Check the image paths!
PCCHA_0001_0098

Documenta
Nepalica

Historical Documents of Pre-modern Nepal

Search, explore, and study thousands of documents, manuscripts,
inscriptions and digital editions from across historic Nepal

Version with DOI and citation guidelines Editorial Principles

A letter from Nehā Girī to Mahanta Rāya Bhāratī regarding financial issues, courier misconduct and problems caused by Kubera Bhāratī in Tibet (NS 865)

ID: PCCHA_0001_0098


Edited by Rajendra Shakya and Kashinath Tamot in collaboration with Chaaru Jain
Created: 2026-10-12; Last modified: 2026-11-10
For the metadata of the document, click here

Published by Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Documents on the History of Religion and Law of Pre-modern Nepal, Heidelberg, Germany, 2026. Published by the courtesy of the National Archives, Kathmandu. The copyright of the facsimile remains with the Nepal Rashtriya Abhilekhalaya (National Archives, Government of Nepal). All use of the digital facsimiles requires prior written permission by the copyright holder. See Terms of Use.
The accompanying edition, translation/synopsis and/or commentary are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License CCby-SA.

Abstract

Sent from Tibet in NS 865 (1745 CE), this letter from Nehā Girī to Mahanta Rāya Bhāratī in Patan addresses financial issues and courier misconduct. Responding defensively to rebukes over undelivered funds entrusted to the courier Dhana Siṃha, Girī insists he acted on previous instructions and agrees to use only approved couriers in the future. He rejects accusations of withholding money, citing stalled sales in Tibet and offering to return all unsold inventory to Patan immediately. Finally, Girī complains of internal discord caused by Kubera Bhāratī demanding cash rather than stock, warning that all further remittances will be halted until he receives a reply.


Diplomatic edition

[1r]

1᠀­श्री­३­भिमसेन­साहार्य­नमस्तुः­॥

1᠀­प्रभा­पुरि­गुसाहिजुयाके­˴˴नमोनारायन­याङ­हया­जुरो­˴˴

1᠀­शुभ­कूसर­वात­विचार­यानहया­˴˴अमकन­˴˴महन्त­राय­भारथि­गुसा
2जुयाके­˴˴थन­निहा­ग्रिया­भाखान­˴˴कुवेर­भारथिया­भाखानं­˴˴नमोना
3रायन­यानहया­˴˴थन­जिपनि­फया­ख­˴˴अमकन­छिक्र­1 कुसर­जुओ­म
4खु­रा­˴˴विचार­ख­थुति­॥भाखा­राय­भारथि­गुसाहिजु­˴˴छिन­प्रतिस­
5तसेहर­˴˴धनसिंङया­रगरन­2 दामपोर­हयमते­धक­˴˴तसेहर­˴˴थ्व­
6ख­न्हापा­भाखा­मदु­˴˴जिन­मसिया­˴˴न्हापा­छि­वचननं­धार­˴˴दामपो
7र­हयमारको­˴˴धनसिंङया­⟪र⟫गन­हकि­धक­भाखा­मखु­रा­˴˴ओन­दाम­
8मविओगुरि­जिन­छु­सिओ­˴˴आओंरिया­थास­˴˴छिन­धाया­थासं­
9हय­थुका­˴˴उपरान्त­ख­˴˴गुसाहिजु­˴˴छिन­प्रतिस­तसेहर­˴˴
10जिता­चोनेमार­सा­चोङ­˴˴छि­दाम­˴˴मुरं­˴˴चोकं­˴˴पछ्या­याङाओ­
11विसेहिओ­धक­तसेहर­˴˴थ्व­छु­ख­˴˴जि­यसे­चोङा­रा­˴˴वस्तुक­मि
12यमजिओ­˴˴छि­मनस­थथे­चोननाओ­˴˴थन­वस्तुक­दनि­थुका­
13मुर­काओ­˴˴चोक­काओ­छिन­श्वयाओ­काओ­ना­˴˴छि­वचन­दत­सा­
14वस्तुकं­पोरचिङाओ­˴˴ओय­ना­रिसर­मार­ना­˴˴आओ­ङ्हापा­या­जामा­
15जुको­नि­दको­विसे­हयधुनो­˴˴अ⟪म⟫­धरक­ङ्हेयाओ­विसेहया­श्वओ­ना­˴˴
16थुगुतिन­अम­धरकस­श्वयाकाओ­ना­˴˴धनसिंङयाके­काको­दा
17म­˴˴थुरि­काया­धक­थिकं­˴˴तसेहिओ­ना­˴˴थन­जि­कुवेर­भारथिन­
18दुख­विरो­˴˴थन­जिन­वस्तुक­केङा­˴˴वस्तु­काओ­धक­धाया­न­मका
19ओ­˴˴दाम­मार­धार­˴˴दाम­नि­मदु­˴˴दको­२­विसे­हयधुनो­˴˴थन­फाचि
20न­दुख­विरो­˴˴थुगुतिन­˴˴ननानं­रिसर­मार­ना­˴˴रिसर­मदतोरे­शु
21या­रगनं­दाम­छिं­विसेमहरो­ना­˴˴प्रतिस­ख­अधिक­मतया­˴˴सम
22स्तं­छिन­सिओ­थुका­˴˴सम्वत्‌­८६५­मिति­तछोराथ्व­३­चोया­शुभः­॥

