Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s1.t1: 2.1.1 Writing in traditional India

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s1.t1

Language
English

2.1.1 Writing in traditional India

c7.s1.t1.1

On the whole, traditional (i.e., pre-Islamic) India was much less oriented toward the written word than many other ancient and traditional cultures such as those of classical China and Japan or of the Islamic world. From Vedic times on, and even to the present day in some cultural contexts, it is oral rather than written learning that has always been esteemed in India as true knowledge, an attitude reflected in such proverbs as *pustakasthā tu yā vidyā parahastagataṃ dhanam*, “Knowledge in a book [is like] money in someone else’s hand.”² There is a pervasive, if unspoken, attitude that the written word is essentially a reflection rather than a true manifestation of language, and this may explain the relative lack of attention to the aesthetic aspects of writing in traditional India (2.⁵.³), as well as the carelessness and imprecision which characterize many, though by no means all, of the written documents, both epigraphic and non-epigraphic, of ancient India (2.5.1).

c7.s1.t1.2

² Quoted by Ojhā, BPLM 14 n. 6 (attributed to the *Cāṇakya-nīti*). The esteem accorded to the spoken as opposed to the written word should not, however, be overstated. In this connection, Kālidāsa’s *Raghuvaṃśa* 3.28cd, *liper yathāvadgrahaṇena vāṅmayaṃ nadīmukheneva samudram āviśat*, “As one enters the ocean through the mouth of a river, so did [Raghu] enter into literature by learning to write correctly,” has been cited (e.g., in PIP 4 and Falk, SAI 252 n. 2) as an indication of the respect accorded to the written word, at least in the classical (as opposed to the Vedic) tradition. This status is also reflected in the attribution of the invention of writing to Brahmā himself (see later discussion).

c7.s1.t1.3

This same orientation no doubt also explains the paucity of descriptions of writing as such in Sanskrit and related literatures. Discussions of the origin and history of writing, its varieties, styles and methods, and practical instruction therein are surprisingly rare in Indic texts, though we do find a few more or less incidental references in some relatively late texts to the invention of writing by the creator god Brahmā.³ This tradition is also reflected iconographically, Brahmā and also his wife (or daughter) Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning, being regularly depicted in sculpture with a book in hand. But beyond legendary accounts such as these, the literature of the Brahmanical-Hindu tradition has, on the whole, little to say about writing as such; this, in striking contrast with its profound fascination with (spoken) language and grammar.

c7.s1.t1.4

³ E.g., *nākariṣyad yadi sraṣṭā likhitaṃ cakṣur uttamam / tatreyam asya lokasya nābhaviṣyac chubhā gatiḥ*, "Had the Creator [Brahmā] not invented writing, the supreme eye, the course of this world would not have gone well" (Richard W. Lariviere, ed., *The Nāradasmṛti*, University of Pennsylvania Studies on South Asia, vol. 4 [Philadelphia: Department of South Asia Regional Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 1989], I.78); and a verse attributed in several sources (e.g., Mitramiśra's *Vyavahāraprakāśa*; see BIP 1 n. 3 and PIP 3 n. 2 for further references) to Bṛhaspati: *ṣāṇmāsike' pi samaye bhrāntiḥ saṃjāyate nṛṇām / dhātrākṣarāṇi sṛṣṭāni patrārūḍhāny ataḥ purā*, "Because men forget things within six months, of old the Creator invented letters [to be] set down on leaves."

