When dwelling into the realm of ancient Indian philosophy, I encountered numerous instances of paradoxical language used by the revered sages and eminent philosophers to define the nature of ultimate reality. In the beginning, understanding such languages proved to be quite challenging. However, with time, I managed to find out the underlying reasons behind them. Here are some instances.
In the Kena Upanishad, a bright disciple posed profound questions to his teacher. He asked “Who impels and propels the mind? What force activates life into motion? By whose impetus does speech operate flawlessly? And which is the Divinity that governs the sense organs?” Imagine how profound these questions are. Undoubtedly intense that highlight the depth of our existence. We in our daily life use our mind and sense organs as per our wish and yet seldom do we contemplate the underlying mechanics of our sentience.
In response, the teacher gave a mysterious reply. He said “It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of the speech, the breath of the breath and the eye of the eye.” Certainly, through a sequence of dialogues between them, the true answer eventually surfaced. In reality there is a great force which makes the mind illuminated making us feel sentient.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad offers another instance of a big dialogue between Gargi, a prominent female philosopher of her era, and Yajnavalkya, an esteemed spiritual guide of Vedic age.
Gargi posed a profound query. “Yajnavalkya, the entire expanse is suffused with waters. What, then, permeates these waters?” Yajnavalkya responded: “The waters are suffused with air.” Further, Gargi inquired, “What contains this air?” Yajnavalkya’s answered, “The heavens.” Gargi: “And where are the heavens contained?” Yajnavalkya: “In the realm of the Gandharvas.” Gargi: “And what comprises the world of the Gandharvas?” Yajnavalkya: “The solar regions.” Gargi: “And where do these solar realms exist?” Yajnavalkya: “In the lunar worlds.” Gargi: “And what encompasses the lunar worlds?” Yajnavalkya: “The regions of the stars.”
Afterwards, she called out to Yajnavalkya, “ I am about to present two more questions to you, like a pair of arrows. Let’s witness how you escape them.” Yajnavalkya responded, “Very well, go ahead and attempt.”
Following this, Gargi inquired, “Could you clarify what lies beyond the sky, what exists beneath the earth, and what occupies the intermediate realm between the earth and the sky?” In response, Yajnavalkya articulated, “That is known as sutratman — He binds all from within, like a thread that weaves through, and envelopes everything. He is Brahman.” This answer prompted her to reiterate her query to Yajnavalkya — once again, the very same question. And in return, Yajnavalkya gave an identical reply.
At this juncture, Gargi shifted her attention to the scholarly men and conveyed, “It would be prudent for you to bow before Yajnavalkya.”
Similar to the instances cited above, each mantra in the Upanishads is like bombshells packed with paradoxical languages. Unpacking them properly gives us a vivid picture of the ultimate reality.
Words are crafted to summarize objects, concepts, emotions, and experiences, offering a means of communication and understanding. However, when it comes to the ultimate reality — the foundational essence that underpins existence — this linguistic framework encounters its limits.
In our ever-changing world, we define everything in the dimensions of time, space, and the objects. These dimensions create the fabric upon which we build our understanding. For instance, we can define a chair as an object with a specific form and purpose, existing in a particular place at a particular time. This mode of definition relies on the framework provided by time (when the chair exists), space (where the chair is located), and the object itself (the chair’s characteristics and function).
However, the ultimate reality, often referred to as the “Brahman,” is not confined to a specific time, place, or form. The Brahman is considered all-pervading, omnipresent, and beyond the limitations of the material world. It is not an object to be described, nor can it be confined within the boundaries of time and space.
Attempting to define the ultimate reality using the conventional language designed for tangible objects and experiences is like fitting a boundless ocean into a small container. The words we use to describe everyday objects fall short when grappling with the ineffable vastness of the Brahman. This creates a paradox: our language, which has evolved to describe the finite and tangible, struggles to capture the infinite and intangible.
In response to this challenge, the ancient sages turned to paradoxical language. They utilized expressions that seemed contradictory or baffling, not out of confusion, but as an intentional method to transcend the limitations of language. These paradoxes are not meant to confuse, but rather to stretch the boundaries of human understanding and provoke contemplation. In essence, the paradoxical language employed by the sages reflects the inherent difficulty in expressing the inexpressible. It serves as a reminder of the limitations of words and concepts in describing the boundless and formless reality that underlies existence. Through these paradoxical languages, the sages indicate us to step beyond the confines of ordinary language and engage with the mysteries that lie beyond.
