1. In order to write a PhD thesis on #SanskritPhilosophy, you need to know #Sanskrit 2. Sanskrit is hard: You need a strong motivation to learn it, the kind of motivation undergrads rarely have!
How do we lose this catch-22 problem, assuming that grad school is ≤6 ys? 1/5
A. Only admit to PhD programs in #SanskritPhilosophy students who know Sanskrit already (e.g., young Indian students who learnt it at school or very motivated undergrads) 2/5
B. Admit group A and very motivated and talented people who will start learning Skt full time in the first 2 years of grad school and continue half time throughout grad school and reach a decent level by the end. 3/5
C. Admit group A, group B and students who will do the same as group B but, being slightly less talented/having less time/…, will not be able to cover untranslated texts for their PhD thesis, and will work primarily on translations, 4/5
but will learn Sanskrit meanwhile, so as to be able to do groundbreaking work thereafter. What do you think? Comments are welcome also by people having the same problem with Classical Chinese, Ancient Greek etc. 5/5
May I ask @James_A_Benn how he deals with the issue (in the case of classical Chinese)?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Typical situation outside India: One completes a Sanskrit class (in 2--4 terms) and does not know how to bridge the gap between one's knowledge and what is needed to read philosophical texts autonomously. What can one do? Typically a combination of the following ones: 1/3
1. One reads a lot on one's own (e.g., one picks up a text like the Nyāyabhāṣya and reads it side-by-side with a translation like Matthew Dasti's translation of the Nyāyasūtra and Bhāṣya) 2. One sits in as many classes as possible with teachers reading texts 2/3
(like in the Sanskrit Reading Room) 3. One reads with colleagues (like in 1, but possibly more fun) 4. Do 1--3 plus add secondary literature, such as Tubb and Boose's "Scholastic Sanskrit"
So, basically, try to read as much as possible. For me, 1 alone would not have worked. 3/3
Friendly invitation to a truth-oriented debate (#vāda), for which we will be allowed to use only rational arguments and not our personal dislikes or likes unless we can give reasons for them:
Suppose that some members of religion X (say, Zen Buddhism) misbehave,
1/
e.g., because of sexual assaults to people who trusted them in a religious way. We would surely condemn them. And we would be right. But we would be wrong if we did not condemn the same behaviour in our religion (say, Greek Christian orthodoxy), correct? #TheologicalDebates
2/
Please note that we are talking of behaviours that are *not* part of what the religion in question teaches (I will discuss later the case of behaviours prescribed by the religion itself).
Assuming that we agree about the above, let us move on.
3/