I was interested not only in the differential meanings of the words, philosophy and dorshon / darshan, which can be made evident without much difficulty, but also in the different historical routes taken by these words and what they represent. I think that philosophy and darshan, even if they are taken as translational equivalents, when one considers their differential historical routes, and the manner in which they get to be be practiced, would be quite different. One could be interested in the discontinuities in the terms for things and their meanings and the associated practices. What is interesting to note is the apparently seamless conjunction (i.e., ignoring the disjunction) between philosophy as 'love of wisdom' and what would have been the 'vision (internal spectacle) of god' which seems to me to be the primary meaning of the word 'darshan', and from which the word for philosophy is derived. This, I thought was in some ways parallel to the instance of the Gk. 'theorien,' which also seems to move from the sense of something like 'spectacle of god' to something like philosophy. One can notice such linguistic disparities (discrepancies?) elsewhere too. When Gk. 'politiei' becomes Latin 'res publica' or Republic, or ganatantra (literally, 'people's logic') in contemporary Hindi, what one gets are notions that carry the historical traces from different contexts. (Only recently I learnt that 'commonwealth' is a translation of res publica.) Britain therefore, even though is not a republic internally, is meant to be the head of the commonwealth (republic) of nations that it formerly colonized....One can go on indefinitely with these historical-cultural-political stories of words that might otherwise look innocuous. These, probably cannot be reduced to the nominalism-realism opposition. Perhaps one might have to pay more attention to the enigma of language itself.