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@ivs.edu>
To: Dr. Debabrata Chakrabarti <dchakra@hotmail.de>
Cc: Indology List <indology@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