Implications of iti and ca.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

How final is the word "iti" in Indian philosophical writing, especially
when the author is quoting earlier material? For example, take the two
structures -

1. SrUyate hi, "sentences a, b, c" iti | "sentence d" iti ca |
2. "sentences a, b ..." iti | "sentences i, ii .." ityAdi SrutibhyaH |

In case 1, does the first iti serve to completely exclude sentence d
from the Sruti category represented by a, b and c? To my eyes, this
seems not only correct, but also reinforced by the use of "iti ca," so
that sentence d is set apart from a, b and c. Is this a valid reading?

How about case 2? Is the set of sentences a, b etc. similarly demarcated
from the set i, ii etc.? It seems to me that some of the sentences
included under the set a, b etc. could be from Sruti. However, the
author clearly considers every sentence in the set i, ii etc. to be
Sruti, and seems to separate the two sets this way because the latter
set validates the former set, which is part of his siddhAnta.

This would have implications for whether a text which is the source of
the quotation is to be considered as Sruti or not. One example over
which there is such a controversy is the Agama-prakaraNa of the
gauDapAda kArikAs.

How about a more general case, where example 1 above is modified to read
as follows?

1A. uktam hi, "sentences a, b, c" iti | "sentence d" iti ca |

The more general "uktam" in place of "SrUyate" seems to have suddenly
removed the importance of attaching a sense of finality to the "iti".

Or, should one expect all quotations between the "uktam" and the first
"iti" to be from the same author/text? Does one have to supply an
implicit "AcAryaiH" or something similar, to go with "uktam"? Then, is
the sentence d again set apart by the use of "iti"?

I would appreciate pointers from the Sanskrit experts on the list.

Vidyasankar

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