[INDOLOGY] Read the Sanskrit texts: Why both Rajiv Malhotra and his critics are wrong about plagiarism

[Howard Resnick]

Thank you for this excellent reference.
hr

> On Jul 25, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Dean Michael Anderson <eastwestcultural at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm currently translating the Brahma Sutras from a somewhat new perspective. I seek to understand how they might have been viewed around the time of their original composition, as opposed to the time of Shankara's commentary, which is centuries later. As is common, there's some disagreement as to the date of the composition, ranging from 500 BCE to 400 BCE.
> 
> A cursory search of my translation to date finds at least 17 examples where the author cites previous authors. This seems to contradict Malhotra's claim, at least in a general sense, even if they do not specifically use "iti". Since Malhotra seems to side with the traditionalists in terms of dating, an earlier dating of the Brahma Sutras would only further weaken his argument.
> 
> Please note that I am not particularly interested in joining a side (or sides!) in the debate currently raging here, although I follow it with great interest. I only seek to address a point of fact.
> 
> Many other texts from this period also "cite" previous authors, such as in Caraka. But I will leave that to scholars more knowledgeable about those texts, like Dominik.
> 
> Here are the some of the examples from the Brahma Sutras.
> 
> I.2.59. Jaimini
> I.2.60. Asmarathya.
> I.2.61. Badari.
> I.2.62. Jaimini.
> I.4.20 Asmarathya.
> I.4.21 Audulomi.
> I.4.22 Kasakritsna.
> III.1.9 Karshnajini
> III.1.11 Badri.
> III.2.40 Jaimini
> III.2.41 Badarayana
> III.4.2 Jaimini.
> III.4.18 Jaimini
> III.4.19 Badarayana
> III.4.40 Jaimini
> III.4.44 (469) Atreya.
> III.4.45 Audolomi
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dean Anderson
> 
> 
> From: Howard Resnick <hr at ivs.edu>
> To: Dr. Debabrata Chakrabarti <dchakra at hotmail.de> 
> Cc: Indology List <indology at list.indology.info> 
> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Read the Sanskrit texts: Why both Rajiv Malhotra and	his critics are wrong about plagiarism
> 
> Please note that in this article, Gurevitch cites the first explicit statement against plagiarism from a 10th century work by Somadeva Suri. That is fairly late in the history of Sanskrit literature. Does this suggest that for thousands of years before, attitudes were different?
> 
> Howard
> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20150725/7dfc0727/attachment.htm>