I think there are three categories to consider —and they may overlap —and they may need to be disentangled.
1. Are you reading the book just for the sake of the book itself? Do you think of this as worth studying "in itself, for itself, as an end in itself"?
I'm not absolutely opposed to this way of thinking, but it is dangerous, and most people stumble along with it, unaware of what they're doing and why: if you simply feel "this is Shakespeare" (or "this is Plato") therefore it is so important that you must study it (quite possibly for several years) there are probably complex assumptions behind that seemingly simple feeling that you need to understand precisely. People who make this commitment to ancient Buddhists texts always (ALWAYS) have specific expectations about what they will find in those texts, and what it will mean for them, personally, to "master" (or at least read) the text. Non-violence and ecology, for example: I have met people who really expected Buddhist texts to teach them something important about these things that they'd apply in their own lives —and then they're devastated to some extent (and live in denial to some extent) when it turns out that the ancient authors don't share their thematic interests at all (and can't tell them anything useful about the subject whatsoever). Even if you're reading these texts as a debunker, there are assumptions about what is there to be debunked, and what the significance and meaning of the debunking will be. I'm choosing non-supernatural examples, as opposed to common delusions about meditation and reincarnation, but the same patterns can be seen in Marxism: people read the Communist equivalent to Shakespeare expecting (reasonably enough?) that this will provide them with (i) a better model for society and (ii) a practical guide as to how to create that better society. Even such reasonable expectations will end with disappointment, disillusionment and devastation —unless the reader becomes committed to living a lie.
It is my duty to argue against my own position here for a moment: the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel is absolute garbage, but you're not in a position to know that and say that if you haven't done a certain amount of reading for yourself. It is actually more sacrilegious to say this about Shakespeare than Buddhist philosophy: there really is a sense in which "the book is worth reading for the sake of the book itself" simply to overcome the idiocy of the cultural context we all live within, simply to pierce the fog that blinds everyone else (as they stumble through their lives assuming a certain kind of brilliance in Hegel, in Shakespeare and in Buddhist philosophy that isn't there).
2. Are you reading the book for the sake of other people? Are there co-operative (or appreciative) relationships with other people that you'd expect to result from studying these books, with or without the struggle to learn a new language being a part of the process?
This one you've already heard me say enough about in youtube videos and podcasts, because I warn against it again and again: in any century prior to this one it probably was reasonable to assume that reading a stack of books would lead to meaningful relationships with other people who share some of your research interests —but we are not discussing the advantages and disadvantages of inventing a time machine. There is no literature that brings people together anymore: neither the study of Buddhist philosophy in its primary sources nor the Kalevala will make you any friends in this world. There were quite a few "coronavirus era conferences" for Ancient Latin that record the disappointment of middle aged and elderly people who have sacrificed their whole lives (laboring in isolation without reward) just to participate in a conference with credentialed academics who can supposedly co-operate with them (or at least appreciate their work) only to discover, to their horror, that they are even more alone at the end of the process than they were at the beginning. Someone could really add "a director's commentary" to these implicitly pathetic recordings: they show this kind of disillusionment I've warned about again and again. You put twenty years of labor into re-translating a Latin text for nobody, for nothing, and you're not even appreciated by your competitors (in the same field) who have made the same sacrifices to be able to attend this same conference themselves.
I'm not lonely, but I am alone: these are two different things. I would not reproach or insult someone for getting involved in stand up comedy for the company they find among other comedians (again, this is a mix of co-operation and appreciation, etc.). That is something real that some people desire. You must realize: I do not want a single one of these comedians to attend my next birthday party, nor do I want to attend any of their next birthday parties myself —I regard them as mentally disabled, delusional, drug addicts. Some of them enjoy my company when I'm around and some pretend to hate me (i.e., I do not say, "some of them love me and some of them hate me", as these are very shallow relationships) but none of them regard me as mentally disabled, delusional or drug addicted. The mutual alienation exists for a good reason: there is a sense in which I am wise to keep my distance from them. So, again, I am not lonely, I am merely alone, and it is neither good nor bad to be alone —unless you have specific goals that require the co-operation of many people.
Now here's the thing: vegan activists are largely mentally disabled, delusional drug addicts. Salaried academics in both Ancient Latin and Ancient Buddhism are largely mentally disabled, delusional drug addicts. I'm not joking. So the question becomes whether or not you'd learn any of these languages (Latin, Pali, etc.) for the sake of some other intellectual community —and then we must wonder to what extent this other intellectual community actually exists.
Suppose I had studied Modern Burmese after studying Pali (this is an option for you, also, both immediately and eventually). An intellectual community of Europeans who have learned Burmese genuinely exists, with some small degree of participation from Burmese people who have become fluent in English. This community does not depend on academic credentials, it isn't really linked to any university system anywhere. Yes, I could be spending my days drinking mineral water and pretending it's champagne at fundraising events for Burmese Human Rights —and occasionally having clandestine meetings over coffee with grim old men who have unclear historical connections to MI6 and the CIA. I am not quite stupid enough to wish I had lived my life this way, and I am not stupid enough to want to "switch tracks" to studying Modern Burmese now. But there are many positive things about this option that cannot be said about any of the other (hypothetical or actual) examples I've mentioned: it would really be better than studying Pali just to "pwn" (verb) the idiots and scam artists of the ayahuasca set.
