The Truth of Our Existence Can Not Be Understood Through Language

What if the title of this post is true?

It would mean that all this time spent studying bibles and sutras, and pouring over sermons, would only cage us inside self-referential language.

What if there is a whole world out there that does not run on any language at all? What if we ourselves don’t actually run on language, but run on feelings, sensations, and inner flashes of light?

What if the truth of our own existence is ineffable?

As language-based spooge monkeys, we’d be fucked.

Alanzo

7 thoughts on “The Truth of Our Existence Can Not Be Understood Through Language”

  1. At any rate, regarding the TRUTH of our existence, someone once said,

    “Not everyone needs an ever-climbing level of truth to the stellar heights of ultimate truth-hood.”

  3. The Mind cannot solve the riddle of the Mind!

    Because there is no riddle…

    You could take any Alphabet Soup, and shovel it around, in any shape or form, to make words and sentences.  It´s all in your head!

    Read a book, and it can scare the hell out off you, if you let it. Try that with a dolphin?

    You cannot experience Australia using words from a book.

    Semantics; is the road to Hell. Stay away from it. Mind your own business.

    All LRH added to the Semantics, was to say – I know whats wrong with you – Let me tell you a little $ecret.

     

  5. I like this post very much.

    It does ring true.

    Language, probably one of the most spectacular innovations that Life has come up with, is also inherently entrapping.

    A word names something, thereby describing its boundaries, or describes an action, molding thought into a specific interpretation.

    Oh well.   Fuck it.

    Enjoy the ride and have as much fun as you can while you’re here, don’t be an asshole, help people that need it and as you are able, and make the world a better place for your having been here, as trite as that might sound.

    Suffering sucks.  A little is probably necessary, so as to define and give context to “not suffering”, but try not to become a suffer-specialist.

    That’s all I can think of to add.  Sorry about using Language to do it.

     

     

  6. I like Adyashanti’s take that the search exists to wear out the seeker.

     

    Presently, I am contemplating this: Narrative is distraction.

     

    We give every movement meaning in an experience that is inherently empty of meaning. It’s been so long since I perceived without peppering perceptions with labels and thoughts that I’m a bit rusty. But we aren’t fucked, because we’re feeling monkeys first, talking monkeys second.

  7. Hey buddy!

     
    Exactly, Reality is inexpressible as you so eloquently put it.
     
    That has always been the language of the Mystics, trying to express something which is a built out of endless paradoxes.
     
    If you looked it that way, then anyone can have a go at it, anyone can look, anyone can communicate what they perceive, as no one can ultimately define it and then own it.
     
    THAT is the beauty of it all.
     
    THAT is how people should approach any system they choose to explore Reality with.
     
    The Tao Te Ching remains the most aesthetic, clear and deep declaration of this eternal truths.
     
    http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
     
     
     
     
     
     
    dy!

Comments are closed.