Re: Introductory verse and commentary

Hi Jim,

Thanks for posting that interesting excerpt from de Silva. You mentioned:

>She says "they have nothing to do with
>philology or etymology" leaving me a little confused.


I wonder if maybe she's guarding against an objection that has often
been raised that, as etymologies, these niruktis are often
philologically indefensible. Because of this, scholars have often
thrown out the baby with the bathwater and dismissed nirukti as
'nonsense'. Instead she points out that they still can be interesting
and important to study, since they, among other things, help people
remember traditional interpretations of doctrine.  In that respect I
expect you'll enjoy E Kahrs's book.  He avoids the extremes of being
gullible/traditional on the one hand, or
western/dismissive/know-it-all on the other. It's both appreciative
and critical, which to me is a model worth emulating.

best regards,

/Rett