Dr. Bohanec’s scholarship focuses on the comparative philosophies between major dharma traditions (Jain dharma, Buddhism, Hinduism), within these traditions, and in dialogue with Western theoretical frameworks. He specializes in Sanskrit and Indian literature but has engaged in textual work in texts in a variety of languages such as Pali, Gujarati, Hindi, Bengali and Ardhamāgadhī. By employing methods of textual hermeneutics, philology, literary criticism, and translation, Dr. Bohanec seeks to nuance the academic understanding of dharma traditions by employing the lexicon of Western philosophy in a way that is vigilant against the possibility of distorting these traditions, yet renders them more accessible to the Western milieu. During his time at Arihanta Academy, Dr. Bohanec has engaged in extensive research to develop curriculum and corresponding manuscripts that will soon bear publications. The first of these, “Jain Yoga Philosophy: Peacebuilding and Contemplative Practice,” is a philosophical engagement with various Jain yoga texts (e.g. Yoga-bindu, Yoga-dṛṣṭi-samuccaya, and the Yoga-śāstra). This work brings various philosophical fields of inquiry (metaphysics, epistemology, logic, psychology, and ethics) into dialogue with similar categories of thought in the broader field of dharmic yoga texts from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. In the process, the book proposes a model of interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding and asserts the Jain tradition’s rightful place in the broader academic field of contemplative studies.

A second manuscript that Dr. Bohanec has developed which corresponds to his curriculum at Arihanta is titled, “Jain Pragmatism in the Ātma-Siddhi Śāstra.” This text engages in a dialogue with Western philosophical pragmatism, particularly as articulated by William James. In the Ātma-siddhi, Śrīmad Rajchandra invokes a number of themes that resonate with the evidentialist claims of a pragmatic maxim (the evidence and meaning of a proposition can be found in the result of its engagement). James has specifically argued in favor of an ontological pluralism in his attempt to synthesize the dialectical tension between empiricism and rationalism. His way of framing the discussion has great potential to lend conceptual and linguist constructions to the understanding of a similar Jain ontological pluralism and dialectical logic. While there are a number of dissimilarities between James and Śrīmad Rajchandra’s teaching, the illuminating process of dialogue between these views unfolds with a translation and scholastic analyses on the Ātma-siddha by Dr. Bohanec, and in consultation with Nitya-kram commentary by Pujyashri Brahmachariji.