Journal of Indian Philosophy

, Volume 43, Issue 2–3, pp 85–108 | Cite as

The Reuse of Texts in Indian Philosophy: Introduction

Open Access


The study of textual reuse is of fundamental importance in reconstructing lost or partially lost texts, passages of which can be partly recovered through other texts in which they have been embedded. Furthermore, the study of textual reuse also provides one with a deeper understanding of the modalities of the production of texts out of previous textual materials. Finally, it constitutes a unique chance to reconsider the historicity of concepts such as “author”, “originality” and “plagiarism”, which do not denote really existing universals, but have rather evolved—and still evolve—in different ways in different cultural milieus. After a general introduction and an analysis of the historical background of textual reuse in India and Europe, the essay attempts some general conclusions regarding the formulas introducing instances of textual reuse in Classical South Asian texts.


Originality Indian Philosophy Textual reuse Quotations Plagiarism Interlanguage 


  1. In accordance with the theme of this article, I quoted from many studies. Due to the lack of specific studies about the extent of the phenomenon in India, I relied also on materials about the Western scenario, which had the benefit of stressing unexpected similarities and dissimilarities.Google Scholar
  2. Bartels, H. (2009). Die Piratenpartei. Entstehung, Forderungen und Perspektiven der Bewegung. Reihe Netzbürger 1. Berlin: Contumax.Google Scholar
  3. Berti, M. (2013). Collecting quotations by topic: degrees of preservation and transtextual relations among genres. Ancient Society, 4, 269–288.Google Scholar
  4. Bronkhorst, J. (1986). tantra and prasaṅga. Aligarh Journal of Oriental Studies, III(2), 77–80.Google Scholar
  5. Büchler, M., Geßner, A., Berti, M., & Eckart, T. (2013). Measuring the influence of a work by text re-use. In S. Dunn & S. Mahony (Eds.), The digital classicist. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 122 (pp. 63–79).Google Scholar
  6. Burrow, J. A. (1982). Medieval writers and their work: Middle English Literature 1100–1500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cao, C. (2012). Per una poetica del plagio: il caso di Kathy Acker. Between, II(3), 1–23.Google Scholar
  8. Colas, G. (2012). Histoire, Oralité, Structure. À propos d’un tournant dans l’oeuvre de Madeleine Biardeau. Journal Asiatique, 300(1), 17–32.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, S. (1990). On the very idea of the Pali Canon. Journal of the Pāli Text Society, 15, 89–126.Google Scholar
  10. Finnegan, R. (2011). Why do we quote? The culture and history of quotation. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freschi, E. (2012). Proposals for the study of quotations in Indian philosophical texts. Religions in South Asia, 6(2), 161–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freschi, E., & Maas, P. A. (Eds.). (forthcoming a). Adaptive reuse of texts, ideas and images in classical india adaptive reuse of texts, ideas and images in classical india adaptive reuse of texts, ideas and images in Classical India. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
  13. Freschi, E., & Maas, P. A. (Eds.). (forthcoming b). Introduction. In E. Freschi & P. A. Maas. Adaptive reuse of texts, ideas and images in Classical India. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
  14. Freschi, E. & Pontillo, T. (2013). Rule-extension Strategies in Ancient India: Śrautasūtra, Mīmāṃsā and Grammar on tantra- and prasaṅga- principles. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Graheli, A. (2008). In praise of repetition. IIAS Newsletter, 48, 24.Google Scholar
  16. Hegewald, J. A. B. & Mitra, S. K. (Eds.). (2012). Re-use: the art and politics of integration and anxiety. New Delhi and Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.Google Scholar
  17. Kellner, B. (2007). Jñānaśrimitra’s Anupalabdhirahasya and Sarvaśabdābhāvacarcā: A critical edition with a survey of his Anupalabdhi-theory. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 67. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien.Google Scholar
  18. LaFollette, M.C. (1992). Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lancaster, L. R. (2005). Buddhist books and texts: canon and canonization. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (pp. 1251–1258). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, Thomson Gale.Google Scholar
  20. Lasic, H. (Ed.). (2000a). Ratnakīrtis Vyāptinirṇaya, Sanskrittext, Übersetzung, Analyse. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 49. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien.Google Scholar
  21. Lasic, H. (Ed.). (2000b). Jñānaśrimitras Vyāpticarcā. Sanskrittexts, Übersetzung, Analyse. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 48. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien.Google Scholar
