Some people are very studious and like to master any subject that absorbs them. Students of religion will attempt to gain proficiency in languages which will give them access to texts which are not translated into English. It’s an index of their seriousness which I respect but I am sceptical whether a moderate degree of competence in Pali or Sanskrit brings anyone closer to an understanding of the very fine distinctions which are central to the disputes between the various schools. The pandits that are steeped in Sanskrit from an early age seem at times quite philosophically limited. I wonder to what extent there is collaboration in the production of translations between the philosophically acute amateur of Sanskrit and the traditional pandit? Probably more than I am aware of, though what is coming through on academia edu is mixed.
How can one bear the toil of studying Buddhism to a very serious level of expertise while not being religious? This would be taking irony to an extraordinary level. It was in an interview and her interlocutor did not think to enquire further for the likely reason that it is a commonplace condition; a game that is played.
If I were more studious I would understand. Must try harder.
No comments:
Post a Comment