None

[E50488 at EARN.JPNKUDPC]

Dominik's recent remarks made me think more about the problem of
omanization, and one of the ways he put things made me sit up
and think:  What does it mean so separate the -what was the expression?
something anyway equivalent to the men from the boys (but less sexist)?
Here's one thing it means: any colleages who are not Indologists will
not be able to read our articles!!  The Sinologist who wonders about
Indian History in a certain period will have no problem deciding
who Candragupta (in Romanization, just like you see it now) is, but
imagine his discomfort with a string (see Dominik's note on this
word!) of crazy scrawls.  I remember well me own great discomfort as
a beginning student of Buddhist with Yamakami Sogen's excellent
ook on Buddhist Philosophy which follows closely the conventions
Richard Hayes suggests.  Richard must have read this book; I wonder
if he will respond to us about his reactions to it (it was printed
in Calcutta, if memory serves in the 1930s).  I'm inkind of a rush
now, but what do others have to say about this?  It seems one thing
o publish a text edition, which ipso facto non-specialists will
not consult, in Naagarii.  I will not necessarily scream.  But
articles that we want others to actually read?  What say ye?
Jonathan Silk (still in Kyoto).