P'u t'o island known ONLY from 9th century AD

Petr Mares lengqie at GMX.NET
Wed Feb 24 20:52:40 UTC 1999

> Petr Mares suggested going thru' Dunhuong manuscripts.
> Experts have informed me that there is almost NO chance
> that those mss. will talk of P'u t'o island as Guanyin's home.

Dear Naga Ganesan

The suggestion about DunHuang manuscript was meant just for
PuTuoShan. I have personally find many manuscripts of
La.Nkavatara different in their DunHuang version. Most of the
current Buddhist text will not be based on older than 11trh century
manuscripts while in DunHuang there are thousands of Buddhist
manuscripts as old as beginning of the fifth century. In case of
Lankavatara often they differ from the received version. I do not
know about Avatamsaka and XiYuJi but they may differ too. I
already said that I do not know what texts speaks about
PuTuoShan at all. The suggestion was just for seeing how much
will the text change through the centuries when commentaries
become part of what you consider the base text and that make you
believe some words are far older than ithey really are.

All over the world here are thousands of inidentified Buddhist
manuscripts from DunHuang stemming from 5th century on
disscusing all kinds of Buddhist topics. It is nice someone can
make definitive statement about them.


Petr Mares
Petr Mares
Lengqie Research
Hlavacova 1163
182 00, Prague 8
Czech Republic
Tel: 420-2-2422-9755
email: lengqie at gmx.net

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list