[1v]

1[Partially broken wax seal]

1᠀­भकु­द्वाकास­
2चोङ­राय­भार
3थि­गुसाहियास्त­प्र
4ति­जुरो­˴˴शुभः­॥

Synopsis

Sent from Tibet on the 3rd of the bright fortnight of Tachalā (text: Tachorāthva, Jyeṣṭha), NS 865 (c. June 1745 CE), this letter is formally addressed to Mahanta Rāya Bhāratī Gosāīṃ (text: Rāya Bhārathi Gusāhiju) in Patan, with Prabhā Purī Gosāīṃ (text: Prabhā Puri Gusāhiju) named alongside him in the margin. While the letter’s opening names both Nehā Girī (text: Nihā Gri) and Kubera Bhāratī (text: Kuvera Bhārathi) as senders, its content suggest that Girī alone authored the letter.3 It opens with the traditional Namonārāyaṇa greeting and inquiries after the recipients' well-being.

Responding to Rāya Bhāratī’s earlier directive not to entrust cash shipments to Dhana Siṃha (text: Dhanasiṃṅa), Girī protests that he4 had received no prior warning and was unaware of any issue. He asks: “Did you not tell us earlier that if we needed to send cash packages, we should send them with Dhana Siṃha?” Pledging ignorance of Dhana Siṃha’s non-delivery of the funds, Girī assures Bhāratī that he will send future remittances through couriers designated by him from then onwards.

Girī then bristles at Bhāratī’s previous letter, which had curtly suggested that Girī could remain in Tibet if he wished, provided he first settled all outstanding principal and interest. Rejecting the insinuation, Girī retorts that he is not staying in Tibet by choice, explaining that commercial conditions have made sales impossible.5 To dispel any suspicion regarding his accounts, Girī offers Bhāratī a choice: he may take the actual cost value or the realized sales proceeds of the remaining merchandise, whichever he prefers. Alternatively, if Bhāratī simply issues the order, Girī states he will pack all remaining stock and return to Patan at once.

Girī further maintains that all earlier balances have been dispatched, explaining that prior remittances covered the period predating the latest ledger list. He urges Bhāratī to reconcile the list, accept the incoming remittance, and furnish an accurate accounting of the exact sums received from Dhana Siṃha so far.

Turning to domestic friction, Girī complains that Kubera Bhāratī has caused him great trouble in Tibet by refusing to accept the unsold merchandise shown to him and persistently demanding cash instead. Girī clarifies that he holds no cash reserves, having already forwarded all liquid proceeds to Patan. Demanding an immediate clarification on these disputes, Girī concludes with an ultimatum: he will suspend all cash remittances through any courier until he receives a definitive reply.

The verso bears two single-sentence text blocks designating Rāya Bhāratī Gosāīṃ of Bhaku Dhvākhā (text: Bhaku Dvākā) as the recipient.


Notes

1. Mod. New. chiskara, meaning “you (hon.).” [⇑]

2. Unclear term. As ra and la frequently interchange in Nepālabhāṣā, this probably is laka = arm; lakasa = in the hand (Malla 2000: 431), meaning “in the hands of”. The same word is mentioned as ragana below in line 7. [⇑]

3. Although the opening lines formally list both Nehā Girī and Kubera Bhāratī as senders, Girī is clearly the sole author. Not only does the text shift into the first-person singular, but Girī also openly complains about Kubera Bhāratī's uncooperative behavior later in the letter. Kubera's name was likely included in the heading merely out of protocol to signal his presence in Tibet at the time. [⇑]

4. The author uses the first-person singular pronoun here, reinforcing that Girī alone drafted the correspondence. [⇑]

5. Girī does not specify the cause of the stagnation, though it was likely the recurring smallpox epidemic in the year before that paralyzed trade routes and markets throughout the region. See PCCHA_0001_0082. [⇑]

Project: "Documents on the History of Religion and Law of Pre-modern Nepal"

Südasien-Institut (SAI)
Universität Heidelberg
Voßstr. 2, Gebäude 4130 | 69115 Heidelberg
Telefon: +49 (0) 6221 / 54 15207
E-Mail: nepal[at]hadw-bw.de