Language and Its Limits: Meaning, Reference and the Ineffable In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Topoi https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-021-09756-z Language and Its Limits: Meaning, Reference and the Inefable in Buddhist Philosophy Johan Blomberg1,2 · Przemysław Żywiczyński1 Accepted: 26 June 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Buddhist schools of thought share two fundamental assumptions about language. On the one hand, language (śabda) is identifed with conceptual thinking (kalpanā), which according to the Buddhist doctrine (dharma) separates us from the momentary and feeting nature of reality (satya, “truth”). Language is comprised of generally applicable forms, which fuel the reifcatory proclivity for clinging to the distorted – and ultimately fctious – belief in substantial existence. On the other hand, the distrust of language is mitigated by the doctrine of inefability (anirdeśya), which although asserts that reality is beyond the scope of linguistic description, submits that philosophical analyses of key Buddhist concepts is a means of overcoming the limitations that language imposes on our experience and facilitating insight into the nature of reality (bodhi). This paper provides an overview of Buddhist philosophy of language, with an emphasis on the dialectical view of language as indispensable but ultimately insufcient for contemplation. The Buddhist discussions of inefability are explicated and compared with its treatment in modern Occidental thought, specifcally the similarities and diferences with Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language. Keywords Buddhist philosophy · Language and reality · Universals · Inefability · Limits of language 1 Introduction the feeting nature of reality. Clinging to the categories postulated by language, therefore, becomes a shackle that A scholar unfamiliar with Buddhist philosophy of language reinforces the reifcatory tendencies of the mind (kleśa), would upon closer inspection fnd both similarities and and hence keeps us locked in a mode of perpetual dissatis- notable diferences from corresponding discussions in the faction (saṃsāra). At the same time as reality is ultimately Occidental intellectual tradition. While both traditions agree inefable, Buddhist philosophers nevertheless insist on the on the philosophical importance of elucidating how, if at indispensability of language (śabda) and conceptual think- all, language can be about the world, the Buddhist approach ing (kalpanā) in spiritual practice (mārga). To go beyond to this question has a distinctive orientation that makes it language and attempting to reach the inefable character of markedly diferent from corresponding motifs in Western reality (tathātā) still requires language, which places it in philosophy. To a considerable extent, this could be attributed the position of being both a help and a burden on the path to the specifc ontological and epistemological assumptions to enlightenment. on the impermanent and momentary nature of everything In this paper, we elucidate the core points on language that comes to be. Noting that language by contrast operates in the Buddhist tradition, and, where appropriate, provide with generally applicable categories, Buddhist philosophers contrastive comparisons with discussions of similar issues tend to conclude that language must be incapable to capture in Western philosophy. Though common ground can be found on some key issues, Buddhist philosophy provides a unique account of language and conceptual thinking as * Przemysław Żywiczyński distorted and ultimately misleading in its apprehension of [email protected] reality. These comparisons between the respective traditions therefore primarily serve the purpose of providing an ini- 1 Center for Language Evolution Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University Toruń, Toruń, Poland tial orientation of Buddhist thought, and should not be seen as direct parallels. We begin in Sect. 2 with recapitulating 2 Lund University, Lund, Sweden Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 J. Blomberg, P. Żywiczyński Buddhist philosophy of language. To do so, we depart from the teachings of Jaimini (c. third century BCE), theistic and the central epistemological and ontological assumptions of atomistic Vaiśeṣika, which grew out the activity of Kaṇāda momentariness and impermanence in Buddhist philosophy. (c. second century BCE), spiritualistic Yoga inspired by the The soteriological ambition of Buddhist contemplation is work of Patañjali (c. second century BCE), the idealistic also highlighted as a characteristic feature for determining doctrine of Vedānta going back to Bādarāyaṇa’s writings (c. the validity of philosophical doctrines. We then provide an third century BCE) and Nyaya, the school of logical realism overview of how these assumptions and ambitions