Kashmir, Tamilnadu, Panini, Abhinavagupta, etc.

[N. Ganesan]

<<<
Is there such old manuscript of GaNDavyUha. I have very
convincing experience that text verysignificantly change  through
the centuries. Unless there is a manuscript or the passage is
repeated in the text that has that old manuscript we should not
claim that it is from from 2nd century. There are very convincing
examples of the Sanskrit Buddhist texts that have counterparts in
much older Chinese mansucripts. I would like to hear some other
experiences and shere the examples.
>>>

  Petr Mares' point eludes me and is obscure.

  We do not have Vedas' manuscripts from 1000BC.
  They are considered "tape recordings". Prof. M. Witzel,
  On the mahabhasya, IIJ says all the Sanskrit texts edited
  in India represent only 1000 AD versions and not before. Modern
  print editions of Mahabhashya follow Kielhorn!

  A point for your Lankavatara sUtra edition:
  B. Watson, KumarajIva's translation of the Lotus sUtra
  talks of "The Lotus sutra may not be even written in
  Sanskrit, could be translated into Sanskrit later".
  So, my take on your quote on Lankavatara sUtra Sanskrit
  passage is that it is highly corrupt, and may be a translation
  of the original, written possibly not even in Sanskrit.
  (Ref.: B. Watson, The Lotus sutra, ColumbiaUP)

  I understand that mahAyAna sUtras grow in size and complexity
  over centuries. But fortunately for mahayana sutras,
  we have early translations into Chinese, that are well fixed
  in time.

  GaNDavyUha, the last chapter of avatamsaka, is one such.
  We have few translations of GaNDavyUha from third century onwards!
  In Chinese, so GaNDavyUha, like Lotus sUtra, is old.

  Regards,
  N. Ganesan


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com