Sekhiy doesnt give a clear grammatical background.

Simply, the authors of the

dictionaries have given the base as Saiksa which is from Sanskrit.
Here, we have to follow two ways to analyze the term.
1. Sanskrit base
2. Pali base
In an inquiry of Sanskrit base, the term Saiksa is also considered to be secondary
stage of Siksa. The original form of Saiksa comes from the root Siksa

Yes, it is clear that it is inaccessible to find a solution for these issues before the meeting
scheduled to 26th.
Here are my answers for your four questions.
1) Do you agree with me that Angelyne seems incapable of doing a PhD?
It is really difficult to give a direct statement with regard to this, because her majority is in
Sanskrit. I taught her 'Suttanta literature' only. I think that I am not allowed to give a decision
about her capability based on one and only causing work. (personally, I believe that you should
follow Ajahn Mattia's recommendations for this point)
2) I remember when I was speaking in the last meeting about the grades Ajahns have given
Angelyne, you said to me that you, like Giuliano, gave her an "I". What was the outcome of
that? Did she complain about you?
No, she didn't.
3) What do you think of my idea of introducing an MPhil?
Of course, I agree with your viewpoint. But, I am confused about the period. Shouldn't we take
this decision at the Qualifying Examination (based on the thesis proposal)?
4) Would you be happy to recommend an MPhil to Ven. Sumanacara?
I don't think that the Programme has any opportunity to offer him an MPhil degree at all.
Otherwise, student also can approach for a legal action against to the Programme whereas he
hadn't been told this sort of degree or method in advance.

Although, I have a disagreement with the topic, I instructed him in many different perspectives
and have improved his dissertation for considerable stage. As a supervisor, after corrected his
work for one year, I cannot derogate by recommending for MPhil degree.