Indian Antiquary Vol 34

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 31

FEBRUARY, 1905.)
KASHGAK AND THE KHAROSHTHI.
23
statements of which are, fron other reasons also, not without value to us. The author, a believing Buddhist, pictures to himself the countries of the world lying round the Tsung-ling (perhaps the Pamir) as the centre. The countries, Tukhāra, Persia, &c., form the Western part of this picture, while to the East are the districts west of the Gobi, inhabited by the Hu and the Tibetans." India forms the South. " One must not," he concludes, “regard the country of the Brahmas as & Huland, and so produce error. It is a great mistake to denote India by Hu. It is also quite wrong to speak of Hu Sūtras and & Hu-language ; it should be Sanskrit-Sutras and [192) Sanskrit-language."39 It is, therefore, from the quoted statement of the older T'ang Annals, not to be seen, whether the Uigur writing or some other is meant. They also leave it doubtful, if, by the Hu living in the districts with which we are concerned, Uigur people are meant. In the 10th century the Chinese name Hurtai is used for the Uigars. The question as to which language was most popular in East Turkestan, at that time, when Buddhism flourished, that is, from the 2nd century A. D., whether it was Uigur or another Turkish tongue, is not easily decided, for the history of the West-Uigurs who, at that time, probably were dominant as far as the Western border of the Gobi, is very little known. Perhaps the translation of the manuscripts found by Dr. Stein3 at Dandan Uiliq (North East of Khotan) and at Endere, in Brāhmi writing, though not in an Indian language, will afford some light. At any rate, from what has been said it may be taken for granted that the Kharoshthi (perhaps in several variations) and the Brāhmi writing were at the same time in general use in the Buddhist monasteries. Whether they were the only two systems of writing, or, whether, later perhaps, the Uigur, which, as Klaproth surmises, *was introduced by Syrian Nestorians, existed along with them, must remain an opon question.
2. -The Indian Sources.
By B. Pischel. [102] The name Kharoshthi occurs in Sanskrit only once: Lalitavistars, p. 143, 17, ed. Rajendralala Mitra, = p. 125, 13, ed. Lefmann. Lefmann writes there Brāhmi-Kharoshfi-Pushkarasarith, Rajendralala Mitra bas it more correctly Brāhmish Kharoshini Pushkarasärint. Lefmann informs me that his manuscripts have Kharoshtina, Khaloshi and Karotti', but not shfri. In the translation, p. 182, Rajendralāla Mitra also writes Kharosht, and Foucaux, Annales du Musee Guimet, tome VI. p. 114, translates " l'écriture de Kharóchta." The Pāli original of this passage, unfortunately, has not yet been found. In Pāli the word would sound Kharo!!hi as in [193] the Ardhamagadhi in the Samaväyangasutta, p. 55, and the Pannavaņā, p. 62, where the manuscripts have Kharötthi and Kharottiya (Weber, Indische Studien, Bd. XVI. p. 399; Verzeichnis der Sanskritund Präksit-Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, II, ii. 405, 563). Abhayadeva in the Samavayanga, p. 55, declares that he has nothing to say as to the 18 rarieties of the Brahmi lipi, as he has found nothing about them (etatsvarūpasi na dsishtam iti na darsitam); and Malayagiri in the Pannavaņā, p. 61, says that one must learn the alphabets from tradition, if one wishes to know them (sampradayad avaseyah). It is therefore obvious that the commentators knew nothing about them. Nánakachandra in his Sanskrit translation of the Pannavaņā, p. 64, repeats the incorrect reading of the text Kharutit. The Pali Kharotski might be transliterated Kharoshght quite as well as Kharoshtri. The latter was undoubtedly more natural to the mind of the Indian, as the combination kharoshtra is formulatory. For example we have, Matsyapurāņa, 240, 24, kharoshtrabahulo räjā; 242, 5, varāharkshakharoshtränām; Agnipurāna, 228, 5, varāhāśvakharoshļräņām; Brahmavaivarttapurāņa, 82, 4, Icharoshframahishärüdha; 82, 15, kharoshtrasanyukta; Ashțāógasangraha, ii. 12, p. 251, kharoshtramahishavähanah; p. 253, kharoshtramahishavarāhānyatamena; Svapnädhyāya, 25 (Chambers' MS. 608), kharoshframalishaiḥ; Bharatiyanūtyaśāstra, xxvi. 14, kharoshfräsvānanah;
* Fa kiengan li.t'u, chap. I. 1, fol. 8r.
Klaproth, Über die Sprache und Schrift der Viguren, p. 49. * Bretachneider, Mediaval Researches, Vol. I. pp. 236 and 251. searcher, Vol. I. pp. 236 and 251,
41 Preliminary Report, pp. 39 and 55. 5 Klaproth, p. 53.