The Buddhist Conception of Language and Reality

Basically, language and reality study under the language philosophy which is the study of language.  It studies the nature of language, origin of the language, meaning in use, its relationship between language users and the reality of the world and cognition. Simply, language philosophy can be defined as the study that explores the interconnection between language and reality. There are many views that support the idea which says that the language can represent the reality and also the language cannot represent the reality. Many philosophers and religious thinkers have answered to this philosophical issue. This article analyzes the views on language and reality that has been expressed by the lord Buddha.

The Buddha’s use of Language

Language is the prominent achievement of human thinking process. According to the Lord Buddha, language does not merely use to communicate with the other human beings, but also for gaining the perceptual knowledge, conceptual analysis and for freedom of thinking. Lord Buddha has used Māgadhiya language or in other words Pāli language was prominent at that time than the other languages. For that, Pāli language is used when composing Dammapada which consist the lord Buddha’s teachings. In Buddhism, Sanskrit language has widely used along with Pāli language. Mainly, the Buddha has used a wide range of terms in order to describe language in a general sense. The Buddha used various types of terms to highlight different functions of language “as sound (sadda), word (akkhara, vacana), concept (saṅkhā, paññatti, dhammā), synonym (adhivacana, vevacana), name (nāma), term (pada) and grammar (ākāra, veyyākarana)”.

The lord Buddha has explained the way to use language properly in a stanza in Mahāvaggapāli. It says that there are several components of a language. The origin, core level and the culmination of a language should be auspicious, meaningful, consists with pure characters and basically a language should be full-grown. The communicator should be able to communicate language and the idea though the pronunciation to the meaning. The Buddha was an excellent communicator who used language in its real sense. For that some words like vadataṅvaro and maṅjussaro which means the word for silver-tongued is used to define the Lord Buddha.

The Buddha expressed a wide range of dialectical terms in the Arañyavibhaṅga sutta (Discourse on the analysis of Non-conflict). The Buddha used awide range of synonyms in order to mention the tern ‘bowl’ as pāti, patta, vita, sarvāva, dhāropa, pon and pisīla. The Buddha does not differentiate the meaning of these terms. The Buddha wanted his disciples to take into consideration the purpose of the object whithout grasping the ultimate meaning of a particular concept.

The Buddha does not merely paid his attention to the when sermonizing discourses.                                                     

Mainly, the Buddha paid his attention to the meanings of words. For that, the Buddha is named as asattaññu. The Buddha was able to make confabulations even with the people who were belong to other religions. It is stated as ‘sammodanīyaṅ kathaṅ sārānīyaṅ’. In Brahmajāla sutta, the Buddha is called as atthajāla, dhammajāla, ditthijāla and anuttarasaṅgāmavijaya.

In addition, there are several characteristics in the papañca sudanī that defined the language of the lord Buddha. They are,“vissattha (clear) and mañju (sweet), viññeiya (easily understandable), savanīya (constantly listenable), avisāri (non-spreaded), biṅdu (consolidated), gambhīra (deep), ninnāda (reverberated)”.

Language plays a key role in Buddhism. In the vāda sutta of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, it is mentioned that there are four types of people. They are,

- The person who knows the meaning

- The person who knows only the words

- The person who knows neither meaning nor words

- The person who knows both meaning and words

Among the above-mentioned types, the lord Buddha admired the people who are belong to the fourth type because knowing either words or meaning would be useless and will not be able to understand things.

In the Ariyapariyesana sutta (Discourse on the Noble Quest) consist three statements that represent the Buddha’s realization. They are,

“- His realization of freedom

- His realization of dependent arising, and

- His realization of freedom”

One might wonder whether the statement no.1 and 3 are similar or not. For that, the Buddha gives his analysis through the use of language to avoid such misunderstandings.

“In all three instances, the verb used to describe experience is adhigaccanti. But in the first statement he utilizes the aorist for of the verb, namely, ajjhagamaṁ, an inflexional form of a verb typically denotes simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness; literally, “without horizon” (a-horistos). In the last two, he uses the part participle form that is adhigato, which implies a completed action”.

The Buddha has used three techniques when preaching dhamma. They are pariyāya deśanā, sandhāya deśanā and sabhāva deśanā. Pariyāya deśanā used to give a meaning. To illustrate, the Buddha used the term patavi in order to identify the place where human being live. In the Sandhāya deśanā the Buddha used similar words to describe other words. For instance, the Buddha used the terms as manussa loka and idha loka in order to refer the earth. Sabhāva deśanā refers to indicate one entity which consists a one meaning. Furthermore, the talks that the Buddha delivered can be listed as following. They are dāna kataṅ, sīla kataṅ, sagga kataṅ, kāmānaṅ ādīnavaṅ ocāraṅ, saṅkilesaṅ and nekkhamme ca ānisaṅsaṅ.

In the aranavibhaṅga sutta in majjhima nikāya, two monks who were named as yamelu and Thekula asked permission from the Buddha to convert the words of wisdom delivered by the lord Buddha to convert it into poetical metre. However, the Buddha did not give permission by saying anujānāmi bhikkhawe sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṅ pariyāpunītuṅ that can be translated as studying the words wisdom of the Buddha by using own languages.  The Buddha’s rejection can be explained as “the Buddha-word should be expressed through one’s own dialect and that turning it into poetical metre was wrong”

The Buddha used conventional terms by avoiding its ultimate value. When it is accepted the sentence that says ‘people are going’ then it cannot be replace by saying ‘the five aggregates are going’ as it contradicts with the conventional reality. In the practical usage of language, the main role goes to the symbolic words because meaning is not the main method of the communication of human beings. However, both languages that deal with the conventional reality and the ultimate reality can be accepted. Conventional words are important because they can use to easily indicate things in the conventional world. The language which is used to describe the ultimate reality can be indicated the reality of the world and the external objects.

Reality in Buddhism

The term reality can be defined as the genuine, truthful, reliable things which are the opposites of fake, illusion, untrustworthy and counterfeit. Reality exists as satya which is defined as ‘really existing’ and also it is translated as reality or truth. In Buddhism, reality is called as ‘dharma’ which refers to indicate the natural laws. The etymology of the word is yathā-bhuta which can be defined as the reality as it is. Basically, truth can be defined as the right reflection of the reality in thought. It is mentioned that,

“the true correct, reflection of reality in thought, which is ultimately verified by the criterion of practice. The characteristic of truth is applied to thoughts and not to things themselves or the means of their linguistic expression”. Basically, it is applicable to thoughts. However, it is not applicable to things in themselves and linguistically usage. Abhayarājakumāra sutta has explained that statements are able to be true or false, pleasant or unpleasant and useful or useless. The term truth is used in accordance with reality or evidential facts. There can be seen two types of directions of fit. One is word-to-world direction which says that language can reflect the reality and the other one is world-to-word direction that says language is able to change the reality.  In the first direction, it fits the words to match with the world. To illustrate, if we take the following sentence ‘there is a dog under the table’, then we can accept it as a true statement when it fits with the external world and the state of affairs of the world and when it do not corresponds with the reality we should take it as a wrong statement. The word ‘satya’ is “imperishable. Buddhism has introduced it as a quality that should be necessarily practiced and as an eternal quality”. In the Sutta Nipāta it has mentined that people should only speak pleasant words instead of rough words that would verbally harm others. There are some types of stories which are named as ‘childish talk’ (tiracchanakathā). They consists with different types of stories on robbers, war, villages etc. moreover, “these stories are depicted in the Samyutta Nikaya as inferior objects that hamper the realization of Nibbana”.

Furthermore, the Buddha has emphasized three stages that can be used in the process of  the realization of the truth. They are,

Saccānuṛkkhana- prevention of truth

Saccānubodha- discovery of truth

Saccānuaptti- attainmnemt of truth

The first stage is a preliminary stage which constructs only a statement without any justification. Second and third steps are required to have cognitive and high intellectual capacity.

According to the Buddha, people get wrong interpretations on the two truths which are called as ‘the conventional (sammuti) and ultimate (paramattha) and make contradictions with Buddhism. The term Neyyatta has taken to be, “the ordinary language that utilizes substantialist ideas like ‘I’, ‘my self’, ‘person’, ‘self’ and ‘soul,’ while nitattha is taken to be the discourses where the Buddha emphasizes impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-substantiality that reduce those concepts to their ultimate constituents like the aggregates.”

Moreover, the Buddha used conventional words which were accepted by the ordinary people though they are not representing the reality. For instance, words like tree, person, chair and house are conventional words which are used by the ordinary people in order to use to identify something. These words are called as paññatti and saṅketa in Pāli language because they are used to describe the things as symbols for the things they see.  There occurs a contradiction when using the words which are related to the ultimate truth in Buddhism instead of the commonly accepted conventional world.

In Buddhism, there are four Noble truths which have explained in Dhammacakkappavattana sutta. They are  Dukkha sacca, Dukkha samudaya sacca, Dukkha Nirodha sacca and dukkha Nirodha Gāminī patipadā magga sacca.there are three stages that the knowledge of those stages involves as sacca ñāna, kicca ñāna and kata ñāna. Thus, the Buddha has explained three characteristics in order to distinguish the concept of truth.  They are Tatha (real), Avitatha (unerring) and Anaññatha (otherwise). According to the above-mentioned terms we can assume that truths are real.

However, “the truth that the Buddha spoke of is not something to be shared only by those who have reached the highest pedestals of yogic concentration” (Kalupahana, The Buddha's Philosophy of Language 1999, 78). According to the lord Buddha, the truth is something that can be shared by human beings who have several characteristics. Simply, all human beings who are wise (viññu), with eyes to see (cakkhumā) and who are not blinded (andhabhuta) by the net of metaphysical views”.

Furthermore, above-mentioned idea can be illustrated by using the view on personal identity in Buddhism. The doubt on personal identity arises only when it comes to the explanation on reality. Buddhism describes the humanity with two positions which can be referred as conventional reality and ultimate reality. The ultimate reality denies that there are animal (satva), personal (Pudgala), matter (dravya) and norms (dharma). There is only a collection of skhanda, dātu and āyatana. The term pudgala means that it is a collection of five aggregates which can be defined as nāma rupa (rūpa- mater), vedanā (feeling), saññā (senses), saṅkāra (good or bad action) and viññāna (consciousness). Other than this five aggregates there is no such thing called a ‘person’. The reality which exists with these five aggregates is only the changing and changing is only its nature.

According to Buddhism, the nature of above-mentioned five aggregates is applicable to all the mater and things in the world as they are also changing. Therefore, Buddhism does not accept a human being as there is only a collection of five aggregates. This should be taken into consideration when it comes to the explanation of reality. Buddhism accepts the fact that the conventional reality and ultimate reality are two different standards and we cannot describe ultimate reality without using conventional reality which comes as the explanations on language. Basically, the Buddha used the words which are used in the conventional world to describe the ultimate reality in order to make Buddhism a practical religion in the conventional world. In the conventional world there are mater, things and people. Other than that there are things which are call as I, me and mine.

Suppose that person A has invited person B to a dinner and he is having the dinner with person B. therefore, there should be an identity to the person whom B has invited and who is having the dinner according to the conventional reality. But if Buddhism says that there is not a personal identity it will contradict with the conventional reality. Actually according to Buddhist teachings there is no relationship between the person whom B has invited and who is having the dinner because the five aggregates of the person are always in a flux. If this conventional reality is rejected then Buddhism would consider as an unpractical religion as it contradicts with the conventional reality.

During the lord Buddha’s time, there was a monk meditating by concentrating attha saṅñā. A women who quarreled with her husband, went closely to the monk and she smiled a little bit at the monk though the monk did not smile back. After a while, her husband came by searching her and asked from the monk whether the monk saw a woman went passing the particular place. The monk answered by saying that only a skeleton smiled and went by passing the place. Actually, the monk did not say a lie by replying like that because according to Buddhism there is no one called as a person and only there is a collection of aggregates. What happed there was confusing the conventional and ultimate reality.

Relationship between language and reality in Buddhism

The main question that arises with language is that whether language is able to define all the things in the world as they are. Thus, “the difficulties which faced the Buddha in the task of setting out his novel teachings could have been numerous and among these difficulties one was certainly the poverty of language available to convey the precise meanings which he had in mind”.

Suppose that there is a person who never tasted anything which consist sweetness or bitterness and even he or she does not know the words that refer to express sweetness or bitterness. We may try to explain sweetness or bitterness by using examples, words, arguments, logic and arguments that are available according to the context of the knowledge and experience. However, that particular person would not be able to understand the bitterness or sweetness. He will probably gasp something on that taste. But that idea would not be enough to get a clear understanding on the taste and also that idea would not be completed. Therefore, the reason behind that incident was the barrier of language. The particular person “hasn’t got the words in his possession that carries the same meaning which you try to convey”.

Moreover, when we fail to understand the reality or the real taste though we made some efforts, we should focus on another technique. To illustrate, when you failed “to explain the taste of a lump of sugar using the language known to you without the word sweet”, then you are able tested out to another technique. For that, we can give some sugar to eat and experience the taste of sugar. The Buddha named it as ‘experiential understanding’. The Buddha has discovered many things that were not known before. Therefore, there were no words in usage in the contemporary society to the Buddha lived that he can use.

The highest attainment of Buddhism is nirvana. However, it is problematic that whether nirvana is expressible or inexpressible by using language. In Theravada tradition, nirvana is defined as getting rid of greed, hatred and delusion by seeing the impermanence of everything and by seeing things as they really are. When that Buddha attains the enlightenment, he knew this ultimate truth and it is expressible by the words of the enlightened people.

However, if we describe the above-mentioned details with the following example, it will be easy to indicate how language functions because experiences are subjective and binned up with emotions. For instance, it is difficult to express how it feels love for me to another person because it tights up with emotions and feelings and the limitations of language. That experience can be different from one person to another person since that is a subjective experience.

Suppose that if person A expresses things that how he feels about love to the person B, then the person A will realize that the words are not enough to describe that feeling. Therefore there are limitations of language. The major thing is if person A is experienced something, but person B is not experienced that, then it will be useless to attempt to describe my experience to B because he will not grasp the experience although it is experienced by language. When this example directs to the final goal of Buddhism; nirvāna, it is a subjective dimension and it can be felt only to the enlightened people. However, entirely communicating it into others who are not enlightened would be difficult. Therefore, words will fail to convey the real message of the enlightened person.

Moreover, there is another controversial thing that arises when it comes to the relationship between language and reality. That is the misrepresentation of the language. That can be further defined as using language in order to express unreal thoughts that are controversial with their thinking. For instance, one can say that they like someone by disliking them in the reality. The Buddha has mentioned that ‘abhūtavādī nirayaṅ upeti ye katvā na karomīticāha’ which can be defined as the person who tell lies goes to the hell. To illustrate, when a person has done an evil deed and says that he does not do that deed, is a misusage of the language. For that, one can doubt whether language present the reality all the time because when someone say something, no one can assure the trust that the particular person expresses their real feeling  rather  than hidden thoughts. The Buddha has mentioned that both the people who do evil deeds and says that they have not done anything like that and the people who tell lies to insult someone will go to the hell.

The Buddha used language in order to make welfare to the society. The Buddha wanted to rescue people from the samsāra and show them the path to overcome suffering. Tṛipitaka was the text entitled the words of wisdom which was delivered by the lord Buddha. For that, lay people should respect the lord Buddha as it is mentioned that, sakkaccaṅ taṅ namasseiya which can be defined as we should respect to the Buddha for his usage of language that leads to overcome the suffering of the world and making the welfare of the society.