  22. Mac Allister, P. (2011). Ratnakīrtis Apohasiddhi. A Critical Edition, Annotated Translation, and Study. PhD thesis. Wien: Universität Wien.Google Scholar
  23. McCrea, L. (2002). Novelty of Form and Novelty of Substance in Seventeenth Century Mīmāṃsā. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 30(5), 481‒494.Google Scholar
  24. McCrea, L. (2008). Playing with the system: Fragmentation and individualization in late Pre-colonial Mīmāṃsā. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 36(5–6), 575–585.Google Scholar
  25. Mesquita, R. (2000). Madhva’s unknown literary sources: Some observations. Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.Google Scholar
  26. Mesquita, R. (2008). Madhva’s quotes from the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata: An analytical compilation of untraceable source-quotations in Madhva’s works along with footnotes. Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.Google Scholar
  27. Mizuno, K. (1982). Buddhist Sūtras: Origin, development, transmission. Tokyo: Kosei.Google Scholar
  28. Mülke, M. (2008). Der Autor und sein Text: die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker Autoren. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakassis, C. V. (2013). Citation and citationality. Signs and Society, 1(1), 51–78.Google Scholar
  30. Nikolsky, R. (2010). Ishmael sacrificed grasshoppers. In M. Goodman, G. H. van Kooten, & J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten (Eds.), Abraham, the nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic perspective on kinship with Abraham (pp. 243–262). Leiden and Boston: BrillGoogle Scholar
  31. Okita, K. (2011). Review of Roque Mesquita, Madhva’s Quotes from the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata: An analytical compilation of untraceable source-quotations in Madhva’s works along with footnotes. Indo-Iranian Journal, 54, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orwin, M. (2005). On the concept of “definitive text” in Somali poetry. Oral Tradition, 20(2), 278–299.Google Scholar
  33. Preisendanz, K. (2005). The production of philosophical literature in South Asia during the pre-colonial period (15th to 18th centuries): The case of the Nyāyasūtra commentarial tradition. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 33, 55–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Preisendanz, K. (2008). Text, commentary, annotation: Some reflections on the philosophical genre. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 36, 599–618.Google Scholar
  35. Said, S. S. (1982). Oral poetry and Somali nationalism: The case of Sayyid Mahammad ‘Abdille Hasan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schulze, C. (2004). Das Phänomen der “Nichtkommentierung” bedeutender Werke. In W. Geerlings & C. Schulze (Eds.), Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter Bd.2 Neue Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung (pp. 21–33). Clavis Commentariorum Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  37. Steinkellner, E. (1988). Methodological remarks on the constitution of Sanskrit texts from the Buddhist Pramāṇa-tradition. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, 32, 103–129.Google Scholar
  38. Steinkellner, E., Krasser, H., & Lasic, H. (Eds.). (2005). Jinendrabuddhi’s Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā. Chapter 1, Part 1: Critical Edition. Part 2: Diplomatic Edition. Wien, Beijing: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, China Tibetology Publishing House.Google Scholar
  39. Strauss, O. (1925). Indische Philosophie. In G. Kafka (Ed.), Geschichte der Philosophie in Einzeldarstellungen. München: Ernst Reinhardt.Google Scholar
  40. Theophanidis, P. (2012). The origin and development of the quotation mark. development-quotation-mark/.
  41. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1996). Lindley Murray and the concept of plagiarism. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Ed.), Two hundred years of Lindley Murray (pp. 81–96). Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
  42. Trikha, H. (2012). Perspektivismus und Kritik. Der epistemische Pluralismus der Jainas angesichts der Polemik gegen das Vaiśeṣika in Vidyānandins Satyaśāsanaparīkṣā. De Nobili Research Library 36. Wien: De Nobili.Google Scholar
  43. Trikha, H. (forthcoming). Facets of a fragment: Evaluation and classification of intertextual elements in a philosophical Jaina Sanskrit work. In E. Prets & H. Marui (Eds.), Transmission and reflection. The meaning and the role of ‘fragments’ in Indian philosophy. Proceedings of a symposium on quotations and paraphrases from and allusions to ancient texts on Indian philosophy. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  44. Tubb, G., & Boose, E. R. (2007). Scholastic Sanskrit. Treasury of the Indic Science Series. New York: AIBS.Google Scholar
  45. Wezler, A., & Motegi, S. (Eds.). (1998). Yuktidīpikā: The most significant commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of AsiaAustrian Academy of SciencesViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations