Words can't express spiritual experience

There are experiences and facts which cannot be expressed by language. There are things that cannot be put into words.

“Whereof we cannot speak thereof we must pass over in silence” is the concluding sentence of Tractatus Logico Philosophicus,the only book published during the lifetime of Ludwig Wittgenstein. When Wittgenstein said so, he had in mind problems relating to ethical, religious and aesthetical experiences. The issues and their resolutions in ethics, religion and aesthetics, unlike those in natural sciences, are transcendental. To understand such experiences one has to transcend language. As Wittgenstein puts it, “They make themselves manifest”. In Vivekachudamani, Shankara too says that Atman and Brahmn make themselves manifest, provided certain conditions are met. He says: “This Atman which is an ever-present reality manifests itself as soon as the right means of knowledge are present, and does not depend upon either place, or time, or ceremonial purity.” In the case of all spiritual experiences, saying is replaced by showing. To the one who has realised them or understood them, the sentences used to describe, or explain such experience are nothing but nonsensical. For him language is useless. Language is merely a means to reach the roof. Once he has reached the roof, he must so to speak, throw away the ladder he has used to climb up. The Rig Veda talked of the limitation of language. It can at the most be used as a tool or a ladder. It can describe our work-a-day experiences at the vyavaharik or practical plane. But the moment we try to use language to describe higher and deeper experiences and their knowledge it fails to communicate. The Rig Veda says, at the stage of brahmagyan the distinction between word and meaning disappears. Language has no place there. The criterion for judging whether our experience and its knowledge is about higher order or about mundane things is whether language is successful in expressing it or not. That is why it is said, where language goes on a holiday and there is nothing to be reflected upon, that is the highest stage of self-knowledge. The Kathopanishad says that the nature of Brahmn is such that it cannot be grasped by debates and discussion. It cannot be put in words. It can be learnt by experience alone. That is why the Kenopanishad says: “The one who declares he knows does not actually know It. On the other hand one who thinks that he does not know It, he alone knows. Thus for the claimers of knowledge It is unknown. And is known only to those who confess ignorance about It.” Rahim puts the same thus: “One cannot either convey through language or understand through it, the nature of Brahmn. One who knows It does not describe it in speech. The one who does not in reality know It, alone speaks about it”. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tries to convince Arjuna about His godly qualities. But for Arjuna they are mere words. Ultimately, when Arjuna’s queries do not end, Krishna reveals His viraat swaroopa, cosmic form. Once Arjuna sees It, he is fully convinced of the true nature of Krishna. When Ramakrishna failed to convince Vivekananda through discussion that he could see the Mother as clearly as he was seeing him, he makes the disciple experience it for himself by touching his forehead. Then there are no doubts left in Vivekananda’s mind and he is transformed. Language in both these cases fails. What succeeds is not saying, but showing.

(By: ASHOK VOHRA.The writer is professor and head of department of philosophy, Delhi University.)