Yesterday, I learned the general aim of our class which is a “new” area of study in Graduate Level Studies. It was different than I originally thought. I voiced this original misunderstanding in class and it was confirmed by 2 or 3 other students who also spoke out.
The University of Kelaniya has a course called:
Code Number : MABS 53055
Title of the Unit : Buddhist Literary Criticism
Aim and Objectives:
The course aims to make an awareness of Buddhist Literary
Criticism and show the distinctiveness and value by means of
Buddhist literary principles for imparting the knowledge to
appreciate literature, art and music.
On the surface, it seems that this is what Classical Theravada is completely against, as we are usually against criticism of the texts… However, in our last class we learned that it is basically like an art or film critique, or one who points out the symbols, style, poetry, and underlying meanings often in artistic and creative ways.
Today, with reflection I might theorize that some of the people who are modern scholars, may have never taken a course of this nature, but have read the title of the course and even the description and came to the conclusion that one should criticize the teachings rather than to:
- celebrate the teachings
- highlight their beauty and depth
- appreciate their artistic and symbolic richness
- convey the reverence, creativity, and awe they inspire
- engage with them through admiration and insight
I feel like the “scholars” of today misinterpreted what they should be doing.
Instead the above list, they are looking for mistakes so they can criticize rather than critiquing. When one looks in that negative way, they can find things, and sure… i guess they can make a thesis or unofficial thesis if not enrolled in a proper university. However, I think that scholarship should be a more positive focus. The problem is (and I’m learning this in our “Research Methodology” course, that the thesis starts with a “problem” and then “asking questions” on that problem.