siddha-mAtrkA

[Richard Salomon]

On Tue, 8 Aug 1995 malaiya at ravi.CS.ColoState.EDU wrote:

> Srinivasan Kalyanaraman wrote: "What does siddha-mAtrkA 'mean' when such a 
>   name is assigned to an ancient script which originated from brAhmI and spread 
>   to Cambodia and Thailand? ....
>   siddha-mAtRkA = name of the Indian alphabet derived  from late brAhmI script 
>   which is the source of many scripts of south asia; wrongly called kuTila."
> 
> Perhaps the name siddha-mAtrkA implied that the script had "perfect"


	On the meaning of "Siddhamaat.rkaa, see the interesting comments 
of G. Bu:hler in his On the Origin of the Indian Brahma Alphabet, p.30. 
to the effect that "the Pandits" understand the term to mean "the 
alphabet [maat.rkaa] preceded by the word Siddha (success)."  I suspect 
that this indeed is the original sense of the term, i.e. that it did not 
refer to a specific "script" in the sense of a graphic form, but rather 
to a particular oral and/or written arrangement of the Sanskritic 
phonemes/graphemes, which was traditionally preceded by the auspicious word 
siddham; note that 
Bu:hler's comments refer to the modern (in his time) habits of Pandits 
in western India, who were no doubt familiar with written forms entirely 
different from those which are referred to in modern scholarly usage as 
"Siddhamaat.rkaa," i.e. the north Indian derivate of Braahmii of about 
the 8th to 10th centuries AD.  Apparently, this name got applied, wrongly 
in a sense, to that particular written form of script, perhaps (I suspect) 
through the influence of non-Indians such as Al-biruni and the Central and 
East Asians who got to know the script form in question as a Buddhist 
"sacred script" (generally known as Siddham), and who perhaps (like many 
others since their time) did 
not understand the characteristically and peculiarly Indian (or at 
least Sanskritic) concept of 
writing, which tends to see it as secondary to, and hence a mere 
reflection of spoken language; so that what is important is not the 
specific forms of the "letters" (which is a very important matter to, 
say, an Arabic-literate Muslim or a Chinese scholar), but their sound 
value and arrangement (maat.rkaa).  
	It is interesting to note that this development by 
misunderstanding is somewhat analogous to the shift in the meaning of the 
word "Pali", originally meaning something like "(body of) text(s)" or 
even "canon", into "name of the particular language (in which said texts 
are preserved)."  The similarity may not be coincidental, but again may 
reflect non-Indians' (in this case, perhaps, Southeast Asians') partial 
misperceptions of Indian concepts of language, text, and writing.
	In any case, I do not propose that we try to "correct" the 
theoretically inaccurate use of the term Siddhamaat.rkaa in reference to 
a particular archaic north Indian script which has been preserved as a 
sacred form of writing in much of Asia.  The usage is firmly established 
and honored 
by tradition.  I am merely trying to clarify its ultimate origin and meaning.





> proportions (taking matra to mean measure) or maatraas.
> 
> Al-beruni (b. 973 CE, arrrived in Gazna in 1017) describes siddha-matrika as 
> the popular script in the madhya-desh region (around Kannauj), also used by 
> scholars from  Kashmir to Varanasi. He mentions several other scripts some of 
> which are apparently variations of siddha-matrika, others being somewhat 
> different.
> 
> One can take the script of inscriptions of Gahadawal and Paramar kings to
> be late siddha-matrika. The script is characterized by straight vertical 
> and horizontal strokes, rather than circular strokes. Modern Devanagari
> is rather close to this script.
> 
> All the native scripts of India, Ceylon, Tibet and south-east Asia
> are derived from Brahmi. Japanese Katakana and Korean scripts can also be
> considered to be influenced by Brahmi derived scripts. Both were invented
> by Buddhist monks to represent Sanskrit sounds correctly.

My understanding is that the influence of Brahmi, or rather 
Siddhamaatrkaa or other derivatives, 
on Korean (Hangul) and Japanese is questionable and indirect at best.  
There may be some broad systemic connections with regard to syllabic 
structure and "alphabetic" ordering, but nothing like direct borrowings.  


> 
> Kutila (6-9th cent) is defined to be the precurser of both Nagari and Sarada.
> We can take it to be early siddha-matrika.
>

S. Kalyanaramam was correct in his original message that the term 
"Ku.tila" formerly applied to the (conventional) Siddhamaat.rka script 
was incorrect.  This misunderstanding, which goes all the way back to 
James Prinsep (see Bu:hler's comments in Epigraphia Indica I, p.76) arose 
from a misinterpretation of an adjective ku.tila- meaning something like 
"curved, curly", perhaps implying "ornamental, artistic," mentioned in a 
few inscriptions of the period in question with reference to the form of 
their writing (in scribe's colophons to the inscriptions).  The matter is 
clarified by D.C. Sircar in Epigraphia Indica 36, p.50.

> We can regard Cambodian and Thai scripts to be descendents of siddha-matrika.
> Javanese is derived from pre-Gupta spouth Indian scripts.
> 

The derivation of the Southeast Asian scripts is problematic, but 
basically they seem to go back to early south or west Indian derivatives 
of Braahmii, and  not to Siddhamaat.rkaa.


> Yashwant K. Malaiya
>  
> 


-Richard Salomon