Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> [Joe's diatribe omitted]
> >Joe and others,
> >I sent the above to an orientalist at the University of Chicago (Paul
> >to see how well the claims made therein are accepted, and here is his reply:
> >> Sounds dubious to me. There are some birch-bark mss. from Kashmir, but
> >> they're all a lot later than 115. And if this is a part of a Purana, it's
> >> almost certainly later (though all this stuff is impossible to date). I've
> >> never heard of 'Sutta' (this is the Pali equivalent of 'sutra', by the
> >> way). I'd be suspicious of the whole thing.
> Gosh Jeffrey,
> It's nice to have friends in high places!
What? Don't you have any? <g>
Seriously, I'm just lucky to know Dr. Griffiths well enough to run such things as
Joe's post by him for his evaluation. But I think we'd get the same response from
almost any specialist in the scriptures and literature of the East, friend or not
and in whatever place, don't you?
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626