Spiritual knowledge and language as its barrier

[grazzhoppa]

Asian traditions like Hinduism/Buddhism and Taoism express that 'true reality' is something that is inexpressible because of its vastness. 'True reality' supposedly is a container for all things to be inside, and at the same time 'true reality' is an integral part of each thing. 'True reality' is paradoxical when it's expressed in language, so the only way to come to terms with it is through intuitive biological emotion, often called 'true consciousness' or 'true knowledge'.

The paradox that comes from forming intelligible words about reality is interesting. Aren't most languages based on subject - object relationships? True reality is supposedly both subject and object. But the 'oneness' of true reality is different from the following examples:

"I hurt myself"
"He talked about himself"
"I am me"
"You saw yourself in the mirror"

The key is that we take for granted that " -self " is different from the subject.
I - myself
She - herself
You - Yourself

Do all languages imply that -self is different from the subject? The concept of a -self is actually different from the reality of the self when "-self" is employed in language. Your own concept of who you are, and what you exist as, is quite different from other people's concept of your self. There is no consensus or objective perspective about what a -self is: The object can never be identical as the subject in a sentence.

So even when we think we have constructed intelligible string of words that describes how a Subject exists or does something to itself, we are falling into a the trap of language where the use of Subject and Object imply a differentiation between them in all cases. In fact, I just did it in that last sentence.
Spiritual knowledge or understanding 'true reality' is impossible with Subject-Object based languages.

The only way that I can think of that may be able to express 'true reality' and share this knowledge is through Mathematics because Math is able to be intuitively descriptive without falling into the paradoxical nature of Subject-Object relationships.
We all have an intuitive feeling for what X number is, like the number 1. We also have intuitive feelings for what mathematical operations are, like addition and division. Now what if you developed intuitive feelings for more complicated operations like differentiation and integration. And then feelings for even more complicated operations. Eventually you could study a mathematical expression and gain intuitive knowledge from it without encountering paradoxical information

[Fraggle Rocker]

Aren't most languages based on subject - object relationships?No. There are many different types of basic syntax. Japanese syntax is topic-description.True reality is supposedly both subject and object. But the 'oneness' of true reality is different from the following examples: "I hurt myself" - "He talked about himself" - "I am me" - "You saw yourself in the mirror" - The key is that we take for granted that " -self " is different from the subject. - I - myself - She - herself - You - Yourself

Do all languages imply that -self is different from the subject?You misunderstand reflexive pronouns. In English it's grammatically incorrect to say "We hurt us" or "You are very fond of you." We have to say "We hurt ourselves" and "You are very fond of yourself (or yourselves)." In the Romance languages, for example, it's correct to say "I hurt me." The "self" morpheme has nothing to do with existential philosophy, it's just an accident of grammar.

Most of the Indo-European languages use a special pronoun in the third person, however. If you say "He hit him," it's not clear whether you're talking about the same person or two people. So if you say El le bataba, literally "He hit him" in Spanish, it means that one person hit another person. If you want to say that one person hit himself, you say El se bataba, which we would translate as "He hit himself." Se and si are reflexive pronouns serving for "himself," "herself," "itself" and "themselves." (Also "yourself/selves" when speaking formally, but that's another topic.)
The concept of a -self is actually different from the reality of the self when "-self" is employed in language.I think you've been terribly misled by a coincidence of grammar. "Self" meaning the individual as distinguished from the community or species is not the same as "-self" the grammatical suffix.

If your native language were Latin, you'd be using the word ego, which is also the personal pronoun "I". Then you'd be really confused. :)

[CheskiChips]

Sefer Yetzirah, a Jewish mystic books discusses word construction by letter philosophies. Different letters have different philosophical meanings, the combination of those is the intrinsic property of that word. The combinations of the words is the intrinsic property of the events. It's said the entire Torah is just a list of G*d's names.