| Abstract: | Christopher Beckwith has recently devoted two publications concerning the origin of the word for “monastery” in East Asia. The proposed Aramaic origin has met with criticism from two eminent authorities, Laurent Sagart and Alexander Vovin. While the present article is not interested in the debate per se, here renamed the “Beckwith Controversy,” it is important to discuss in more detail Beckwith’s view about the Chinese word si 寺 (monastery), its origin, and its reconstruction. It is concluded that, although very imaginative in its conclusions, Beckwith’s argument is methodologically opaque and, therefore, should be definitely abandoned in favour of more plausible solutions. |