come founded by Akṣapāda Gautama (c. second century CE). The to be expressed in Buddhist philosophy of language, par- best known nāstikas include philosophies formulated within ticularly noting how mainstream Buddhist thought tends to the two non-Hindu religious movements, Buddhism and equate linguistic meaning with conceptuality and the nomi- Jainism, as well as the materialistic and anti-intellectualistic nalist inclination of considering language as taking part in Cārvāka, which takes Brhaspatisūtra as its foundational text. the formation of (ultimately fctitious) universal categories Although the original text was lost, it is supported by exten- (sāmānya). By contrast, the Madhymaka school rejects sive discussions and commentaries in post-Vedic literature. that linguistic expression have meaning independent from The signifcance of darśanas, apart from the content of context, and instead emphasises how language is best char- their respective philosophies, lies in that they delimited the acterised in terms of the instrumental and social functions scope of refection during the Classical period. They did so it serves. This section lays the necessary groundwork for by providing thinkers with a cognitive map, which helped Sect. 3, where we dive deeper into the role of language as them locate their own views against a larger philosophical simultaneously a burden to be overcome and a necessary background. Such a way of philosophising expresses, as starting point for meditation (dhyāna). We discuss how inef- argued by the prominent Indologist Georges Dreyfus, “the fability is approached in two diferent ways, emanating from commentarial style of Indian scholarly tradition”, whereby: the diferent analyses of language in mainstream Buddhist … all philosophical activities rely and are intended philosophy and Madhyamaka. These two readings are criti- to validate the framework given by the tradition; … cally compared to the early and the later Wittgenstein’s treat- philosophical problems are not discussed only on the ment of what the limits of language imply for philosophical basis of their philosophical merits but in relation to practice. Section 4 concludes with a discussion on language and under the form of commentaries to some basic text and inefability in both philosophical traditions. formative of the tradition (Dreyfus 1997, p. 4) The “commentatorial style” captures an essentially scho- 2 Philosophy of Language in the Buddhist lastic sentiment of Classical Indian philosophy. Usually, Tradition authors put forward a position as an elaboration of views found in their own darśana and in opposition to those in 2.1 Context and Background other darśanas. In fact, the presence of an antagonist often plays a more important role in articulating a view than ref- Buddhist philosophy of language, as part of Indian philoso- erence to one’s own tradition. For example, the formula- phy, emerged during what is commonly referred to as the tion of the doctrine of śūnyatā (“emptiness”) by Candrakīrti Classical period of Indian history, which falls between the (c. 600– c. 650 CE) of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist inception of so-called schools of tenets (darśana) from c. thought, is mainly done by rejecting the positions attrib- the ffth century BCE and the Moslem raids in the eleventh uted to his adversaries. The reasoning follows the format and twelfth centuries (Radhakrishnan 1951, pp. 21–32). of catuṣkoṭi, or tetralemma, where argumentation examines During the Classical period, preceded by the Vedic period four logical possibilities of a proposition: (a) something beginning with the Aryan conquest of the Indian subcon- is, (b) is not, (c) both is and is not and (d) neither is or tinent (Panikkar 1960, pp. 14–41), major indigenously is not (Jayatilleke 1967).1 Candrakīrti lays out his view of Indian religious systems such as Buddhism and Jainism emptiness by critiquing the idea of substantially existent were formed. This was also the period when their canons of (svabhāva) cause and efect. In doing so, he rejects the views doctrinal texts were composed, and religious infrastructures that (a) cause and efect are essentially the same, which is established. The philosophical elaborations of religious and attributed to Sāṃkhya, (b) that they are essentially diferent, spiritual views, so-called darśanas, are traditionally divided into the orthodox āstika schools, which accept the author- nāstika ity of the Vedas, and the non-Hindu schools, which 1 reject it. The most infuential āstikas are the following six By comparison, the logical tradition in Western philosophy oper- ates with the two truth values of true and false. Paraconsistent logic schools: dualistic Sāṃkhya based on the writings of Kapila allows contradictions and have instructively been compared to the (c. ffth century BCE), ritualistic Mīmāṃsā derived from tetralemma (Priest 2002).