Moreover, the Buddha saw the reality of the world as changing. With that understanding he introduced the four noble truths which are actually represents the nature of the world and show the way in which can be used to overcome this suffering. Even in the dependent origination (paticcasamuppādaya) the Buddha has taken an attempt to define the reality of the world.

The language should use and understand according to the context that it has been used. The monk Śāriputta has once stated that in an example called saiddavamānaya which has both the meaning of a horse and salt. If a king says saiddavamānaya, then it should accept as a horse and in other contexts it can be accepted as salt. Therefore, the reality and language has its reality with reference to the context that they are being used. The Buddha has stated that one should use the middle way when mediating language and reality as vyāgṛipotaka nyāya. A tigress does not softly hold its baby by her mouth because it will cause the small tiger to get injured if he falls down from the mouth and also she would not hold him tightly as it could make injuries. Therefore, she uses a middle way to hold her son by her mouth. As such when one totally depends on the terms, meanings and etymology of the language it would lead to misinterpretations the reality. The thing which should have done is using language in order to make it grasp the reality.

However, both languages which is used to indicate the things in the conventional reality and ultimate reality can be accepted. The issue occurs when both languages overlaps.  Conventional reality should be expressed by using the language in the ordinary usage and the ultimate reality should be explained via its language as the language related to the ultimate reality explains the reality which is there in the external world and ultimate reality of all the things.

Finally, it can be stated that without the help of the language the Buddha would not express the words of wisdom to the people who lived at the Buddha’s time. However, language is limited and not everyone’s language capacity is the same. That is why the Buddha had to use different methods to give people the understanding of the dhamma.

Conclusion

According to the above mentioned explanations it can be stated that the relationship between language and reality has a broad context. The Buddha is also faced some difficulties when preaching dhamma with the existed language in the Buddha’s time.  The Buddha has mentioned not to tell lies even in the five precepts because the Buddha has also admitted that language does not represent reality all the time.

The main problem occurs when people do not speak truth and when they misinterpret the things in the reality. It would be able to misguide others. Another issue of language is not enough to explain what they feel or other experiences. It is true that language can transmitted some kind of an idea to the receiver. However, language cannot give complete understanding on such things. In contrast, there are no other proper communicational methods that can be used instead of using language. For that the Buddha also used language to convey dhamma by making some new words in order to express the real Buddhist teaching.

According to my point of view, language can be a represent of the reality. But it does not work as the same in all the time. There can be misrepresentations, misusages, and misinterpretations of the language. The most important thing is people define the relationship between language and reality according to their definition on the nature of language and the nature of reality. There is no common agreement on the relationship between the language and reality. For that, the relationship between the language and reality is remains as a philosophical question. It is true that there is a relationship between language and reality when it takes with reference to Buddhist teachings. However, representing reality by using language is not an easy task as there are limitations of the language.

Bibliography

Dhammadassi Bhikkhu, Naimbala, and B Kenneth Gunatunge. what is Reality? (A Compendium of Scientific Discovery and The Buddha's Discovery. Authors, 2010.

Kalupahana, David J. The Buddha's Philosophy of Language. 1st Edition . Ratmalana: Sarvodaya Vishva Lekha Publishers, 1999.

Kalupahana, David J, and W G Weeraratne, . Buddhist Philosophy and Culture Essays in Honour of N.A.Jayawickrema. colombo 3: N.A.Jayawickrema Felicitation Volume Committee, 1987.

Majjhima Nikaya,. Vol. 2. Colombo: Government of Ceylon, 2006.

Piyarathana Thero, Ven. Prof. Wegama. Buddhist Attitude Towards Aesthetics. Maharagama: Author, 2010.

Saifalin, Murad, ed. Dictionary of Philosophy. 1984.

Samyutta Nikaya, V-1-2, B.J.T.P. Colombo: Government of Ceylon, 2006.