________________
No. 25.]
:
THE TIBETAN ALPHABET.
269
"Our conclusion is, that the Tibetan is derived from the Northern Indian script, which was used in the 7th century. It is not based on the Sāradā, but has certain points of similarity with this script, which suggest that both were derived from the same Northern Indian character."
My own view is, that the Tibetan alphabet was quietly worked out in the ancient monasterios of Turkistan, the Tibetan Li yul and that Sron btsan sgampo's minister Thonmi reaped the fruit of such learning. My roasons are the following: The script used for Sanskrit in Turkistan, the so-called Central Asian Brāhmi, is another descendant of Indian Gupta, and closely related to the Tibetan script. Similar characters were used also in Ladakh for Sanskrit formulas between 600 and 800 A.D. These characters were probably the parent of the so-called Brutsha (Bruzha, Dard) form of writing. The Turkistan monasteries were the very places where any new kind of script might have been invented, as is shown by a number of new languages which were first reduced to writing in Tarkistan. Then, the man who taught Thonmi in Kashmir, is called Li byin which name doubtless means,
Blessing of the land Li' (blessing of Khotan). This name may be compared with such names as Khri bdun yul byin, Blessing of the land Khri bdun.' Thus, the man who taught Thonmi may have been a native of Tarkistan. We have a single testimony of history for the early use of Indian characters in Western Tibet, in the Chinese Sui shu, where it is stated, that such characters were used in the Empire of the Eastern Women' (Guge), etc. The Tibetan alphabet, though probably invented earlier, may have followed the development of the North Indian alphabets, until it remained stationary from the 7th or 8th century.
Regarding the language for which the alphabet was invented, I am of opinion, that it certainly was the classical Tibetan. But we must not believe that classical Tibetan was generally spoken in the 7th century. From passages occurring in a good number of documents excavated by Str Aurel Stein in the deserts of Turkistan, we know for certain that the Tibetan dialects were then already developed to an advanced degree. It is very improbable that the prefixes should have been pronounced in full in those days. There is a possibility that Tibet was in possession of an archaic sacred language from time immemorial, that it was this language which was first reduced to writing, and that this already sacred language was accepted as the language of Buddhism. In this connection the following note from Dr. Barnett's article Tibetan MSS., in the Stein collection' (J. R. A. 8., 1903, p. 112) will be of interest. “It was probably in the reign of Khri Sron lde btsan, if not later, that the larger part of the Northern Canon, including the Sālistamba Sätra, was translated into Tibetan. If this be so, it is singular, that a nation, which according to tradition had been hitherto buried in barbarism, should within a century and a half have accepted a new faith, assimilated its doctrines in the most scholastic form of Mahāyāna, and concurrently developed a culture and a political organi. sation, which made it a formidable rival to the older homes of civilisation on its north-westeru frontier. Probably tradition has exaggerated the facts; it may be that Buddhism was fairly well known in Tibet before the seventh century, and Sron batean sgampo was only its Constantine. A new page of history is opening before us."
The Tibetans themselves distinguish between two types of characters in their alphabet. One type was taken directly from the Indian alphabet, whilst the other was invented by Thonmi Sambhota, or his forerunners. The first type is called gal byed (consonants), and the second.
Compare A. H. Franke, The similarity of the Tibetan to the Kashgar-Brahmi Alphabet. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. I, pp. 43 ff. [The correspondence between Contral Asian Gupta and Tibetan is not so great that it is necessary to assume that they have been developed in the same locality. They have both been developed from the same source, and that explains the similarity-S. K.]
Plate III, . of Sarat Ch. Das' article. The Sacred and Ornamental Characters of Tibet, J. 4. 8. B., Vol. LVII, p. 41.
