Śatapathaprajñâ

should we speak of philosophy in classical India? a case of homeomorphic equivalents

Raimon Panikkar

pp. 11-67

in: Asian philosophy, Berlin, Springer, 1993

Abstract

All the terms used by the Modern Natural Sciences can be translated into any given language. If need be, a scientific discipline introduces new names by defining them with precision. This does not mean that they are universal, as some would claim. It means that they belong to a particular field of accepted or postulated references'. Modern scientific names are terms, i.e. signs which designate empirically verifiable or mathematically definable entities. This is not the case with words, i.e. those symbols in which complex experiences of peoples and cultures have crystallized². Terms (such as "table', "triangle', "sulphuric acid') aim at univocity and can be determined by empirical or purely conceptual experiments. Words, on the other hand (such as "justice', "beauty', "God'), are polysemic and can only be understood against particular dialogic experiences³. The fact that words at home in one tradition have been carried over to other cultures — with the intention of understanding them, or perhaps ruling over them — has been the source of grave misunderstandings4. The problem begins with words⁵.