which the second face begins indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the text on the second face is in continuation of that of on the first face. The palaeography of the inscription on the first face does not differ from that on the second face. To point out a small difference in a pa and in a few ha's is to ignore totally the general striking similarity of the palaeography and the language of the text on both the sides (EHAC, p. 186). The only difference is this: while the letters on the first face are engraved in bold characters, those on the second face are written in small characters for want of space (SN).
L.66 =bhihita-nàmadhåyaì : this expression denotes that Abhihita was the name of thc temple (bhavana). Cf. Mahåndra-Viøíugðha-nàma Muràri-gðham (CTP, p. 66). Abhihita is recognised as a name of a chief (see, SED, s.v.). Cf. also Abhimukha, a surname of Mahendravarman I found in his records from different places. See SII, XII, Nos. 8, 13, 14. Abhihita may also literally denote what is auspicious or beneficial all around. Cf. Sarvatîbhadra. The expression abhihita-nàmadhåyam may also mean 'having for its name, name of the said person himself (viz., Kapîta)', the vigraha being abhihi-tasya pórvàbhihitasya nàmadhåyam-åva nàmadhåyam yasya tat (SN).
L.69 Restore something like pratipàditaõ (SN).
L.70 Kapîtåùvarå, an easy restoration, does not suit well with preceding Genitive. If this word is to go with Mahåndravikrama-mahàràjå (line 81) one may tentatively restore it is Mahåndrapîteùvarå. See CTP, pp. 63, 173 (SN).
L.73 Possibly a passage like nata-sakala-sà-manta-makuòa-maíi-kiraí-àvalè-piãjarita-charaía-nakh-àlaêkðtànàm=àùvamådha-yàjinàm is mutilated here (SN).
L.74 One may expect here Pallavànàì kul-nabhî. Cf. Ùrèvallabhànàì Pallavànàm in IA, V, p. 155 line 16, restore -kiraía-sètaraùmau (SN).
L.75 Restore something like ùatru-tamî-nikarå (SN).
L.83 The mutilated passage here might have been something like prèta-vidagdha-vilàsinè-kucha-kalaùa-kuêkuma raãjita-salila-Våga-vatè etc. As the Vågavatè river passes Kàãchèpuram and falls into the Pàlàru river near Villivalam, the name Kàãchè might have followed the above passage (SN).
L.86 Evidently here the original had the details of date in samvatsara., màsa etc., now unfortunately lost. Jarajjaladhara 'aged clouds' may denote a month of the ùarad or autumnal season. For some beautiful description of the season with the aged clouds, see the Sóktimuktàvalè of Bhagadatta Jalhaía (GOS, 1938, p. 226) and the Subhàøitaratnakîùa of Vidyàkara (Harvard Ori. Series, 1957, p. 49) (SN).
L.91 These lines, on two sides of a big, ùóla on the top are now very much damaged and could not be copied properly. For an early inscription engraved on the four faces of a pillar, bearing the figures of a Ùiva-liêga, a bull and a cow on the fourth face, see EI, XXXVI, pp. 57 ff., p. 67, n. (SN).
L.94 Perhaps the original had here the name of the composer of the praùasti (SN).