Re: "It's very easy to 'interpret' the word slave as servant, worker or even helper…"
Right: and that is what you'll be dealing with again and again AND AGAIN. You're just dealing with the "wishful thinking" of believers who read these texts "with the eyes of faith" —and I would remind you again that the Marxists are just as bad even though their textual corpus does not promise them paradise after they're dead. Conversely, note the refusal of Latinists to deal with Ovid's preaching of veganism: Metamorphoses, as a whole, really is "a vegan tract", and it has no other conclusion —no other moral purpose. The tragedy is that there is no correct interpretation of the text that will compel slave owners to re-consider the morality of slavery, there is no correct interpretation of the text that will compel meat eaters to reconsider the ethics of veganism, and so on. We're just dealing with the voluntary illiteracy of self-indulgent people (who read books only for the purpose of self-justification) without any possible, positive outcome. For an example that involves neither religion nor politics: I have seen people read the same scientific study I've read and "interpret" it differently, so that they can continue believing that marijuana does not cause brain damage —and I could say something similar with antidepressants. I once had a voice call with a fully qualified doctor who could not "see" in the text the same thing that I "saw" as if this were some subjective matter of interpretation, when we're talking about peer reviewed scientific studies published in English. Most people never overcome their animal instincts, and they never shall: they are totally overwhelmed by these instincts at all times —and, in this sense, they read a scientific study in the same way that they read pornography.
3. To what extent are you reading the book (or learning the language, etc.) for the sake of the better person you could become, five years from now?
I don't know if you're rich or poor, but either way it would be quite possible for you to devote the next five years to organizing performances of Shakespeare. If I invested a few thousand of my own dollars in such a venture, I'm sure the local government would stuff money into my pockets under one pretext or another. Perhaps Shakespeare "for children", with added educational value, that sort of thing. This isn't as obviously, odiously corrupting as hanging around with cocaine-addicted comedians (or the revenants of Burmese black ops) but there is some better or worse person you're going to become as a result of the endeavor. You'll become someone who has several plays by Shakespeare memorized, for example: you'll hear the text being performed at rehearsals again and again. You'll presumably become friends with some of the actors, enemies of others, and so on.
In my opinion, this is a useful contrast to studying Ancient Latin or Pali: five years from now, what really is the sort of man you'll become? It does seem worthwhile to engage with (and debunk) the delusions that now define the Buddhist faith, East and West, but in the process of debunking you become the enemy of everyone, despised as the debunker. A significant number of people have actually quit smoking marijuana because of my influence, but I don't have meaningful relationships with any of them, and I'm hated by thousands more —indeed, it may be difficult for you to imagine just how intense the hatred is directed against me (e.g.) by women who smoked marijuana and took antidepressants during pregnancy. We have this saying, "don't shoot the messenger", but the perspective of these imbeciles is that you are not delivering the message: you created it. The reality of reincarnation (and meditation, etc.) in Ancient Buddhism would not exist (for them) without you delivering it, therefore you created it. This woman's sense of guilt that she inflicted brain damage on her own child (through the use of marijuana and antidepressants during pregnancy) would not exist if I hadn't delivered it, therefore I created it. Therefore, I become a monster. The monstrosity of nihilism exists only in the eyes of the believers —and yet, for them, it is real.
There are people who make a career out of traveling around giving lectures about the evils of Scientology, Mormonism and other cults. Not Buddhism. Not now, not yet. And, of course, the majority of people who show up in the audience to condemn Scientology and Mormonism are themselves members of some equally irrational religion, but feel morally superior nonetheless. Is that the role you'd want to play in relation to Buddhist philosophy, Buddhist literature? Is that the role you'd want to play in relation to Ancient Latin philosophy, Ancient Latin literature?
My own feelings about this have changed. Dying and coming back from the dead —for the second time— may have had some catalytic role in this. Today, I would not open a vegan bakery for the sake of the people brought together (co-operatively) by the bakery itself, nor would I get a job as an instructor at the gym (nor own and operate my own gym, etc.) for the sake of some similar togetherness. There was a time when that was a very powerful impulse in me, but it seems laughable now. I can honestly say that, from my perspective, getting involved with local politics at city hall seems like a worse use of my time than getting a job as a bouncer at one of these live music venues (bars or nightclubs). In the land of the blind, the one eyed man does not want to be king: he wants to see and be seen by others, as his equals. The study of these books and languages only makes you "more unequal": you become more remote from the idiocy of others —and then you must wonder if you should try to help them, try to criticize or satirize their idiocy.
And at least satire is an option: if you were writing to me from Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., what could I possibly say? In that context, comedy is not available as an alternative to living in a state of armed rebellion. What really will result from five years of studying Ancient Latin or Pali? The best possible outcome is some kind of comedy: some kind of satirical response to the society we now live in, or a subculture within it, based on all that you've learned. I would have been better off switching to comedy back in 2016, and devoting myself to satirizing the vegan movement, rather than actually trying to help it, but I had the delusion that I would meet other people who, reciprocally, would be trying to help me.
E.M.
