Kashmir, Tamilnadu, Panini, Abhinavagupta, etc.

Narayan S. Raja raja at IFA.HAWAII.EDU
Mon Feb 22 10:48:18 UTC 1999

On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Venkatraman Iyer wrote:

> raja writes:
> > Repeat: the evidence must show that
> >  **Potikai/Potiyil** (not merely the
> >  unidentified "Po-to-lo-chia") was a
> >  very important Buddhist site.  It
> >  is welcome to be an important Saivite
> >  center as well.  But it MUST be a
> >  very important BUDDHIST site.

>  I do not know if you are following the discussion.  Please review
>  Ganesan's posts on February 2 and 18. Evidence has been presented
>  already that points to Hsuan-tsang and Chih-sheng believing that
>  Potalaka was located in the Malaya mountains of the Pandya country.
>  The Potalaka description of Hsuan-tsang matches the description of
>  Potiyil. Obviously, they considered it an  important Buddhist site
>  at that time. (In any case, you cannot expect Hsuan-tsang
>  to say that the Potalaka mountain is so many miles from Ambasamudram
>  or Tenkasi railway station. :-))

A site that Buddhists
believed to be Potalaka
(comparable in importance
for Buddhists, to Kailasam or
Vaikuntam for Hindus) is likely
to have abundant archaeological/
literary/historical evidence
that it was an important
Buddhist site.

In T.N., such evidence is available even
for relatively less important Buddhist
centers like Kanchipuram or Nagapattinam.
My question: is there such evidence
from Potiyil?

Instead, if all we have is one comment
from a foreign visitor, who never
actually went within a few hundred
miles of Potiyil, and who may or
may not have been referring to
Potiyil, that isn't substantial
evidence, is it?

We know where Potiyil is.  We
don't know where "Po-to-lo-chia"
is (even assuming it is real
and not mythical).  Can someone
provide archeaological/literary/
historical information about
Potiyil?  Was it a very important
Buddhist mountain?



More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list