John Nemec
John Nemec holds a Ph.D. in South Asia Studies from the University of Pennsylvania (2005), an M.Phil. in Oriental Studies from Oxford University (2000), an M.A. in Religious Studies from the University of California at Santa Barbara (1997), and a B.A. in Religion, with a minor in Philosophy, from the University of Rochester (1994). He was a Fulbright Scholar to India in the 2002-2003 academic year. His graduate career included extensive training in premodern Indian languages, including Classical Sanskrit, Vedic Sanskrit, Pali, and the Prakrits. He also studied modern spoken Hindi in five years of formal coursework and has lived in Hindi-speaking areas of India for well more than two years during (and after) his post-graduate training. Finally, he had extensive training in theory and methodology in the study of religion, at UCSB and UPenn in particular but also in his B.A. work at Rochester. Currently, he is Editor of the Religion in Translation Series, published by Oxford University Press and sponsored by the American Academy of Religion. He joined the University of Virginia in the autumn of 2004.
Supervisors: Ludo Rocher (Ph.D. Supervisor; dissertation committee members: George Cardona, Harunaga Isaacson), Alexis Sanderson (M.Phil. Supervisor), Barbara Holdrege (M.A. Thesis Supervisor), and Douglas Brooks (B.A. Thesis Supervisor)
Phone: +1-434-924-6716 (o)
Address: Department of Religious Studies
University of Virginia
PO Box 400126
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4126
Supervisors: Ludo Rocher (Ph.D. Supervisor; dissertation committee members: George Cardona, Harunaga Isaacson), Alexis Sanderson (M.Phil. Supervisor), Barbara Holdrege (M.A. Thesis Supervisor), and Douglas Brooks (B.A. Thesis Supervisor)
Phone: +1-434-924-6716 (o)
Address: Department of Religious Studies
University of Virginia
PO Box 400126
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4126
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (24)
Uploads
Books by John Nemec
Articles by John Nemec
just as we are today—, a fact that calls into question the reification of the sort of social stasis and lack of historical awareness posited in previous Indological scholarship. I further argue that a self-conscious, emic theory or explanation of scriptural authority and social change may be found in the history of religions in premodern Kashmir. By exploring the writings of the authors of the famed Pratyabhijñā philosophical school, this essay examines the significance of novelty, of innovation, as it was explicitly and implicitly conceived by them, furnishing thereby an exemplar that illustrates what I suggest should be taken as a maxim in the study of South Asian religions (and religion more generally), namely, that change is not inimical to religion, even if particular religious agents are not infrequently inimical to change.