c7.s1.t1.5

The picture is somewhat different in the heterodox traditions of Buddhism and Jainism, which (especially the former) exhibit a higher esteem for the written word.⁴ Moreover, it is only in the texts of these traditions that we find lists of Indic scripts. Most important among these is the list in the tenth chapter (*Lipiśālāsaṃdarśana-parivarta*) of the *Lalitavistara*⁵ of the sixty-four scripts (*lipi*), beginning with Brāhmī and Kharoṣṭī [*sic*], which the future Buddha knew as a child.⁶ The historical value of this list, however, is limited by several factors. Its date, first of all, is uncertain. While the *Lalitavistara* as such is known to be fairly old (a version of it had already been translated into Chinese in A.D. 308),⁷ different versions of the text must have existed at various times, and certain indications in the extant script list (notably the inclusion of no. 23, Hūnalipi, “the script of the Huns is presented with the introductory remark *bambhīe ṇaṃ livīe aṭṭhārasaviha-likkhavihāṇe paṇṇatte*, “18 different forms of writing of the Brāhmī script are known.” This evidently means that the term “Brāhmī” applies to writing as such (presumably referring to its legendary creation by Brahmā, as discussed earlier; cf. OIBA 25), as well as to a particular script, no. 1 in the list which follows, which may or may not actually refer to what modern scholars call “Brāhmī” script (2.2.2).

c7.s1.t1.6

⁴ It is thus not a coincidence that the art of calligraphy is more highly developed in Buddhist and Jaina manuscript traditions than in Brahmanical circles.

c7.s1.t1.7

⁵ The *Mahāvastu* (I.135 in E. Senart's edition [Paris: L'Imprimerie Nationale, 1882]) also has a similar list of thirty-two scripts.

c7.s1.t1.8

⁶ The list, according to the edition of S. Lefmann (Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1902), I.125–6 reads:
(1) Brāhmī (2) Kharoṣṭī (3) Puṣkarasārī (4) Aṅgalipi (5) Vaṅgalipi (6) Magadhalipi (7) Maṅgalyalipi (8) Aṅgulīyalipi (9) Sakārilipi (10) Brahmavalilipi (11) Pāruṣyalipi (12) Drāviḍalipi (13) Kirātalipi (14) Dākṣiṇyalipi (15) Ugralipi (16) Saṃkhyālipi (17) Anulomalipi (18) Avamūrdhalipi (19) Daradalipi (20) Khāṣyalipi (21) Cīnalipi (22) Lūnalipi (23) Hūnalipi (24) Madhyākṣaravistaralipi (25) Puṣpalipi (26) Devalipi (27) Nāgalipi (28) Yakṣalipi (29) Gandharvalipi (30) Kinnaralipi (31) Mahoragalipi (32) Asuralipi (33) Garuḍalipi (34) Mṛgacakralipi (35) Vāyasarutalipi (36) Bhaumadevalipi (37) Antarīkṣadevalipi (38) Uttarakurudvīpalipi (39) Aparagauḍānīlipi (40) Pūrvavidehalipi (41) Utkṣepalipi (42) Nikṣepalipi (43) Vikṣepalipi (44) Prakṣepalipi (45) Sāgaralipi (46) Vajralipi (47) Lekhapratilekhalipi (48) Anudrutalipi (49) Śāstrāvartā [*lipi] (50) Gaṇanāvartalipi (51) Utkṣepāvartalipi (52) Nikṣepāvartalipi (53) Pādalikhitalipi (54) Dviruttarapadasandhilipi (55) Yāvaddāśottarapadasandhilipi (56) Madhyāhāriṇīlipi (57) Sarvaruta-saṃgrahaṇīlipi (58) Vidyānulomāvimiśritalipi (59) Ṛṣitapastaptā rocamānā [*lipi] (60) Dharaṇīprekṣiṇīlipi (61) Gaganaprekṣiṇīlipi (62) Sarvauṣadhiniṣyandā [*lipi] (63) Sarvasārasaṃgrahaṇī [*lipi] (64) Sarvabhūtarutagrahaṇī [*lipi]. The names of the scripts vary considerably in different editions; compare, e.g., the list as given in Rājendralāla Mitra's edition (Bibliotheca Indica no. 15 [Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1877], 143–4).

c7.s1.t1.9

Other than these, very few references to script types and names have been located in Sanskrit and related literatures, so that the further study of the origin and development of the Indic scripts must be pursued from the evidence of the documents (almost exclusively epigraphic for the earlier phases) themselves.

Cites (6)